Fundamentalists and Atheists

[MagusYanam]

In my experience, extremely conservative Christians and atheists have very similar ways of viewing the world.

Now, I'd like to clarify this a bit. Yes, I realise that atheists don't believe in God, while fundamentalists obviously do. Yes, I realise that atheists (by and large) discredit accounts of miracles, while fundamentalists credit them when they take place in Scripture. But it seems to me that the majority of atheists and the majority of fundamentalists both have extremely mechanistic ways of looking at the world.

In atheism, it is supernaturalism that is discredited. Generally (and I realise this is a generalisation), atheists are also substance monists, firm in the belief that there is only one type of substance (the material), and that the universe is mechanistic in its function. In fundamentalism, supernatural events play a central role, but even the miracles seem to be mechanistic in nature. When Jesus walked on water, they take it to mean that he literally walked on water, rather than delving into the literary and symbolic meaning of 'walking on water'.

So it seems to me that atheists and fundamentalists frame the debate in the same way. Jesus either couldn't literally walk on water, or he could. He either couldn't literally turn water to wine, or he could. The sun either can't literally stand still in the sky, or it can, et cetera ad nauseam. The God that atheists don't believe in is the same God the fundamentalists insist on believing in, a sky-father who intervenes with supernatural miracles and occasional wrath.

In my discussions with both atheists and fundamentalists on this website, both refuse to entertain the notion that when a phrase like 'fig tree' or 'walking on water' is used, something besides a literal fig tree or literal feet walking on a literal body of water might be indicated. Both refuse to even discuss the possibility that there might be cultural differences between the modern world and the world of 30 CE, or the world of 550 BCE, which would lead to a different reading of Scripture today than would have been the cultural norm in yesteryear. So, my question is, do atheists and fundamentalists, by and large, look at the world (and at Scripture) with the same kind of mechanistic mindset?

[MagusYanam]

It is impossible for a God to have created the Universe then have a Bible that is unclear in it's assertions whether or not the things He says happens actually happens or if it's all just metaphorical.

Why should this be so? I mean, supposing you have an agency that is responsible for the creation and maintenance of everything in the universe, nay, the universe itself, and you expect this agency to be instantly comprehensible to the human mind, in just seventy-plus volumes of text (Apocrypha included, I'll take whatever I can get), without the aid of metaphor and symbolism?

The universe is so unintelligibly vast and intricate that it is visually impossible to convey how incredibly small and fragile the world is that we human beings inhabit. I think it is reflective of the incredible conceit of the creationists that they believe that human beings are God's special creation, that God - the creator of everything that can be seen - would have some kind of special vested interest in us, or specifically in our petty little tribal nomadic band wandering around the desert. I think it makes Christianity all the more poignant, that the only way we (as a culture) can have a hope at glancing even in a mirror dimly at this ultimate agency that transcends everything and exists in everything, is through the person of Jesus Christ.

[Goat]

It is impossible for a God to have created the Universe then have a Bible that is unclear in it's assertions whether or not the things He says happens actually happens or if it's all just metaphorical.

Why should this be so? I mean, supposing you have an agency that is responsible for the creation and maintenance of everything in the universe, nay, the universe itself, and you expect this agency to be instantly comprehensible to the human mind, in just seventy-plus volumes of text (Apocrypha included, I'll take whatever I can get), without the aid of metaphor and symbolism?

The universe is so unintelligibly vast and intricate that it is visually impossible to convey how incredibly small and fragile the world is that we human beings inhabit. I think it is reflective of the incredible conceit of the creationists that they believe that human beings are God's special creation, that God - the creator of everything that can be seen - would have some kind of special vested interest in us, or specifically in our petty little tribal nomadic band wandering around the desert. I think it makes Christianity all the more poignant, that the only way we (as a culture) can have a hope at glancing even in a mirror dimly at this ultimate agency that transcends everything and exists in everything, is through the person of Jesus Christ.

Now, why would God, the creator of everything, need to be understood through a person who was allegedly sacrifice to god, and also God? That never made sense at all to me. Having such a story as an 'ultimate agency' makes everything that exists totally meaningless in my eyes.

