Illiteralism

I see from the comments thread here that I should clarify what I meant by the "mirror image" of illiteralist fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists believe that the Bible is "literally" true. What they mean by this is that every story it contains must have actually happened in real life, exactly the way it is told. The problem is that this is not how much of the Bible was written, not how much of it is supposed to be read.

I can't figure out which way cause and effect are flowing here, but this "literal" approach to the Bible is related to the belief that scripture must be read this way, that this is somehow what it means for scripture to be "inerrant" and "infallible." For any part of the Bible to be other than "literal" would mean, from their way of thinking, that it wasn't true. If any part of the Bible is not "literally" true, then it's not infallible and inerrant, which would mean it's not scripture, which would mean, from their way of thinking, that there is no God, no purpose, no meaning in life.

For an extreme example of this approach, let's revisit our old friend Marshall Hall of FixedEarth.com. Hall, you may remember, believes in a geocentric universe in which the sun, the planets and all of the stars revolve around a fixed Earth. He believes this because he thinks this is what the scripture teaches, citing two passages on his home page. Psalm 93:1 says, "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." Job 26:7 says, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

So based on his "literal" interpretation of these passages -- one from a poem, the other from a play -- Hall believes in a fixed Earth. That is the illiteralist fundamentalist position in a nutshell.

I've written before about one variety of mirror-opposites of these illiteralist believers -- see "Bloody Mary Candyman" and "Freethinkers wanted" -- those who I call "sectarian atheists." These are usually folks who start out like Marshall Hall, fully indoctrinated in the all-or-nothing illiteralism of American fundamentalism. They start out believing, like Hall, that the Earth must be fixed or else the Bible is false and there is no God and life is meaningless despair. And then they catch a glimpse of the moons of Jupiter or of an eclipse or of a middle-school science textbook and they realize that the Earth moves. At this point they declare themselves "atheists," yet for all their supposed rejection of their previous beliefs, they continue to share Hall's way of looking at the world. Theirs is an extremely sectarian, parochial atheism -- the God in which they no longer believe is a very particular kind of God. (I don't believe in that God either, but I am not an atheist.)

In addition to these sectarian atheists, there's another group of folks who tend to function like the mirror opposites of the illiteralist fundies. Many of these folks seem to be journalists -- the one's who always seem to be interviewing people like Marshall Hall or Tim LaHaye, uncritically accepting their claims to be representative of what Christians believe. Thus we get article after article on the Left Behind books glibly reporting that the book is a fictional account of events described in the book of Revelation. The failure of these reporters is simply a matter of laziness -- they don't know what the Bible actually says, or what most Christians actually believe, so they accept whatever Hall and LaHaye tell them.

Both the lazy reporters and the sectarian atheists tend to hold similar beliefs, based on the same reasoning, as the illiteralist fundies. All three groups believe things like:

• If there was not an actual, flesh-and-blood man named Noah who actually, historically built an ark when he was actually 700 years old before a flood that actually covered the entire surface of the planet, then God is bunk.

• If there was not an actual, flesh-and-blood man named Jonah who actually spent three days inside the belly of a giant fish in the Mediterranean, then all religious belief is foolishness.

• Proof that the world is more than 6,000 years old is proof that God does not exist.

I grew up surrounded by fundamentalists who made such claims. It's still somewhat jarring to me when I encounter non-fundies who accept their logic, if not their conclusions.

Comments

[fe_man]

I guess the next question is, how does the individual know what can be taken literally, and what can't? If you need someone to tell you how to read the bible... shouldn't you just get the Watchtower? Surely you can understand why the fundamentalist approach is convenient on a personal and global church scale. I could be wrong here, but wasn't the bible originally taken as literal? If so, moving away from fundamentalism would just be an effect of post-modernism on Christianty and possibly lumped into the ways the Christian religion (and other major world religions) is tiptoeing towards the Bahai Faith (or other all accepting belief).

Then again, none of porbably have any position to talk about this unless we can read the bible in it's original language. That always bothered me, when I'm dealing with eternity, I don't want a 4th edition translation.

[peatey]

fred, so then, what are the 'fundamental' points? (talk about a setup)

[txredd]

I agree with all these observations, but they are sort of oblique to my experiences with Christians throughout the years. Most are unfamiliar with the book that they consider to be true -- either literally or figuratively. Most discussions of the particulars of troubling Bible stories devolved quickly into "I don't know, it's just what I believe."

As a result, it is close to impossible for someone unchurched, as I was, to get any kind of understanding of "what Christians believe." You can't get it over lunch with a minister and you can't talk about it in polite company. I had to go to church faithfully for years to begin to find any sense in it at all.

