Have you read the Bible, Qur'an, etc?

[saizai]

So I'm curious: what have you read?

Please check exactly three boxes - one about bible/qur'an, one about pro-theism books, one about pro-atheism books. For the latter two, what I mean is e.g. any third party book that directly discusses the topic, whether it be Dawkins, seminary books, evangelical training books, whatever, but not the primary source itself.


For text discussion: why have or haven't you read what you have or haven't read?

If you are a theist (of the three big ones), and haven't read the whole book cover to cover, why not?

If you haven't read the opposing viewpoint, why not?

If you have read a viewpoint you already agree with, why?

[Hokulele]

I have read both the Bible (more than once) and the Qur'an (once). However, I have also read much of the Upanishads, translations of texts from Confucious, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, the Travel Diary by Basho, and a wonderful book called "Black Elk Speaks". I don't remember details about the last (this was many years ago), but it gave great insight into Native American philosophy at the time their culture was being systematically decimated. It would have been nice to have an option for "Other texts" as well as just western references. Some of these I read in conjunction with required reading for a comparative theology class I took in college, some was out of my own interest in religion and philosophy.

Regarding "Other theist texts", I have read C. S. Lewis and Paul Tillich (I think they count, I dont' really catagorize what I read).

Regarding "Atheist texts", I don't really like that category, as much of what I read would be classified as atheistic by certain standards. I don't go out of my way to read books proclaiming reasons for disbelief, as I formulated my own based on the reading list I provided earlier. I do consider myself as an atheist, but don't remember any "conversion" process, and it wasn't really based on any one work or influence.

As a very random side note, I would say that there are many books and short stories that I have read that contribute more to my personal philosophy than any outright religion text. Strangely enough, most of these are shelved in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" shelves in most public libraries. For a short list, these include Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", Roger Zelazny's Amber series as well as my favorite short story "A Rose for Ecclesiastes", and Arthur C. Clarke, particularly "The Star" and "The Nine Billion Names of God", which are diametrically opposed in the their themes oddly enough.

[kmortis]

I have read both the Bible (more than once) and the Qur'an (once). However, I have also read much of the Upanishads, translations of texts from Confucious, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, the Travel Diary by Basho, and a wonderful book called "Black Elk Speaks". I don't remember details about the last (this was many years ago), but it gave great insight into Native American philosophy at the time their culture was being systematically decimated. It would have been nice to have an option for "Other texts" as well as just western references. Some of these I read in conjunction with required reading for a comparative theology class I took in college, some was out of my own interest in religion and philosophy.

Regarding "Other theist texts", I have read C. S. Lewis and Paul Tillich (I think they count, I dont' really catagorize what I read).

Regarding "Atheist texts", I don't really like that category, as much of what I read would be classified as atheistic by certain standards. I don't go out of my way to read books proclaiming reasons for disbelief, as I formulated my own based on the reading list I provided earlier. I do consider myself as an atheist, but don't remember any "conversion" process, and it wasn't really based on any one work or influence.

As a very random side note, I would say that there are many books and short stories that I have read that contribute more to my personal philosophy than any outright religion text. Strangely enough, most of these are shelved in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" shelves in most public libraries. For a short list, these include Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", Roger Zelazny's Amber series as well as my favorite short story "A Rose for Ecclesiastes", and Arthur C. Clarke, particularly "The Star" and "The Nine Billion Names of God", which are diametrically opposed in the their themes oddly enough.

IIRC, "Black Elk Speaks" was sppecifically about Lakota Souix spirituality. Sorry, the general "Native American" tag when it comes to religious practices is still a sore spot with me from my pagan days.

Basically, I echo Hokulele, except I've read the Qu'ran a few times. Once as part of a comparitive religion class in college, and at least twice since. I've also read the Elder Sagas, Rig Veda, the Avestas, and the Monty Python Paperbok.

[Apathia]

When I was a teenage theist I read the Bible through at least nine times.
I also read then Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian,
Neither made an Atheist of me at that time.
Since this is past tense, I have not voted in the poll.

[Hokulele]

IIRC, "Black Elk Speaks" was sppecifically about Lakota Souix spirituality. Sorry, the general "Native American" tag when it comes to religious practices is still a sore spot with me from my pagan days.

Basically, I echo Hokulele, except I've read the Qu'ran a few times. Once as part of a comparitive religion class in college, and at least twice since. I've also read the Elder Sagas, Rig Veda, the Avestas, and the Monty Python Paperbok.


Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned, this was a long time ago, and I did forget the details, the general tone is what I retained. Sorry, I will make sure I do not make this mistake in the future!

[saizai]

When I was a teenage theist I read the Bible through at least nine times.
I also read then Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian,
Neither made an Atheist of me at that time.
Since this is past tense, I have not voted in the poll.

The poll is the combination of your current position and your history of reading. It's fine if there's a time offset.

[saizai]

It would have been nice to have an option for "Other texts" as well as just western references.

I thought of doing so for the primary question, but decided against it, because of context. However the two 'other texts' questions were intended to be more general, so long as they're clearly pro or anti theism, for some theism or another.

As a very random side note, I would say that there are many books and short stories that I have read that contribute more to my personal philosophy than any outright religion text. Strangely enough, most of these are shelved in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" shelves in most public libraries. For a short list, these include Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", Roger Zelazny's Amber series as well as my favorite short story "A Rose for Ecclesiastes", and Arthur C. Clarke, particularly "The Star" and "The Nine Billion Names of God", which are diametrically opposed in the their themes oddly enough.

*laugh* *nod*

I know a lot of people for whom Heinlein was an "OMG I could be poly?!" thing. I didn't even blink at that part. I have been recommended Amber but have yet to read it.