[MagusYanam]

Now, why would God, the creator of everything, need to be understood through a person who was allegedly sacrifice to god, and also God? That never made sense at all to me. Having such a story as an 'ultimate agency' makes everything that exists totally meaningless in my eyes.

I never said the 'ultimate agency' was the story, but rather the object of the story.

Anyway, I see Jesus as a human, who also embodied the divine with transformative, unconditional and self-sacrificial love. Now my father is fond of saying that he sees the same tendencies in the universe, that it is constantly pouring itself out in incredibly vast quantities of energy to sustain these self-organising critical structures (life), and thus (to him) Christianity makes sense.

[MagusYanam]

I can't speak for all atheists but this atheist, in order to communicate at the same level as a fundamentalist beleiver, has to treat the stories in the same light as they do...despite their obvious allegorical nature.

This may be so. But from where I'm standing if these kinds of 'tactics' are used in a debate it tends to trivialise Christianity itself and marginalise the more moderate, modernist views of the majority of Christians. In my experience it tends to be fundamentalists and conservative Christians who scream the loudest and thus get heard the most and define the playing field. I have found that sometimes, atheists take this as license not to afford modernist Christianity logical charity. (I'm not saying that this is what you do, btw.)

[Fisherking]

When you choose to debate with fundamentalists, I notice that you play by their hermeneutical rules when I see no need to use their playbook. I think reading Genesis as a cultural mythology and treating it like literature (even holy literature), people get more out of it than if they use it simply to determine the age of the earth. The latter, to me, is a triviality, and when so much emphasis is put on that triviality you can surely understand how it might become almost offensive.

Fine, if you put Genesis on the same footing as Gilgamesh, The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson, Chaos, Oceanus, Eurynome, Ophion, Gaia and Uranus, then yes, it is just another ancient creation myth which perhaps has some underlying spiritual truth. Your hermeneutical rules can basically make the Bible say whatever you wish it to say and not say whatever you wish to avoid.

I agree, and this seems to be exactly what some are doing.

[MagusYanam]

I agree, and this seems to be exactly what some are doing.

And you would be wrong. See post 10.

[Fisherking]

Fine, if you put Genesis on the same footing as Gilgamesh, The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson, Chaos, Oceanus, Eurynome, Ophion, Gaia and Uranus, then yes, it is just another ancient creation myth which perhaps has some underlying spiritual truth. Your hermeneutical rules can basically make the Bible say whatever you wish it to say and not say whatever you wish to avoid.

As to the first, yes, I think there is value in Babylonian legend, Norse epic poetry and Greek myth - they are also cultural narratives and each one can have valuable insights into the values and social mores of each culture (if you read between the lines). The same is true with Genesis. Of course, being a part of the Abrahamic culture being represented by Genesis, the text has more relevance to me as Holy Scripture.

Even though Babylonian legend, Norse epic poetry, Greek mythology may be cultural narratives giving insight into the values and social mores of their respective cultures, by putting Genesis in the same catagory, one can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say and not say whatever one wishes to avoid.

Secondly, if you are accusing me of using a hermeneutic based on wishful thinking, making Christianity a kind of fuzzy feel-good religion, that simply isn't true. Even mythologically and symbolically, the flood story is, quite frankly, disturbing to me. And don't even ask me about Abraham and Isaac - a lot of Christians might applaud Abraham for his faith, but I look at that story and I cringe. How might I feel if my father felt he had to kill me as a test of his faith, or would I upon hearing a command from God be compelled to kill my own son?

The fact that many stories in the bible disturb you does not mean they are symbolic or myth. Shall we define any disturbing events in history we see fit as symbolic or myth? There is a fringe group of people that claim Hitler did not slaughter millions of Jews, maybe they find the story disturbing and mythical.

You can dismiss my hermeneutic all you wish, but the fact of the matter is, I'm also constrained by the text - perhaps even more constrained than the fundamentalists, because I'm willing to be intellectually honest about it.