[Cactus Wren]

The problem, Fred, is that I've never actually met someone who thinks it's impossible for a God to exist. What I always thought the Blasphemy Challenge was about was proving exactly what you point out in the "Bloody Mary Candyman" posting: the very silliness of thinking that the ultimate fate of one's "soul" can be determined by which set of magic words one recites.

I admit I haven't seen "The God Who Wasn't There". But I'm tired of dealing with individuals who think (and I'm certainly not asserting that you think this!) that "atheist" can only be defined as "one who is absolutely, 100% certain with no doubts whatsoever that no god or gods exist or can exist." This leads to exchanges like the one discussed in this thread at the JREF forums, where an interviewer disingenuously comes off all startled and astonished because Richard Dawkins was willing to concede the possibility that there exists a "transcendent “gigantic intelligence” existing beyond the range of human experience" (with the wide-eyed sub-heading, "Is he a believer after all?").

And from there we proceed to nonsense like Kent Hovind's "challenge", in which he claimed to offer $250,000 for "any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution", but which when examined demanded proof that absolutely nothing in the entire universe was or could have been created by or with the help of God.

A poster on alt.atheism used to use this as his .sig file: " An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."

[David in Maine]

Many of these folks seem to be journalists -- the one's who always seem to be interviewing people like Marshall Hall or Tim LaHaye, uncritically accepting their claims to be representative of what Christians believe.

This tendency bothers me, since I'm a Catholic, and all the rapture type stuff is just so totally foreign to me. I wonder to what extent it is due to the fact that LaHaye et al. refuse to use a name for their particular variety of Christianity and simply call themselves "Christians". We saw that explicitely stated a few weeks ago when the Focus in the Family spokesman was defending about Dobson's claim that Fred Thompson wasn't "a Christian". The spokesman, you will recall, said “We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians.” I don't know if the choice to use only the term Christian instead of a more accurate term, like PMD, for their own subset was a deliberate, Luntz-ian decision to muddy the waters, but I think it has had that effect.

[X]

@fe_man:

My understanding is that the bible was traditionally understood as a mix of fact and allegory, and that you did indeed need some authority to interpret it for you. His name was "the pope". Calvin and Luther and that bunch were less of a mind to believe this, so I think it was Calvin who came up with the notion of sola scriptura that the bible was literally true in and of itself, and that anyone who read it right would have to come to the same answer about what it meant. Bulbul was ranting about how stupid this was on another thread earlier today.

[animus]

The spokesman, you will recall, said "We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians."

There's glory for you.

[David]

I could be wrong here, but wasn't the bible originally taken as literal? If so, moving away from fundamentalism would just be an effect of post-modernism on Christianty...

The simple answer is "no," but in a bit more detail: the question "should the bible be taken as literal" (in the sense you mean it here) makes no sense outside of a modernist-influenced world view, and it would be almost impossible to even frame that question much before the Enlightenment. Fundamentalism of the type we're discussing is not uncorrelated with Enlightenment-style rationalism (it's like ray-hee-ayn on your wedding day), since a somewhat rationalistic world view is needed before it can even occur to somebody to take a book like the Bible as a word-for-word-accurate historical and scientific record of everything it describes.

So, since the question itself is an effect of modernism on Christianity, answering "no" can't really be seen as an effect of post-modernism...

[rob]

Atheists do seem to come in two flavors in regards to myths. Some think that myths are remnants of a time when people were gullible and foolish, and are therefore completely useless. Others, such as myself, believe that myths from all cultures have the ability to teach us something about the human experience, and should therefore be afforded at least, if not more, respect than decent literature.

That said, I am not familiar with the argument that the story of the ark is not historically accurate, and therefore there is no god. The closest I have seen is this at talk origins. These are scientific debunkings of specific claims that creationists have made. There are people who believe this, who want it taught in science class, so to criticize them for not considering the implications of their beliefs is not only acceptable, it is laudable. Someday an enlightened populace may look back and say, "What a waste of time!" but for now, it is unfortunately quite necessary.

These kinds of criticisms also directly impeach the reliability of the bible. If the story of Noah's ark didn't happen like the bible says it did, then what else is it inaccurate about? Who decides which parts are true and which are allegorical, mythological, or metaphorical? Atheists like myself can only defer to Christians, who, I guess, must know something I don't.

[Phil Urich]

Luckily I believe in none of the above ;)

Actually, I did quite well in theology/bible courses I took at university because, unlike the majority of the students which were largely such believers as you describe (not entirely your "illiteral" believers, because they would mostly accept heliocentrism and evolution, but just because they told themselves that the Christian bible didn't say those things, not because they understood figurative language); approaching the bible in a literary instead of literal sense can be quite productive.