I'm not sure what (if any) books I'd consider to have shaped my philosophy, rather than simply been very enjoyable or interesting or touching.

[TriangleMan]

For Bible/Qur'an I voted partway because I've read the Qur'an cover-to-cover but have only read selected parts of the Bible, so I figure it evens out.

I primarily read science books instead of ones focusing on theism/non-theism but have read the odd one from time to time so I just voted one of each on the poll. Just not all that interested in delving into books discussing religion and philosophy, really.

[Hokulele]

I thought of doing so for the primary question, but decided against it, because of context. However the two 'other texts' questions were intended to be more general, so long as they're clearly pro or anti theism, for some theism or another.


I guess this then leads to the question, would you consider a Taoist text to be theistic?

[Meadmaker]

Didn't read the instructions until after voting, but I am an atheist or agnostic, and have read about half the Bible, and at least one of both sorts of books pro and con atheism or theism.

ETA: Like many, I started out a theist, and Bible study helped convert me.

(And, not that it matters, but even though I'm agnostic, I'm getting more religious lately. I'm finding that religion, by which I mean the rituals and particpation, are quite separate from faith. You don't really have to believe all that junk to appreciate it. )

[fromdownunder]

I have read the NT, and most of the OT, but I tend to skip the minor prophets, and concentrate mainly on the Penteteuch and "history" books. I have read bits of the Qu'ran, and I have also read chunks of the Book of Mormon. Does Scientology count?

As far as pro-religion books, it would be mostly YEC books relating to evolution, but since I consider these essentially religious books, yes. Plus two of Theirring's "Pesher Theory" books, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and others which I have forgotten about. I tend to go for the more far out stuff.

Pro-atheism? Age of Reason, a couple of Sagan, a number of sceptical works (names forgotten) and masses of on-line documentation. A book written by apostates of the Muslim faith ("Why I am Not A Muslim", I think the name was) and a book slamming Mormanism.

I also regularly read The Watchtower and Awake, put out by the JWs.

Since Heinlein has already been mentioned twice, I will add that I have read...well... everything he ever wrote (except the two most recently released posthumous novels, one of which was completed by Spider Robinson).

[off topic] For the record, and I probably do not need to say this but, Heinlein was not an atheist. I don't know what he was though. [/off topic]

Norm

[BPScooter]

I think I get the idea here, reading/not-reading, theist/atheist as two variables. When you cross them it makes a weird poll.

I am currently willing to identify myself as an atheist, but to myself only with myriad internal reasons.

My professional field has required me to be familiar with the history of Western religions, particularly Christianity, particularly with regard to music, and that gets to 1,000 deep debates.

Although I have not read the Bible anywhere near cover-to-cover, I know the difference between a Marian Antiphon and a Kyrie. I even know about how Calvin and Luther gave out differing ideas that changed music education in the Western world. One broke church organs and one wrote good tunes.

The and/or covers that, I guess.

That would put me toward the top, liturgically familiar non-believing, I suppose.

[brodski]

I have read all of the NT (Authorised version) and bits and pieces of the OT.
I’ve red the God delusion, and whilst I said that I haven’t read any (explicitly) pro-theist books, I have read plenty of philosophy books which tackle the issue from both sides.

ETA- I’m not counting my reading whist I was exploring Buddhism, as that was strictly neutral on the existence of god.

[kmortis]

Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned, this was a long time ago, and I did forget the details, the general tone is what I retained. Sorry, I will make sure I do not make this mistake in the future!
It's ok. Like I said, it's a carry over from my days as a Pagan.

These people who claimed to have respect for "all religions" would lump all Native American and First Peoples' religions into a single category, as if the Lakota were the Huron were the Inuit. Hell, from the few "priests" I was able to talk to, the Souix weren't all that unified.

For any who haven't read it, I do highly recommend "Black Elk Speaks (http://blackelkspeaks.unl.edu/blackelk.pdf)". Not only does it give a glimpse into Oglala (oops, I just looked it up. It's not Lakota :blush: ) Souix beliefs, it's an excellent biography of a man who lived through some harsh times.

[Jekyll]

I ticked 4 boxes in protest of the lack of a planet X option (and I didn't read the opening post till after).

Although I said I've read pro theistic books, the books I've read tend to be apologetics, and written more a justification for belief not being invalid than a reason to believe.

[ReligionStudent]

Hey accidently hit submit before reading all choices, should also have hit:
I'm an atheist or agnostic, and I've read at least three PRO THEISM books
and at least 1 pro atheism book.

[bjornart]

Okay, I'm another one who didn't see the instructions, so the "atheist, no pro-theism books" cathegory should have one more vote.

I read about half the old testament when I was 12, got as far as the psalms before giving up proving my teacher wrong. (She said the bible was not a book to read cover to cover.) The silliness of the old testament made me an agnostic about god in general, and an atheist towards the god in the bible. Before that I was nothing in particular, pretty much non-religious with a pinch of cultural christianity.

I read the bible through while in uni, just because I hate leaving any book half finished, and I wanted to jot down references to the more absurd references, having milked Leviticus 18 for what it was worth through a whole decade.

And I recently read the God Delusion.

I've also made an attempt at the book of Mormon, but that's just not possible to read.

[Almo]

I'm more interested in history, science and politics, so I don't read about theism/atheism. I'm already comfortable with my atheist stance, and what that means for me and how I live my life. No need to flog the horse anymore; already went through that.

[Tanstaafl]

I think this is an excellent poll, but it would be better and more interesting if we could get more theists to participate.