How so? I appreciate your honesty on how you view the flood and Abraham's faith (symbolic myths?), but on what scriptural grounds, if any, brings you to these conclusions?

[MagusYanam]

Even though Babylonian legend, Norse epic poetry, Greek mythology may be cultural narratives giving insight into the values and social mores of their respective cultures, by putting Genesis in the same catagory, one can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say and not say whatever one wishes to avoid.

How? Even if the creation story is purely symbolic there are certain truths in the myth that cannot be avoided. The idea of original sin, for example, and what it means to be separated from God.

The fact that many stories in the bible disturb you does not mean they are symbolic or myth. Shall we define any disturbing events in history we see fit as symbolic or myth? There is a fringe group of people that claim Hitler did not slaughter millions of Jews, maybe they find the story disturbing and mythical.

That I recognise a story as symbolic and mythical does not mean that I do so because I find it disturbing. I find them disturbing (as I thought I made clear) for reasons other than their factuality (or lack thereof).

The Holocaust was historical. To compare denial of the Holocaust, which would mean flying in the face of tonnes and tonnes of historical documentation and eyewitness, to the idea that the flood story (for which there is no such corroboration) is true myth, is to my mind an obscenity.

How so? I appreciate your honesty on how you view the flood and Abraham's faith (symbolic myths?), but on what scriptural grounds, if any, brings you to these conclusions?

I see Genesis as a cultural narrative. Hebrew priests were the most likely authors of Genesis (actually, there were at least four different sources according to the scholastic consensus), and they compiled and conflated various creation myths (at least two of them), legends, histories and other stories into their account of the beginnings of their own civilisation.

In the creation story, it's obvious from the text that it's a myth. The two main human characters are named Man (אָדָם) and Life (חַוָּה) - that should be enough to tell you something about the nature of the tale (something akin to the Norse tale of the Ragnarok, where the two main human characters are named Life and Liveliness). The flood story is also a common presence in a number of mythological systems.

As for Abraham, I wouldn't say his story is completely mythical. His is perhaps more of a legend, though Abraham's historicity seems doubtful. Given the attention to detail concerning personality and temperament inside the text, it would seem that he is at least based on an historical personage (or perhaps several). But there are also some aspects of the cultural narrative that strike me as mythological even that late in Genesis. For example, the twelve sons of Jacob represent the twelve tribes. It is doubtful (considering the way such nomadic tribal governments of the time worke) that such a split would have occurred as cleanly as that.

[Fisherking]

In the creation story, it's obvious from the text that it's a myth. The two main human characters are named Man (אָדָם) and Life (חַוָּה) - that should be enough to tell you something about the nature of the tale (something akin to the Norse tale of the Ragnarok, where the two main human characters are named Life and Liveliness). The flood story is also a common presence in a number of mythological systems.

I am still trying to figure out what criteria you use to determine what is myth and what is not. At first it appeared that because it was disturbing to you it was a myth(you said that wasn't the criteria)--now it appears the criteria used is the fact that names acually mean something in their original language. God called people what they were. Why would he call the first man something other than what he was?

It seems to me most named throughout scripture are named for what they are:

Abraham(אברהם) = "father of a multitude" or "chief of multitude"---"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."

Isaac = "he laughs"(יצחק)--"---"Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?"---"Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"

Esau(עשו) = "hairy"---"And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau."

Jacob(יעקב) = "heel holder" or "supplanter"-- "And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them."

Israel(ישראל) = "God prevails"--- "And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed"

If their names actually mean something about the character of their person does it mean they are myths? What if we used the same criteria throughout the whole bible?
Lets see if it appears the writers of the new testament(jewish) thought the
Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve or the flood were mythical:

Luke--And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli............Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Jude--And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints

Romans--Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Timothy--For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Matthew--But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke--They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Peter--And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly

As for Abraham, I wouldn't say his story is completely mythical. His is perhaps more of a legend, though Abraham's historicity seems doubtful. Given the attention to detail concerning personality and temperament inside the text, it would seem that he is at least based on an historical personage (or perhaps several). But there are also some aspects of the cultural narrative that strike me as mythological even that late in Genesis. For example, the twelve sons of Jacob represent the twelve tribes. It is doubtful (considering the way such nomadic tribal governments of the time worke) that such a split would have occurred as cleanly as that.