Cactus Wren: One can imagine someone buying into the most 'fundamentalist' flat-earth worldview and then, when being unable to deal with the dissonance from reality, being unable to comprehend anything but a basic negation. I'll admit that I too have never personally met anyone like that (though I have indirectly or via this intarweb thingy), but I find it possible (highly likely, even) that many people like Fred described exist. The hardcore fundamentalist worldview can be a very damaging thing for a person to internalize.

[Bugmaster]

As expected, I'll echo fe_man and rob's statements. If the Bible is not meant to be read as an accurate account of cosmic events, then which parts of it are reliable ? Who decides ? Is it all allegorical ?

I have heard some of the more postmodern Christians state that the main message of the Bible, the part of it that's true, is the moral message of love, understanding, charity, etc. All right, but doesn't this mean that Jesus is a myth ? Without all the miracles, the smiting, and the cosmology, and the supernatural trappings, you don't have a religion; you just have a book of fiction and moral philosophy. Nietcshe, Tolstoy, and the Bible all end up in the same category.

[hf]

Fred, you've conflated two or three different issues here. I don't think the problems with a literal Noah's Ark disprove all forms of God -- nor do I think many atheists make this claim. I suspect you'd have to dig pretty hard to find even one person saying this.

On the other hand, it seems perfectly reasonable if possibly mistaken for someone who stopped believing in the literal Noah god to stop believing in gods altogether. Because you can give no rational reason for anyone to believe in a god in the first place.

[Ian]

Would it be fair to say that parts of the Bible are not accurate accounts of cosmic events because they are not accounts of events at all? Something like the 2nd Samuel is intended to be read as history. In fact it's pretty good history -- notably it features one of the first more or less plausible biographies in world history. Something like the book of Proverbs doesn't even have a plot, much less a plot which could be interpreted as history. Likewise, the books of Genesis and Revelations don't look much like the sort of thing Thucydides would write either -- they're just not in the historical genre. Usually the semi-historical parts want to show you the truth behind the facts, and are willing to fudge the facts to do so.

I like Rudolph Otto's story about what makes religion different from literature and philosophy: religion is spooky and/or awe inspiring -- numinous. Religion has more in common with ghost stories and really impressive sunsets than it does with analytic philosophy. When Nietzsche gets spooky -- in the myth of Zarathustra, say -- what he's doing is religious, even if diametrically opposed to anything halfway Christian.

I'd say you have to believe in at least one very implausible miracle to call yourself a Christian: they nailed a carpenter to a piece of wood and he got better. I don't think that's true of all religions. I can see how devout belief in nonmiraculous Judaism or Buddhism is not a stretch.

[hf]

Actually, as I suggested on the other thread, you may have a perfectly good reason for calling yourself Christian even if you don't believe that. You just have no right to insist that other non-believers call themselves Christian as well.

[Bugmaster]

Theirs is an extremely sectarian, parochial atheism -- the God in which they no longer believe is a very particular kind of God. (I don't believe in that God either, but I am not an atheist.)

Actually, Fred, you are an atheist, with respect to their god -- just as you're an a-Zeus-ist, a-Shiva-ist, etc. As Carl Sagan (or was it Dawkins ?) pointed out, we are all atheists; some of us just believe in one less god than everyone else does.

[magistra]

If you want to see an atheist arguing that the implausibility of Noah's Ark helps disprove Christianity, look at Why Won't God Heal Amputees?. This is a site that also aims to show 'conclusively whether God is real or imaginary'.

I think a lot of atheists focus on attacking such 'fundmantalist' forms of Christianity a) because they see such Christians as more dangerous to society and b) because in some sense fundamentalists are more vulnerable to attack. The whole fundamentalist world-view coheres together, because it must all be right and certain. If there's one bit that isn't actually true then the whole edifice collapses. I have relatives who have gone from a fundamentalist upbringing to unbelief, because they can't accept the validity of a non-literal reading of the Bible.

If, on the other hand, you're an Anglican (like me), it's harder for an atheist to attack because they'd have to pin down exactly what you believe in first and what you mean by 'believe'.

[X]

@magistra,

and, not to put too fine a point on it, people who don't take their religion literally do not make physically disconfirmable predictions, and therefore manage to fall safely and completley out of the purview of empirical study. Separate domains and all that.

[Bugmaster]

and, not to put too fine a point on it, people who don't take their religion literally do not make physically disconfirmable predictions...Separate domains and all that.

Well, this is probably the major point of contention between theists and atheists. If a world with your deity (or cosmic force, etc.) in it is in no way different from a world without the deity... then what's the point ?

[Toby]

Bugmaster: If the Bible is not meant to be read as an accurate account of cosmic events, then which parts of it are reliable ?

Reliable as what, and with respect to what?

Who decides ?

As in all things, each must decide what to think and how to live for him or herself. This can be difficult. C'est la vie.