Of course, it's not surprising that there aren't a whole lot of them around here, but I think there are enough to make the results more meaningful.

As for me, I have read the Bible and Qu'ran cover-to-cover as well as the Book of Mormon, and at least The Road Less Traveled as a pro-theism book. Probably a couple of others too, but I'm not sure. Lots of anti-theism books, not the least of which: The God Delusion.

[Ysidro]

I've read most of the Bible, except for some Old Testament stuff I never got around to finishing.

I've only read a small bit of the Qu'ran

I've not read any literature outside of the "holy books" either pro-theism or anti-theism. They simply don't interest me very much.

[RatBoy]

I've read most of the bible, albeit spread out over many of my 48 years. Some of the Qur'an, some Buddhist scripture, and many books by Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Martin Buber, Reinhold Neibuhr, and others.

I admire true people of exceeding faith who have explored the extent of their beliefs, and subsequently can articulate them and live by them.

I don't know if I've read anything truly "pro atheist", unless a couple of Dawkins' earlier writings count.

I'd have to count myself as half-agnistic, half-Buddhist at the present, I guess...

[Ossai]

How are you defining pro atheism? Would anti-creationism books like Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer (admittedly not the entire book but a nice chapter) be pro atheism or just anti stupidity?

I marked two on the pro theism. I’ve probably read more, again based on how you define pro theism.

Blah, change that, I’ve read quiet a few books on pro theism. I was only thinking of pro Christian when I answered the question.

[saizai]

How are you defining pro atheism? Would anti-creationism books like Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer (admittedly not the entire book but a nice chapter) be pro atheism or just anti stupidity?

If it's a whole book specifically aimed at debunking theism (rather than merely one particular point, e.g. creationism), then yes. Otherwise no.


I'mma ask for darat to make the poll system better; this should've been 6 separate questions.

[Trantor]

I have read the Bible cover to cover, and have read some of its books, such as the Gospels, several times. I did manage to read about one third of the Qu'ran before giving up on it. I also have read about half of The Book of Mormon.

Most of this happen many years ago, in my search for truth days. As I became more skeptical, it became increasingly harder to undersatand why so many people accept these flawed works as coming from God.

My personal favorite religious/philosophy book is The Tao Te Ching. If any work can make a case as having come from God, it's this one.

[Z]

Heh... didn't read the directions either.

I've read both the Bible and the Qu'Ran, cover to cover (including the Apocrypha) several times in several editions, as well as most texts from other world religions; I've also read both pro-and anti-theist books of numerous types. And I'm a theist, of sorts.

One thing is certain to me, though: no one book or set of books has singularly influenced my philosophy; rather, I gain a bit from every book read.

[saizai]

One thing I find very ironic (and hence the poll) is that I have more than once had conversations with Christians - very fervent ones - who have read less of the bible than I, but fundamentally believe that my not believing what it says stems from my ignorance of what it says.... despite my ability to out-quote them easily.


And so I wonder: if a theist does read the entire book, cover to cover, how often does that make them
a) more fervently theist
b) about the same as before
c) less theist / more deistic / etc
d) outright anti-theist / strong-atheist / etc

Around here of course there's plenty of examples of (d), but that's a biased sample. :p

[skeptifem]

I read the bible in church for more than three years, and did all the bible classes to get baptised, confirmed, and annointed, so im sure i got through at least half of it, and have done a little bit of reading of it on my own, as well as the book of mormon. i read a few books on paganism and one on satanism *i didnt know if i should classify this as theist or not, its not exactly a worship or belief of anything but self, and a smidge of non theistic woo* , but i suppose it could count because its not strictly athiesm either

[Z]

One thing I find very ironic (and hence the poll) is that I have more than once had conversations with Christians - very fervent ones - who have read less of the bible than I, but fundamentally believe that my not believing what it says stems from my ignorance of what it says.... despite my ability to out-quote them easily.


And so I wonder: if a theist does read the entire book, cover to cover, how often does that make them
a) more fervently theist
b) about the same as before
c) less theist / more deistic / etc
d) outright anti-theist / strong-atheist / etc

Around here of course there's plenty of examples of (d), but that's a biased sample. :p

Well, keep in mind - there's a big difference between reading a book, cover to cover, and thinking about what you're reading.

I'm sure there's plenty of theists who have read the book, page by page, time and again... but without critical thinking skills in place, it won't impact them at all.

[saizai]

Z - "Thinking about what you're reading" is going to be inherently conflated with outcome (depending on who gets to define what the phrase means in this context). So that's not something one can really separate out.

[Z]

Z - "Thinking about what you're reading" is going to be inherently conflated with outcome (depending on who gets to define what the phrase means in this context). So that's not something one can really separate out.

I don't follow. It's quite apparent that reading and thinking critically about what you read are two related but separate processes. It's also quite clear that there are a number of theists who have not only read their book, cover to cover, but can quote passages to support their opinions; and that these same theists haven't critically thought about what they've read.

It is possible to read a book cover to cover, and miss its meaning entirely.

[saizai]

Z - The catch is that you are presuming to be the one to define what counts as 'thinking critically'; your definition will (per your response) presume axiomatically that someone must agree with your conclusions to have done 'critical reading'.

A theist would have a different axiom, and conclude that you are the one who was not reading it with sufficient attention.

Therefore I said that one cannot easily make an objective criterion of it, and that it should be simply left to something simple and measurable, like how much one has read.

[Z]

Z - The catch is that you are presuming to be the one to define what counts as 'thinking critically'; your definition will (per your response) presume axiomatically that someone must agree with your conclusions to have done 'critical reading'.