Lets see what new testament authors thought of Abraham and if it appears they thought it mythical:

Matthew
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

I could give references to Abraham in almost every new testament book but it would get redundant. I think it is safe to say that the writers of the new testament thought Genesis and the flood was a historical account of what happened.

Again, is there any scriptural evidence to suggest otherwise?

[MagusYanam]

I am still trying to figure out what criteria you use to determine what is myth and what is not. At first it appeared that because it was disturbing to you it was a myth(you said that wasn't the criteria)--now it appears the criteria used is the fact that names acually mean something in their original language. God called people what they were. Why would he call the first man something other than what he was?

If their names actually mean something about the character of their person does it mean they are myths?

If you don't know what the definition of 'myth' is, then you could have just said so and I'd have been happy to offer a stipulation. But as it is, I know most of the names the Hebrews gave themselves 'mean something in the original language'. In the immortal words of Colm Meaney, 'D'you think I'm a nincompoop?'

The names can have bearing on the mythical quality of the text. The names are not the main criterion, but they do apply to the main criterion in a material way, Man and Life being the most logical names one can apply to mythical beings to explain human nature. The main criterion one might reasonably use to determine whether or not a story is mythical is whether or not its primary purpose is to explain something about the human condition in symbolic terms. Many cultures have a myth describing why there exists evil in the world (for example, the Navajo Hero Twins) or why there exists death (various African cultures). In this case, the creation story explains the separation human beings have from God, in symbolic terms. There didn't need to be a literal fruit - human beings lusted after the knowledge of good and evil and the power to become like God, we thirsted and hungered for it. What better way to symbolise this thirst and hunger of Man and Life to a band of desert nomads than a ripe fruit from a lush paradise?

Lets see if it appears the writers of the new testament(jewish) thought the
Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve or the flood were mythical:

Luke--And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli............Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Jude--And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints

Romans--Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Timothy--For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Matthew--But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke--They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Peter--And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly

Sorry. None of these references preclude a mythical understanding of the texts. You are simply presupposing that they are speaking about literal people when they refer in passing to these figures Adam and Noah. About the genealogies: there are Merovingian genealogies that trace the line of Charlemagne back through Jesus Christ; do you credit these as fact? Various Norse genealogies also trace back through Norse gods like Freyr, Odin and Thor. Does that mean that these were also historical personages? Or could they perhaps be trying to legitimate themselves in a culture that they wanted to convince of their divine origins?

As for the rest, they seem just as pertinent even if one concludes that Adam and Noah and the flood were mythical. I see no loss in meaning that an assignment of 'fact or myth' would make - in either case, the stories are true.

Lets see what new testament authors thought of Abraham and if it appears they thought it mythical:

Matthew
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

"I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

I could give references to Abraham in almost every new testament book but it would get redundant. I think it is safe to say that the writers of the new testament thought Genesis and the flood was a historical account of what happened.

Again, genealogies can be called into question, even within Scripture, for the reasons I listed above. There is no reason to consider a citation within such a genealogy fact unless it is corroborated externally to Scripture.

As to Abraham himself, I am willing to credit him as at least a legendary or semi-historical personage, for the reasons I gave earlier. But whenever you see 'son of Abraham' or 'God of Abraham' it is not necessarily a reference to the historical personage of Abraham, but rather a claim to a cultural heritage - think about it. What does it mean to be called a 'son of Abraham'? It means that you belong to a culture that recognises the Abramic covenant and follows God (Elohim or El Adonai or Allah or the Lord). Even though I can't trace my ancestry all the way back to Abraham (whether or not he exists being something I don't know for fact), I know that I too am a 'son of Abraham' - the idea of being a 'child of Abraham' still has meaning.