If a world with your deity (or cosmic force, etc.) in it is in no way different from a world without the deity... then what's the point ?

The point it the deity.

[Toby]

Erm, I mean, the point is the deity.

[julia]

people who don't take their religion literally do not make physically disconfirmable predictions

funny, I always thought Christopher Hitchens was an athiest.

[Bugmaster]

As in all things, each must decide what to think and how to live for him or herself. This can be difficult. C'est la vie.

Does this mean that all of our decisions are equally true and correct ? This would mean, just for example, that LH&J's interpretation of the Bible is as true as yours, or mine, or Fred's. That doesn't sound right.

[David Newgreen]

So, if I'm understanding this post correctly, you think it's odd that certain atheists direct most of their ire and criticism towards fundamentalist Christianity, rather than devoting an equal amount of their time towards criticising, say, Zoroastrianism.
But it seems to me that you devote most of your time on this blog to doing the same thing – attacking the extreme beliefs and interpretations of the fundamentalist fringe of American Christianity. Should I assume that you also see a false dichotomy, where the only options are either fundamentalism or your own beliefs, and that you’re somehow oblivious of the hundreds of other Christian sects, let alone other religions? Of course not. The ‘Blasphemy challenge’ attacks a specific branch of Christianity; it’s not necessary for each participant to add “Also, Mormons? Totally wrong.” – if it was, you’d better get cracking on updating your critiques of Left Behind to clarify that you also don’t believe in Ragnarok and don’t think the Hidden Imam’s going to show up any time soon. After all, we wouldn’t want to think that you’re a ‘sectarian’ criticiser of prophesy…

[Dahne]

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question

God died when he got shot with a silver bullet? Did he manage to bite Nietzsche first?

[Nenya]

Bugmaster--"Everyone has to decide for hirself" does not necessarily mean "everything anyone decides for hirself is equally reasonable." It just means that each person has the responsibility to figure out what they believe, and can't/shouldn't pawn it off on some "authority" in order to get out of making the decision. You live your own life--no one else lives it for you. This includes your religious life/choices/beliefs.

[Nick Lamb]

Lots of other posters have pointed out that not being certain that the Bible it literally true leads to the question of who chooses what's true and what's just poetry or allegory or an amusing story. Actually it doesn't matter either way, the literalists will /tell/ you that the Bible's truth is plain as your face, but they don't actually agree among themselves on what that truth is.

I can /imagine/ a deity being able to create a book that was so cleverly constructed that any honest man who read it would come away with the exact same meaning. But the Bible wasn't written by a deity (the people who believe that are even more loopy than usual for Christians) it was written by men.

For outsiders (not just atheists) the distinction is not about whether particular Christians or groups thereof believe in a literal Bible, but about what in particular they choose to believe, and how they go about it. Rowan Williams doesn't scare me, he believes a lot of things that I find ridiculous, but the resulting ethical differences between me and him are no worse than between me and an animal lover. It's easy to imagine having a perfectly civilised conversation with him about religion.

People like Andrew Schlafly are much more worrying. Schlafly is so sure that he's right and everyone else is wrong that his current project is the creation of an encyclopedia which agrees with him about everything (Consevapedia). Even elementary mathematics is subject to his arbitrary 'Truth' being imposed on the facts. This encyclopedia is aimed at school children (hence, through Schlafly's twisted logic, it can't talk about any "adult" subjects like human sexual anatomy, but it can rant at length about why the Bible forbids homosexuality). I don't believe for one moment that Schlafly's ethics are compatible with my own.

Now, it so happens that Rowan Williams doesn't think the entire bible is a literal account (though Wikipedia notes that he does believe in a very literal resurrection of Jesus), whereas Schlafly does, but I really don't think that's the key difference between them. I think the difference is a mistaken feeling that faith is about /certainty/. Dr Williams has said he expects Christians will always have some doubts, find something puzzling in the gospels that they struggle to integrate with their lives. Schlafly thinks doubts are a weakness, not a strength. On any given subject, Andrew Schlafly has already made up his mind, if later facts contradict his assumptions the facts must be wrong.

[inge]

I often get the impression that "literalist" atheism is a reaction to literalist theism. When someone claims that, the universe is 6000 years old, and that means that god exists, it's hard to resist the seemingly straight line of arguing that the universe is more than 6000 years old, therefore, by the other guy's own logic (more or less), god does not exist.

[Scott]

I read somewhere that fundie literalism was as much a child of the enlightenment as skepticism (except as a reaction). Basically, once people started thinking that only what can be proven 'scientifically' can be true, then the Bible had to be 'provable'. You can only prove a claim of literal fact - you cannot prove a myth or a poem true, therefore the Bible must be literal and proven for the fundies to be as rational as everyone else.