A theist would have a different axiom, and conclude that you are the one who was not reading it with sufficient attention.

Therefore I said that one cannot easily make an objective criterion of it, and that it should be simply left to something simple and measurable, like how much one has read.

Not at all. I'm willing to accept any academically valid definition that does not require application of faith for 'critical thinking'. After all, for a theist, that is the core, the soul, of their so-called 'critical thinking'... Read and apply faith. PRAY for understanding.

Not at all critical.

As it stands, however, I think you'll find - at least around here - that Christians read their holy books least of anyone.

[saizai]

I think that you'll find there are indeed a fair number of Christians who read the books and claim to be thinking carefully / critically about what they read.

I can see no objective way to tell them "no you're not".

[Z]

Then you're not looking very hard, are you? :)

There are dozens of points - maybe even hundreds, as some would claim - of contradictions, fallacies, errors, etc. And I think YOU'LL find that those Xians who claim to have read the books and employed critical thinking... haven't. I've only met one so far who has even come close, and his reasoning was full of holes as well (asking him about bats was a pretty fun exercise).

After all, how does critical thinking reconcile the Gospel story? A virgin has a baby who grows up to do miracles for a few years before being executed, then rises from the dead three days later and... what? Just leaves, apparently...

Critical thought applied to believing this? 0.

[skeptifem]

assuming everyone is being honest isnt exactly easy either

[saizai]

Z - The problem is that the person setting the standard cannot also be the judge of whether the standard is met; that is bias and not objective. ;)

Your answer again very clearly assumes that people who don't agree with your conclusions, haven't read critically; this seems to me to be quite arrogant of you, and even though I happen to agree with many of your conclusions I don't agree that the standard you are claiming is at all objective.

In general, you cannot make a standard that claims to be about process (i.e. whether something was read critically / attentively / thoughtfully / etc) when it actually tests outcome. And I see no way to test that process in an objective manner, so I discard doing so altogether.

[Z]

Z - The problem is that the person setting the standard cannot also be the judge of whether the standard is met; that is bias and not objective. ;)

Which, if you paid attention, is why I said I'll gladly accept any academic standard that doesn't include faith.

Your answer again very clearly assumes that people who don't agree with your conclusions, haven't read critically; this seems to me to be quite arrogant of you, and even though I happen to agree with many of your conclusions I don't agree that the standard you are claiming is at all objective.

Wrong... I'm saying that, on average, most Christians haven't read the Bible critically. Whether they agree with me or not is irrelevant in this case.

If I ever, EVER met a single Christian who has read their Bible critically and can prove it, I will retract what I've said; so far, that hasn't happened, though.

In general, you cannot make a standard that claims to be about process (i.e. whether something was read critically / attentively / thoughtfully / etc) when it actually tests outcome. And I see no way to test that process in an objective manner, so I discard doing so altogether.

It's not testing outcome. It's all about process. I've never, ever met a Christian who can critically look at their own Bible without resorting to fallacies, distortions, and other errors to make their faith safe. They might claim to use critical reasoning, but they do not. And that's based on what I've learned about critical thinking in college and through personal study.

My own faith doesn't stand up to critical thinking either, by the way. Faith rarely does, because faith denies critical thought to a large degree.

So, no, it's not MY standard... it's not MY conclusions. It's a process, well-understood, that isn't applied by Christians when reading the Bible.

That's all there is to it.

You're welcome to have your opinion, of course, but I feel that your opinion is based on a lack of critical thinking about the subject.

[saizai]

Z - The point is, how do you propose to 'prove' whether someone has read critically, without using circular logic about the correctness of your conclusions?

Please give a proposition that can answer 'yes' for someone who has not come to the conclusions that you have, who in fact disagrees with you and is still a theist.

If you cannot, then you are measuring outcome and not process, as I was arguing above. ;)

[Z]

Easy - ask them about certain problems in the Bible. Can they reconcile those problems logically, reasonably, and rationally, or do they resort to faith or fallacy to attempt to rationalize them?

A good example - the issue of the bat. Recently I read a website discussing many of the alleged fallacies of the Bible, and did so mostly rationally and reasonably. Even made me think a bit and reconsider some of my own opinions about some of those issues.

But then we get to the bat. Leviticus 11:19, where the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, He advises them against all the fowl they are not supposed to eat - including the bat.

So this apologist decides that it was written at a time when the people didn't know bats weren't birds. But does this make sense? The LORD said it, not Moses, not Aaron. Does this indicate that the Lord didn't know a bat wasn't a bird?

So that's a failure in his critical thought process - he's assigning a human error to the supposedly infallible words of his Lord. He also assumes many other human errors - he reconciles many of the contradictions in numbers, names, etc. as 'copyist errors', yet still insists that the Bible is inerrant.

Critical? Um, not really.

And that's not assuming any conclusion on my part. There's no circular logic there from me.

So just ask someone, who claims to have read the Bible critically, about some of the errors in it. Now, if they believe that the Bible was written allegorically, or if they believe that human error can and has crept into the writing, that's a different story. At THAT point, it is much more difficult to discuss their thinking, because then you have to start deeply analyzing the stories and their meanings, the intentions, etc. But even then, it is possible to determine just how critical they've been reading their text.

And that's not measuring outcome at all.

I'm not saying, 'if they're Christian they didn't read their Bible critically'. I have said that I've never met one who has, but that's not the same thing.

I am saying that those who have made this claim and are Christian have thus far fallen short of that mark by quite a bit.

A 'yes or no' proposition won't do it. Asking specific questions - maybe a lot of them - will.

The same holds true for any book, any philosophy, any theory. Have they critically considered this idea? How do we know? We ask them the probing questions, and see how much thinking they've actually done.