[dave heasman]

"Rowan Williams doesn't think the entire bible is a literal account... whereas Schlafly does"

I see here : -
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/13/conserva-bible/

that Schafly is now removing bits of the Bible he doesn't like; he says they were added later* and so they don't count.
What bits they are we leave to the reader, but you can bet they're not the bits with all the smiting and denouncing. Next he'll be adding bits.
You could set a composition competition for a few verses.

*"later" than what? My understanding is the Gospels were written over a long period, St Paul's stuff rather earlier, and a lot of other stuff accumulated over a number of years. All dragged together at Nicea, wasn't it? And now A. Schafly knows better. There's a sin that covers this, isn't there? One almost wishes that Christianity were true so one could imagine Schafly meeting his Maker. But that would be wrong.

[Bugmaster]

"Everyone has to decide for hirself" does not necessarily mean "everything anyone decides for hirself is equally reasonable." It just means that each person has the responsibility to figure out what they believe, and can't/shouldn't pawn it off on some "authority"...

This is a nice sentiment, and one that few people would disagree with (except for the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists), but it also dodges my question. Which parts of the Bible are mean to be documentary, and which are metaphor ? Who decides ? Yes, it's everyone's duty to decide for themselves what they believe, but is there anything they're basing their decisions on ? Are some interpretations of the Bible more valid than others ? If I freely decide, based on no external authority, that a). the Bible is the word of God, and b). God says that the Moon is made of green cheese; then, is my interpretation as good as any other ?

[Mike Timonin]

Interesting sermon from a unitarian universalist preacher yesterday which touched on the idea of fundamentalism. He argued, briefly, that it isn't necessarily a religious doctrine, but rather a state in which your mind narrows and your heart hardens such that a) you are unwilling to entertain contrary views, because b) you have identified so closely with your ideas that an argument against them is construed as an attack against you personally. Thus, you can be a Christian fundamentalist, but you could also be a Republican fundamentalist, or a Communist fundamentalist, or what-have-you.

I have also recently finished a book (City of Tiny Lights) which contends at one point that "we" use the term "fundamentalist" when what we really mean is "fanatic"; because "fundamentalist" is inately connected to religion (as in Islamic Fundamentalist), and thus we need not look at ourselves when we say "fundamentalist" - fundamentalism is something that the other guy has, not us.

[Angelika]

Bugmaster: If I freely decide, based on no external authority, that a). the Bible is the word of God, and b). God says that the Moon is made of green cheese; then, is my interpretation as good as any other ?

That depends: You claimed (b)'the Moon is made of green cheese' as a religious statement, but you failed to connect that statement (b) with your premise (a) the Bible is the word of God. You either have to claim, you believe the Bible is the word of God and according to a personally received divine revelation you want to add to your credo that the Moon is made of green cheese, which is perfectly okay, or you have to suffer justified critic about unsound interpretation of your chosen sacred literature (the Bible doesn't give any clues on Moon materials.)(If you want a silly argument: You could chide all Christians who claim to read the Bible literally on their neglect of ritually feeding ducks, as Ecclesiasts teaches 'Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.')

It appears to me that there are two sides to the discussion on what faith is valid. 1.) There is the human side of it. We can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any God, at all, and even less the vality of one deity as opposed to another. So all what we can discuss on the human end of things is: Do people actually live what they preach? Is the individual interpretation of the sacred scriptures (if some are used) consistent in itself? Are sacred scriptures recognized as the genre they belong to and interpreted accordingly? And I think, what Fred was doing falls into that range of possible critics.

The second side to the discussion is God's point of view, (if he exists) who knows how things really are. Attempting to take that position and then judging other people's believes is a very blasphemeous and rather irrational thing to do.

[bulbul]

but wasn't the bible originally taken as literal
As David said, no. Midrash proves this. In fact, for certain parts of the Bible, allegory has always been a preferred interpretation. Take the Canticles, for example.
Besides, how do you take poetry literally?

If the Bible is not meant to be read as an accurate account of cosmic events, then which parts of it are reliable ? Who decides ? Is it all allegorical ?
Goddammit, Bugmaster, you sound like a fracking broken record. We went over this last year.

[nieciedo]

What parts of the Bible are reliable? Well, all of it. It depends on what you're relying on it for.

I can't comment too much on the Christian Bible, but the Jewish Bible I know pretty well.

The most important part is the Torah or Pentateuch, the five books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This was created in its finished form by priestly scribes in Babylon (probably under the direction of Ezra) during the time of the Babylonian Exile in the late 6th/early 5th centuries BCE.