One thing I feel fairly certain about, though - anyone who has read the Bible but never consulted any extra-biblical texts concerning what's IN the Bible - for example, language, cultural considerations of the time, etc... - hasn't read it critically.

[Björn Toulouse]

I was once a Christian Fundamentalist. I not only "read" the entire KJV Holy Scriptures - I studied it, but we were taught not to read it like one would read a book, not cover to cover. We were taught to read the four gospels of the NT first, and then there was a progression into the other books.

The KJV has 31,101 verses. I had committed to memory around 2500 of those, including the entire book of John and the entire book of James. I could recite those two books in entirety like the people in Fahrenheit 451. Those and any other passages I could quote would be given with chapter and verse. That was 35 years ago.

The more I studied the less I believed. Maybe such an overdose was cathartic for me. I never saw any need to read any specific book about atheism later because my experience with that religion has taught me enough to steer clear of any religious faith, although I have read many articles that lean towards atheism and books with atheist characters.

I have been married to my wife for 22 years. She professes to be a Christian but I have never seen her read any thing in the Bible as long as we have been married and we have never attended a religious service or have gone to church in that time outside of a funeral and I have at least a dozen Bibles of varying versions, Cruden's Concordance, and Halley's Bible Handbook here in the house, all of which I still refer to from time to time.

Guess I flew too close to the sun.

[RandFan]

Guess I flew too close to the sun.Oh, I love it. :)

Gene Rodenbury was an atheist and he was capable of making a point without being didactic. Not always but he really had some moments. In episode 66 there is a group of people who live inside an asteroid but they don't know that it's an asteroid. There are rules that keep the people from discovering the truth. There is however one individual who is rebellious and disobeyes the rules.

"So they say, also. (winces in pain) Years ago, I climbed the mountains – even though it was forbidden."

"Why is it forbidden?"

"I am not sure, (pain increases) but things are not as they teach us. For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky."

Knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[ChristineR]

I've met many liberal Christians who have studied the Bible and will have no qualms about telling you that whoever wrote the bat verse was just ignorant and wrong.

[saizai]

Z - Except that a good apologist can explain it. And so long as their explanation is not fallacious, you don't get to toss it.

E.g. to cover that point we have:
* Yahweh has a different definition of 'bird' than we do, he was using his in which bats are in fact birds, and it's not his fault that our definition of 'bird' or 'fowl' doesn't match his
* Moses, or someone along the way, wrote down as 'bird' what Yahweh actually expressed as 'flying things'
* Or someone just added that bit about 'birds' by confabulating from what he actuallly said, which was just 'bats and chickens and whatnot' or something like that, and summarized it into something nice and short: 'birds'. Again, editorial mistake.

... etc. That's just the three I thought of offhand.

Now, sure they're sorta patchy... but they're not fallacious. The same is true of a lot of other apologetics.

As such, I cannot see an objective reason to claim that they aren't 'thinking critically'.

[RandFan]

Z - Except that a good apologist can explain it. And so long as their explanation is not fallacious, you don't get to toss it.Which is why we can't toss explanations for unicorns, leprechauns, fairies or anything really.

Nick Naylor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/): That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.

Of course, throw in parsimony and reason and and we can toss it out. The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't orbit the earth and there are no leprechauns. I can't absolutely prove any of those propositions but a reasonable person would accept them.

Apologists, join us in reality.

[Wat Tyler]

I've read one translation of the Koran/Qu'ran, and two versions of the Bible, cover to cover.

I self-identify as an Agnostic - because I believe that it is not possible for us to detect/identify/find out anything that exists outside of this Universe's spacetime envelope - but I will go so far as to describe the anthropomorphic Judaeo-Christian-Islamic 'God' as a human invention with no 'real' existence outside of the badly-written myths that encode him.

Now, if you wish to assert that this Universe was created by forces outside it, then I will not argue with you, because I believe that we can not find evidence that either supports or invalidates that assertion.

But - once you start defining that 'creator', then you are making stuff up, and to try to base a whole set of rules for running society on stuff you've merely pulled out of your behind is, IMNSHO, utter bullcocky.

It's the internal inconsistencies present in both the Bible and Qu'ran that ruin them for me - well, that, and the impossibility of preserving mythologically-encoded truths for any length of time in one language, let alone in translation.

When you add in all the atrocities committed 'in His name' down the years, then I have to firstly throw in a
:rolleyes: , a
:mad: , and a
:boggled: ,

and then submit to you, dear reader, that religion is Unfit for use with Humans®.

Rational Observation and reflection on recorded History can provide us with scientifically-sound reasons for behaving 'morally', without the need to appeal to anybody's imaginary friend...

...and also without the inherent flaw of Religiously-encoded morality:

e.g. that, once a person has seen that the said mythology is in fact baseless tomfoolery, that they no longer have a reason to fear the 'wrath' of 'their creator', and so are free to ignore morality and commit actions that will disrupt the community.

Religion is admittedly an excellent (possibly the best) system for running a pre-literate agrarian society, but...

...given that we now live in a predominantly-urbanised, literate society, rational thought and the scientific method are far better models to follow; because they can offer ALL the advantages of the religiously-encoded societal models, and NONE of the disadvantages inherent in them.

[saizai]

Which is why we can't toss explanations for unicorns, leprechauns, fairies or anything really.

Quite so. (Though not "anything"; there are fallacious explanations that can and should be discarded.)

Of course, throw in parsimony and reason and and we can toss it out. The earth isn't flat, the sun doesn't orbit the earth and there are no leprechauns. I can't absolutely prove any of those propositions but a reasonable person would accept them.

Apologists, join us in reality.

"Reason" is a synonym for "lack of fallacy" in proper usage and "what I think is right" in common usage. ;) "Parsimony" is the haughty way of saying "what I think makes sense". :p

Just remember, whenever you say "I can't prove X but a [good / sane / reasonable / insert word not having strictly to do with the logic being valid here] person would believe X", I am reminded of when theists say the same thing.

They happen to come to the opposite conclusion though, somehow... hmm... :D

[Darth Rotor]

So I'm curious: what have you read?

You don't have my choice. I have read the Bible, and Al Quran. I admit I go back to the Bible far more frequently, of the two.

ETA: ah, I saw the and or. Sorry.

As to "pro Theism books" and "pro Atheism" books, would "Screwtape letters count as a "pro Theism" book?

Does anything by Asimov count for pro Atheism books?

Quite frankly, the Bible and Al Quran are not related to "pro theism" books, nor "pro atheism books" given their nature as anthologies of religious writings, rather than as simple prose.

What do you mean by those two categories?

DR

[saizai]

Asimov mostly wrote scifi. I dunno whether he has any clearly pro-atheism books, if so I haven't read 'em.

Only vaguely familiar with Screwtape letters, so you'll have to decide.

The intent was to ask about a) the original source that (most) theists claim to be basing their theology on, and b) persuasive arguments based on (a), in both directions.

[drkitten]

As such, I cannot see an objective reason to claim that they aren't 'thinking critically'.

Since when do reasons need to be objective?

It's possible -- in the sense of, does not violate any physical laws of the universe -- that the person climbing through my bedroom window at 2am wearing a prison uniform is a drunk on his way to a late fancy-dress party, and he got the house wrong.

Can I "throw out" that explanation? Is there an objective reason for me to regard that claim with suspicious and outright disbelief?

[saizai]

drk - You can regard it as less likely than other explanations, because you have viable ways to calculate the probability both of a) them being an escapee, and b) them being late to a dress party.

This isn't true of god.

[drkitten]

drk - You can regard it as less likely than other explanations, because you have viable ways to calculate the probability both of a) them being an escapee, and b) them being late to a dress party.

So I can only throw out that possibility after having taken a course in numerical probability theory?


This isn't true of god.

Sure it is. God is less plausible than the alternatives. It explains nothing and adds complication. William of Occam got that right several centuries before "viable ways to calculate the probability" of an event had even been conceptualized.

[Darth Rotor]

Asimov mostly wrote scifi. I dunno whether he has any clearly pro-atheism books, if so I haven't read 'em.

Only vaguely familiar with Screwtape letters, so you'll have to decide.

The intent was to ask about a) the original source that (most) theists claim to be basing their theology on, and b) persuasive arguments based on (a), in both directions.

Asimov had a rather extensive body of work, not all of which was sci fi.

Given CS Lewis' penchant for apologetics after his conversion to Christianity, I'll take "Mere Christianity" and "Screwtape Letters" as pro Theist books. Likewise his Narnia bit, though it's small beer comparatively.

:)

DR

[saizai]

drk - No. Those computations occur automatically. They may have a wide error range, but they are at least happening. You have viable data to compare.

Ockham's Razor is not a statement of probability, but of utility. You can certainly claim it's less useful to refer to god when you want to explain the world, and I would agree. But not that it's less probable. Quite different; your analogy does not hold.


dr - Narnia isn't really a pro-theist book so much as a theistically influenced allegorical story. I read and enjoyed it as a kid, didn't find it to be something trying to persuade me to change my religious stance.

I was only asking about things that specifically are intended to overtly argue for one or the other.

[Wat Tyler]

dr - Narnia isn't really a pro-theist book so much as a theistically influenced allegorical story.


One could say that about most of the content of the Bible, no?
;)

[drkitten]

Ockham's Razor is not a statement of probability, but of utility.

Yes. That's because probabilty didn't exist when he was writing. But the probabilistic version of Occam's razor -- a universe containing entities for which no evidence exists is less likely than a universe contianing only entities for which evidence exists -- is an immediate consequence of the fundamentals of probability theory. Google "Linda," "feminist," and"bank teller" for a rather famous example.

I can prove, mathematically, that the statement -- "The universe is exactly the way that it appears materialisticslly to be" is more likely to be true than the statement "The universe is exactly the way that it appears materialistically to be and God exists." (For any two statements, A and B, the single statement A is at least as likely as the conjunction A /\ B and is more likely in all non-pathological cases.) Therefore, by your own criterion, God is less likely than other explanations.

[saizai]

One could say that about most of the content of the Bible, no?
;)

Certainly. ;) It just gets special treatment 'cause it's the set of allegories that everyone seems to care about most, on which people base the more direct arguments. :p

Yes. That's because probabilty didn't exist when he was writing. But the probabilistic version of Occam's razor -- a universe containing entities for which no evidence exists is less likely than a universe contianing only entities for which evidence exists -- is an immediate consequence of the fundamentals of probability theory. Google "Linda," "feminist," and"bank teller" for a rather famous example.

Conjunction fallacy is a very different thing. That's conjuncting things that can exist, whose base rates are known.

P(A & B & C & ...) <= P(A)... not just <. If P(B) & P(C) & ... are unknowns, then you have no basis to claim that it is indeed < and not =, because that would be a claim of knowing something about their probability, which is reductio ad absurdium, QED.

I can prove, mathematically, that the statement -- "The universe is exactly the way that it appears materialisticslly to be" is more likely to be true than the statement "The universe is exactly the way that it appears materialistically to be and God exists." (For any two statements, A and B, the single statement A is at least as likely as the conjunction A /\ B and is more likely in all non-pathological cases.) Therefore, by your own criterion, God is less likely than other explanations.