The purpose of the Pentateuch is two-fold: to preserve in one place and form all of the laws and rules and commandments that the redactors believed essential for Jewish life AND to create a single epic narrative of national origin to provide a common basis for Jewish identity after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah. The tribes were gone. The monarchy was gone. The religious aspect of Jewish life was the sole remaining element of national identity and the sage contained in the Pentateuch was for post-exilic Judah what the collection of myths about the Pilgims, Paul Revere, Betsy Ross, George Washington and the cherry tree (together with memories, however garbled of actual historical events) are for the identity of the United States.

The Pentateuch is reliable in that the laws and commandments it contains can reliably be accepted as the basis for Jewish law. Whether they really were given at Sinai to Moses, whether there really was an Exodus or an Abraham or a Noah -- those are part of the story one accepted as the background for one's identity as a Judahite -> Jew and the laws in the Pentateuch told you want you were expected to do about it.

Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are really one single work or series of works, the Deuteronomistic History. This was produced at some time during or immediately before the reign of King Josiah of Judah. The Book of Deuteronomy was written at about the same time or immediately before, and conveniently discovered in the Temple to serve as the inspiration/pretext for Josiah's religious and political reforms. These books also contain parts of an older national epic that is a continuation of one of the primary sources that make up the Pentateuch. This older saga was a Court History that showed the natural and supernatural destiny of the Davidic monarchy as the fullfilment of the plan of Creation. The Deuteronomistic History was a history of Jewish nation written through the particular philosophy/theology of history and the covenantal basis of Jewish nationhood explained in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy sets up the basic philosophy of how history, determined by the Jewish nation's observance of their covenantal obligations, happens. Joshua through Kings was written to demonstrate how that actually played out.

These books are history, and like all history they have to be taken with a grain of salt. The Sitz im Leben must be taken into account, as must the biases of the writers. While it is too much to claim that these books were written by the prophet Jeremiah, they were at the very least inspired by his school and ideology. These books are reliable as history (as reliable as any other ancient historian). Whether God actually did intervene in historical events the way the author says is up to the reader to believe. The author believed it or at least used it a literary device. It is reliable for understanding how early 6th century BCE Jews who supported the unified Jerusalem-based priesthood understood their history and their social obligations.

Then there are the Prophets. They are reliable certainly in their condemnation of the immoral excesses of the late Monarchy and their demands that Israel uphold and live up to its ethical mission. Did they actually speak for God? Did they have visions? Did they predict future events? Maybe. Stranger things have happened. But the purpose of a prophet is not to predict the future: a prophet exists to call the nation to its conscience and challenge the establishment, especially when it's not behaving as it should. They are also reliable for understanding how the nation understood itself and its goals, it's destiny.

The rest is a hodgepodge: poetry (Psalms, Song of Songs, Lamentations), philosophy (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Job), romanticized history or historical fiction (Ruth, Esther), more history (Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah), and uncategorizable (Daniel).

[J]

I've written before about one variety of mirror-opposites of these illiteralist believers -- see "Bloody Mary Candyman" and "Freethinkers wanted" -- those who I call "sectarian atheists.". . .And then they catch a glimpse of the moons of Jupiter or of an eclipse or of a middle-school science textbook and they realize that the Earth moves. At this point they declare themselves "atheists," . . .

Proof that the world is more than 6,000 years old is proof that God does not exist.

Yeah! That's me! That's exactly what I believe! Thanks, Fred! I'm so glad you understand my point of view.

Sigh. Okay, none of you have to agree with my atheism but please do me the minimal courtesy of believing this about me: That I'm an atheist not because I was traumatized or indoctrinated into it or because I was abused by a priest or got sick of Jesus camp or had a bad relationship with my father or a best friend died while young. I'm not even an atheist because I necessarily think I have PROOF god doesn't exist.

I'm an atheist because I don't FEEL like god exists.

[bulbul]

I'm an atheist because I don't FEEL like god exists.
Well good for ya, J! And just so you know, we think it's OK and we even accept your reason.
Just do us a favor and don't confuse FEEL with KNOW, let alone CAN PROVE.

[Ray]

It's not quite "Jupiter has moons therefore God doesn't exist!", but...
If you read the bible as a kid, one of the things you realise as you grow up is that the people who wrote the bible were ignorant of a lot of things. Where there were gaps in their knowledge, they made up stories about God to fill the gaps, which was fair enough. (Or they had other purposes in writing, such as creating a national identity, as niciedo points out.) At some stage, it becomes more difficult to believe that the bible is an accurate revelation of Jehovah's creation of the universe and the divinity of Christ, surrounded by bits of fairy tales, militarist propaganda, and assorted tribal regulations, than to believe that it's _all_ just people saying the things that people say, and God is nothing more than a convenient character in a narrative.
(That, and the decision to treat very old accounts of miraculous divine interventions with the same respect I treat very new accounts of miraculous divine interventions, which is not a great deal.)