Nope. He's just a 'pathological case' in your parlance. ;)

"At least as likely" == ">=", which is equivalent to what I said above. So you presumably agree with my axioms, from which I showed that your conclusions are inaccurate.

However at this point we are getting way off topic for this thread. If you would like to continue the discussion, please start a new thread and point me to it. Thanks.

[Piggy]

Atheist (rationalist). Read the Bible cover to cover, not read the Quran. Read many more than 3 pro-theist books, and many more than 3 pro-atheist books.

Why have or haven't you read what you have or haven't read?
Sounds like the Senses Taker from "The Phantom Tollbooth".

I've read what I've read because if I hadn't read what I'd read then I wouldn't have read what I've read.

If you have read a viewpoint you already agree with, why?

Because if you don't continue to read both sides, you're not in a very good position to refine or change your beliefs.

Sometimes, it's examining the thoughts of people you agree with that brings you around to a new point of view, if what they're saying doesn't add up. It was studying the Bible itself, in fact, which finally convinced me that my culture was totally wrong about the Bible.

On the other hand... think about it... would you ask a botanist why s/he continues to read books on botany? Isn't the answer obvious?

[Piggy]

I cannot see an objective reason to claim that they aren't 'thinking critically'.

It's not thinking critically because it's not thinking deeply.

One can only come to those conclusions about what Yahweh might have thought or done if one refuses to thoroughly consider the notion of the existence of Yahweh.

When one does thoroughly consider the Yahweh hypothesis, the inevitable conclusion is that Yahweh has no more reality than Zeus.

And opining about Zeus's actual thoughts and actions is not the result of critical thinking.

[drkitten]

P(A & B & C & ...) <= P(A)... not just <. If P(B) & P(C) & ... are unknowns, then you have no basis to claim that it is indeed < and not =, because that would be a claim of knowing something about their probability, which is reductio ad absurdium, QED.

And I do specifically make that claim.

Specifically, I claim that the statement "God exists" is non-tautological. But since the statement is non-tautological, then the probabiliy of it's being true is strictly less than 1.

Hence, God's nonexistence can be rationally concluded, if not proven, from elementary probabiilty theory. There is no evidence to support His existence, and there is a rational argument against it.

[RandFan]

"Reason" is a synonym for "lack of fallacy" in proper usage and "what I think is right" in common usage. ;) "Parsimony" is the haughty way of saying "what I think makes sense". :p I couldn't disagree more.

I've never been in space. I've never circumnavigated the globe. An argument sans fallacy can be made that the earth is flat. Is it reasonable to believe that the earth is flat? If we get rid of parsimony then absolutely, such a belief is quite rational. However, given parsimony the choice is clear. Which choice did you make about the earth and why?

Just remember, whenever you say "I can't prove X but a [good / sane / reasonable / insert word not having strictly to do with the logic being valid here] person would believe X", I am reminded of when theists say the same thing. Who is making this argument?

At the end of the day we have to make decisions based on parsimony. I've never seen an atom. Perhaps all of the experts are wrong. Perhaps the math is wrong. Perhaps there is no such thing as an atom. Must I prove everything through direct evidence?

No.

Thank you Occam. Of course it wasn't Occam that gave us parsimony. Humans have it, to some degree, innately. He just helped us understand it and understand why we need to use parsimony when our intuitions tell us otherwise.

They happen to come to the opposite conclusion though, somehow... hmm... :D:rolleyes:

If the moon were made of green cheese it would be edible.
A person who believes that the moon is made of green cheese is rational to believe that if he could get to the moon he could have a snack.

No fallacy.

Me on the other hand, I choose to employ parsimony. I choose to believe that people actually went to he moon and that all of the available science shows that the moon is not in fact made of green cheese.

To logically valid arguments, which will you choose?

[69dodge]

I can prove, mathematically, that the statement -- "The universe is exactly the way that it appears materialisticslly to be" is more likely to be true than the statement "The universe is exactly the way that it appears materialistically to be and God exists." (For any two statements, A and B, the single statement A is at least as likely as the conjunction A /\ B and is more likely in all non-pathological cases.)


:confused:

The choice is between God existing and God not existing. These two possibilities are mutually exclusive, rather than one being a subset of the other. So how is it relevant that a set has higher probability than any of its proper subsets?

[drkitten]

The choice is between God existing and God not existing.

Er, no. Because that formulation ignores the fact that we have other data available.

Specifically, we have a descriptively adequate materialistic explanation for the observable universe that does not make reference to God. (You might argue that, since science is an ongoing process, our explanation is not yet "descriptively adequate." This, however, would be incorrect, becaue the addition of God does not enhance our descriptive ability. It's therefore "adequtate" in the sense of "as good as any other.")

In light of this, Occam's razor would state, directly, that there is no reason to suppose that God exists. Occam, of course, didn't have probability theory at his disposal. But it's easy enough to phrase the question in terms of a probability of conjuncts or of conditional probability. We end up with the same finding: We have no reason to believe that God exists.

[Piggy]

I self-identify as an Agnostic - because I believe that it is not possible for us to detect/identify/find out anything that exists outside of this Universe's spacetime envelope

Well then, I'd say you're an atheist in agnostic clothing.

After all, if a claim for the existence of God is to be believed (theism), or even accepted as a possibility (agnosticism), there must be some claim made in the first place for the existence of God.