[nieciedo]

@Ray:

...God is nothing more than a convenient character in a narrative

You know, I don't necessarily disagree with this. I think it is much easier to talk about the nature of life and the universe -- especially if you and/or your culture has a particular and peculiar sense of how life and the universe operate and what your place in the whole thing is -- if you talk about God in terms of a human being writ large who says things and does things and works miracles and smites people and blesses people and what-not. It's practically hard-wired into our psyches: these are categories that it's very difficult to think outside of and that come naturally to most people. It's especially easy if all of the cultures around you tell the same kind of stories using the same kind of stock characters and that's what you have to work with.

The scientific, rationalist, materialist mindset is only a few centuries old. It's not been until relatively yesterday on the whole scale of human history that people have been able to think of the universe in terms other than the animistic or theistic. But this doesn't necessarily mean that these earlier ways of looking at life were wrong, or that the worldview crafted by the authors of the Bible was incorrect. It was correct and true for them, and many of us still find meaning in it even as we consider modern scientific approaches to understanding the world correct and true, as well. And who knows what people will believd 1000 years from now!

As I read the Bible, I see that "God" really is like a convenient character in a narrative because the story can't be told easily (by its authors in the time they were writing) in any other way. If the Bible were being written today, it would likely be a very different book, but it wouldn't be any more or less "correct" than the one that was written 2000+ years ago. I don't think that God is like an imaginary number -- a number that doesn't really exist but without which you can do certain kinds of math -- but that rather "God" is shorthand for a deeper reality that is a wee bit beyond the confines of our cultural and linguistic categories to describe.

[J]

Well good for ya, J! And just so you know, we think it's OK and we even accept your reason.
Just do us a favor and don't confuse FEEL with KNOW, let alone CAN PROVE.

Uh huh.

1.) Didn't I just say I don't pretend to be able to prove anything?

2.) Didn't Augustine say "first we believe, then we know"? I believe god doesn't exist, therefore, I know he doesn't. (T-minus ten seconds and counting until everyone screams at me about how wrong my interpretation of Augustine is, 10, 9, 8, 7 . . .)

[hf]

magistra, that site does make claims elsewhere about Christianity that Fred vehemently disagrees with. But the page you link does not say that because we can't interpret Noah's ark literally without contradictions, God doesn't exist. It says that the story clearly comes from human minds, and uses this to argue against the position of bulbul and others that God inspired the Bible. Incidentally, bulbul, that thread you linked shows you ignoring not just the context of biblical "history" but the clear command in Deuteronomy to commit genocide. You can read it here with the part that precedes it:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

From Deuteronomy 20.

nieciedo, does it seem to you like a good shorthand? Does it seem grossly misleading?

[bulbul]

1.) Didn't I just say I don't pretend to be able to prove anything?
No. You said you couldn't prove that god doesn't exist. And you used the qualifier "necessarily", which might call the previous statement into question. I don't think it does, though.

Didn't Augustine say "first we believe, then we know"
Credimus, ut cognoscamus it was, I think. "We believe so that we can know".
I prefer Anselm's Credo ut intelligam, but hey, to each his own :o)

[Ray]

nieciedo, whether you call it God or something else, you're saying that there is some thing - some real thing, some thing that exists in a more important and deeper way than the rest of the world - that the writers of the bible were in contact with. And I find that no more convincing, for the same reasons.
To put it another way, I don't think the existence of God (aka 'deeper reality') is at all necessary to explain the existence of the bible - people are quite capable of coming up with stuff like that all on their own. (Similarly, I don't think the existence of God is necessary to explain the existence of believers)

[bulbul]

Incidentally, bulbul, that thread you linked shows you ignoring not just the context of biblical "history" but the clear command in Deuteronomy to commit genocide.
No, it doesn't. To put it briefly, the application of this passage is confined to the conquest of Canaan and the situation at that time.
But hey, if you are convinced that Deuteronomy 20:17 commands you to kill all the Hittites, Amorites and Hivites, go ahead.

[J]

No, it doesn't. To put it briefly, the application of this passage is confined to the conquest of Canaan and the situation at that time.

Ah. How comforting. Genocide is only okay in certain times and places.

Oh, but wait; apparently it's okay in certain other times and places, too:

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin." 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

--Judges 21:10-12

[Dan S.]

"as Ecclesiasts teaches 'Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.'

Oddly enough, most translations leave out the following lines: 'And you will say, 'Yech,' for it will be very soggy, and with bits pecked out, and probably moldy to boot . . .'