Yet if God is merely defined as a thing about which it is impossible to know anything, then no claim is being made at all. After all, it is meaningless to discuss the existence of a thing about which nothing is known, or can be known.

And it is nonsensical to insist that anyone accept the possibility of the truth of a claim which has never been made.

[saizai]

And I do specifically make that claim.

Specifically, I claim that the statement "God exists" is non-tautological. But since the statement is non-tautological, then the probabiliy of it's being true is strictly less than 1.

Hence, God's nonexistence can be rationally concluded, if not proven, from elementary probabiilty theory. There is no evidence to support His existence, and there is a rational argument against it.

This can be made reductio ad absurdium by substituting 'god' with 'foo', which I refuse to define until the end of the proof. As such you have no information on it (same as god), it is not tautological that a foo exists (same as your claim), yet the claim that it has been therefore shown not to exist is clearly spurious (it's the metasyntactic variable 'foo', being used metameta).

Repeat after me: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[saizai]

I couldn't disagree more.

I've never been in space. I've never circumnavigated the globe. An argument sans fallacy can be made that the earth is flat. Is it reasonable to believe that the earth is flat? If we get rid of parsimony then absolutely, such a belief is quite rational. However, given parsimony the choice is clear. Which choice did you make about the earth and why?

Good evidence exists to that effect. If you want to claim that the evidence is faked, then you can do that but only at the cost of becoming effectively a solipsist. And solipsism, while possibly true, has to be axiomatically rejected for (nearly) any other thing to be worth discussing. ;)

If the moon were made of green cheese it would be edible.
A person who believes that the moon is made of green cheese is rational to believe that if he could get to the moon he could have a snack.

No fallacy.

Just refusal to consider relevant data.

[RandFan]

Good evidence exists to that effect. If you want to claim that the evidence is faked, then you can do that but only at the cost of becoming effectively a solipsist. And solipsism, while possibly true, has to be axiomatically rejected for (nearly) any other thing to be worth discussing. ;) I don't agree. Tonight I smoked cigars and drank port with a friend while waxing philosophical. It would have been just as effective and enjoyable if I was simply talking to a figment of my imagination. I don't really give a damn if I am a brain in a vat. At the end of the day the best strategy that I've found for most closely aproximating the truth is parsimony. Otherwise I might as well accept everything and anything. Without parsimony all things are equal.

Just refusal to consider relevant data. Parsimony makes data relevant.

[Jekyll]

This can be made reductio ad absurdium by substituting 'god' with 'foo', which I refuse to define until the end of the proof. As such you have no information on it (same as god), it is not tautological that a foo exists (same as your claim), yet the claim that it has been therefore shown not to exist is clearly spurious (it's the metasyntactic variable 'foo', being used metameta).

Repeat after me: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You have to define foo as something non-trivial and not required in the current explanation of the universe.

So foo would have to be something like a teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) orbiting the sun, for your analogy to hold.

[Piggy]

This can be made reductio ad absurdium by substituting 'god' with 'foo', which I refuse to define until the end of the proof. As such you have no information on it (same as god), it is not tautological that a foo exists (same as your claim), yet the claim that it has been therefore shown not to exist is clearly spurious (it's the metasyntactic variable 'foo', being used metameta).

I see you're up to that old tactic again -- proof first, definition last.

What you're failing to see is that this approach produces nonsense, and claims regarding nonsense are themselves nonsense.

No meaningful statements (or proofs) can be made regarding undefined entities.

And if you're making no meaningful statements, it is absurd to insist that others are obliged to concede that they may be true.

You MUST make a meaningful statement first. You MUST provide a sufficient and reasonable definition BEFORE the proof.

If you do not understand this, you're just spouting a bunch of babble.

[aries]

I don't know to vote in this thread, so I'll explain myself in this post.

First, I wonder what the OP does mean by a 'theist'. If you mean 'do I believe in God, then yes I do believe in God, but is a more spiritual God than most organized religion believes in when people say they believe in God. I happen to be more at one with the Native Americans conception (idea?) of God as the Great Spirit that is everywhere...

But yes, I have read the Bible, not all of it, but a great part of it. I have
also read something about the Hopi Tribe's beliefs, hinduism, buddhism,
and the beliefs of what once were called 'primitive religions' or more recently 'indigenous people'. And the the reason: I had to, since in Denmark, we have compulsory learning about other people's religions as a school subject, both in high school & in college.

As for the whole bat thing --- most Danish (and European) Bible scholars agree that the whole ok or not ok list to eat things were in fact - made up - by the Mosaic Priests. (i wouldn't eat a bat either, but that's just me ;) - especially if it were a bat man...;) Sorry, I couldn't resist :D ). And Most Danes, that are Christians, do read the Bible critically, since this has been the tradition since the 1750's - in Denmark, at least, I think.

[Wat Tyler]

Well then, I'd say you're an atheist in agnostic clothing.

After all, if a claim for the existence of God is to be believed (theism), or even accepted as a possibility (agnosticism), there must be some claim made in the first place for the existence of God.


Then I failed to explain myself properly...

...whilst I am happy to discount as risible all the Theists' models of this 'God' bloke, I can not rule out the existence of some outside agency that created/set up this Universe.

N.B. neither do I think that the whole shebang was set up 'for us' or 'to test us' - the anthropocentric/anthropomorphic stuff is clearly weapons-grade woo.


Yet if God is merely defined as a thing about which it is impossible to know anything, then no claim is being made at all. After all, it is meaningless to discuss the existence of a thing about which nothing is known, or can be known.

And it is nonsensical to insist that anyone accept the possibility of the truth of a claim which has never been made.

I agree.

Like I say above, the confusion is down to my failure to properly explain my position.