A-ny-way, I think one part of the reaction to the earlier post - other issues aside - is that like rob points out, some of the mirror-literalism is largely a reaction to young earth creationism - it's been almost a half-century now since Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood (which, having watched a great deal of recent Dr. Who lately, I almost absent-mindedly typed as 'The Genesis Ark', so now I have a picture in my head of Noah herding a long line of daleks into the ark, two by two by two . . . ). As exemplified by that somewhat frightening talkorigins link, one response has been basically to insist, look, there's no way that could have happened they way you say it did, so could you please stop trying to destroy science education now? - which presumably manages to change some very small percentage of minds, as well as keeping some undecideds from moving to YEC-advocacy. If neither parties is laughing at the joke (the anology suggested previously), it's because one of 'em keeps trying to pass legislation requiring all bar patrons to bring a duck.

But indeed, as David mentions, both sides share a history (as Fred points out, sometimes a personal, subcultural one, along with the centuries-long intellectual-movements kind) - I've taken to thinking of this as the 'how Bilbo and Gollum had so much in common, as shown by the riddle-game' principle
(and just imagine a poor 16th Century Prague rabbi: 'Oy vey! I try to make a golem out of clay to protect my people, and all I get is this creepy-looking little gonif kvetching on and on about his "precious" - ach, I see what happened, instead of writing 'Emet' on its forehead, I put "Emnet" instead - I feel like such a putz . . .')

It ties into one of my disagreements with certain recent atheist criticism - people seeming to get stuck on the idea that religion is always and solely a body of intended-to-be-coherent & logical postulates or hypotheses - in short, that, ie, Dawkins and Harris aren't anthropologists or similar, as opposed to for example, Scott Atran.

Interestingly - going off the irony bulbul mentioned earlier about the fundamentalists caring more about the literal veracity of the story than the moral lesson - in terms of hatin' on evolution they often seem to do the same thing in reverse - obsessing on the supposed moral lessons of evolutionary biology, rather than the literal veracity.

Dahne:"God died when he got shot with a silver bullet? Did he manage to bite Nietzsche first?

Yep. The whole syphilis thing was just the cover story. Now Nietzsche has the proportionate speed and strength of a lycanthropic deity. Explains the moustache, too.

[nieciedo]

@HF

Re: Deut 20:10-18

nieciedo, does it seem to you like a good shorthand? Does it seem grossly misleading?

Actually, no. It reads to me like embittered after-the-fact wishful thinking and propaganda. According to the predominant theology of history, if a nation acted sinfully, it deserved to be destroyed through war and conquest. The Deuteronomistic Historian thought that Canaanite idolatry was sinful and thought that the Canaanites should have been destroyed. They never were, and he (it's always a he, isn't it?) is bitter about the impending collapse of Judah and wishes that the Canaanites had actually gotten their just punishment because then they wouldn't be around to lure Israelites into idolatry.

The Biblical authors believed idolatry was part of mindset that represented a host of moral evils, and since God can be considered as shorthand for "that which is right and good and urges toward the flourishing and triumph of life" or "the force that makes for salvation" or "the ground of being" or what-have-you, then the fallible, limited, politically biased humans can put into God's "mouth" a command to punish perceived sinners.

[nieciedo]

@J

Ah. How comforting. Genocide is only okay in certain times and places.

To be fair, the Israelites also believed that they themselves deserved to be conquered, destroyed, and exiled because of their transgressions, too.

It was a propaganda ploy to say that the Canaaites deserved destruction because of their transgrssions (which then in turn props up the Israelites claim to the land). But it was mighty sporting of them to turn the same criteria against themselves, too, when they didn't measure up.

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin." 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

That doesn't say genocide is OK. This is a historical account of an inter-tribal civil war. It's really no different, in the political circumstances of the day, than the North going to war with the South to keep the Union together. Yeah, it's brutal and bloody and the severity of the tactics is appalling, but that was standard military practice.

[hf]

Do y'all think a reasonable person could cite the quoted passage and the genocide in the ark story as evidence that no god inspired the Bible? Or does this count as "illiteralism" somehow? (As a side note, given that people make and buy videos defending a literal interpretation of the ark story, does it make sense to help more people see the problems here?)

I think the analogy of "fundamentalism" for those atheists has some truth to it. Both groups seem to think they have the best way of looking at the world, and to wish some other perspective would go away. But the analogy fails in at least one vitally important respect. If religion disappeared, the world would likely be no worse off. All the arguments to the contrary seem like vile slanders against atheists (and nothing that resembles those slanders will ever convince people like Dawkins). Whereas if we forced science to change its claims so as to help religion, as Creationists would prefer, nearly all of us would probably die.

[hf]

nieciedo, you understand you're defending my position on the Bible and arguing against bulbul's, right? Also, I meant to ask if you considered the word "god" useful shorthand.

[hf]

Incidentally, I had the impression most scholars placed these books' authors in the period of Babylonian captivity.