“but if Team Enlightenment is going to reject the Bible completely because its historical context seems unjust by our standards, they must do the same with John Locke. Or, if they’re going to be selective about which “Enlightenment” works represent contemporary freedoms, they can’t scold believers for doing the same with Bible verses, some of which are, admittedly, quite nasty”
I think this would be a fair critique if not for the underlying premise that religious texts like the Bible are the literal words of an infallible God. This seems to make rejecting parts of it and accepting others more problematic than doing the same for works written by forward thinking but still fallible humans, no?
That’s interesting…and different from my experience with other religious texts. What would you say most Christians believed in terms of who wrote the Bible? Is this true for both testaments? Is this true of all denominations? Has it always been true? If not, when would you say it became the dominant view?
I feel somewhat ignorant here as I was raised in the Islamic tradition. I have attended a few church services with friends - Catholic, Episcopalian and Unitarian (if that counts) but none of my friends were especially religious so my knowledge of what most Christians believe is considerably lacking.
I know the founding fathers were Deists who believed in God but didn’t put much stock in the Bible. Thomas Paine was pretty merciless in his critique of the Bible in “Age of Reason”. I believe Jefferson was less critical. I know he believed that the Bible contained a great deal of wisdom and he is credited with writing a version of the Bible that omitted “the supernatural parts”. I haven’t read it, but is that the sort of view that you believe most Christians have of the Bible? Or is it closer to a Joseph Campbell type view that certain stories are not meant to be taken literally but still have great significance as myth? Or both? Or something else entirely?
But this does vary between denominations and even between people within the same denomination. To further complicate things, there isn't even an agreement on what "inerrant" means -- some people (a small minority) take it to mean that the Bible is like a historical textbook and all the events in it literally happened; others take it to mean that the the Bible is never mistake in its spiritual message and wisdom, and there are probably other viewpoints about "inerrancy" too.
Thank you! Yes, I later realized that it might be better to have read the other sections first. I’ll read them now and let you know if there’s anything I’m still unclear about.
I have a friend who was raised in the evangelical tradition (her parents were missionaries). From what she’s said, it seemed to me that the majority of evangelicals did believe in the “inerrancy” of the Bible (not sure which of the two interpretations she meant). This may have unfairly colored my views on Christian attitudes regarding the Bible.
"Their texts don’t apply to us because they’re from a different historical period.
They’re riddled with contradictions.
They endorse repugnant beliefs and practices."
This is a strawman, athiests don't believe that religious texts should be discarded because they aren't from the modern age or contain contradictions. Rather, the basis of their claims rest in superstituion and faith, rather than reason. Anyone of any religion can read the words of Locke, critique it, subject it to reason, and adopt its statements based on that person's own reason. The same can't be said for religious texts, which requires that reader accept superstitution based on faith, rather than reason.
Sure, because of Christianity's use of reason in application, Reason was able to grow out of its religous applications and take form independently through the Enlightenment. Reason was no longer the handmaiden of religion, rather religion became the subject of Reason. This is the difference between religious and enlightenment texts that athiests prioritize.
"...Locke’s argument – accepting the Restoration and King Charles’s later Act of Uniformity – is that religious dissent is less important than peace, that people ought to accept the religious policies of the reigning establishment...." - clearly he had no idea about the devastating religious war(s) in Europe, leading to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), in which the various parties/countries involved agreed on a much longed-for freedom of religion and religious expression. Spain's violently forced catholicism ('blessed' by Rome) was incompatible with many of the regions it tried to control. fortunately there was Monty Python - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Df191WJ3o
“but if Team Enlightenment is going to reject the Bible completely because its historical context seems unjust by our standards, they must do the same with John Locke. Or, if they’re going to be selective about which “Enlightenment” works represent contemporary freedoms, they can’t scold believers for doing the same with Bible verses, some of which are, admittedly, quite nasty”
I think this would be a fair critique if not for the underlying premise that religious texts like the Bible are the literal words of an infallible God. This seems to make rejecting parts of it and accepting others more problematic than doing the same for works written by forward thinking but still fallible humans, no?
Most Christians don't believe the Bible is made up of the literal and infallible words of God.
That’s interesting…and different from my experience with other religious texts. What would you say most Christians believed in terms of who wrote the Bible? Is this true for both testaments? Is this true of all denominations? Has it always been true? If not, when would you say it became the dominant view?
I feel somewhat ignorant here as I was raised in the Islamic tradition. I have attended a few church services with friends - Catholic, Episcopalian and Unitarian (if that counts) but none of my friends were especially religious so my knowledge of what most Christians believe is considerably lacking.
I know the founding fathers were Deists who believed in God but didn’t put much stock in the Bible. Thomas Paine was pretty merciless in his critique of the Bible in “Age of Reason”. I believe Jefferson was less critical. I know he believed that the Bible contained a great deal of wisdom and he is credited with writing a version of the Bible that omitted “the supernatural parts”. I haven’t read it, but is that the sort of view that you believe most Christians have of the Bible? Or is it closer to a Joseph Campbell type view that certain stories are not meant to be taken literally but still have great significance as myth? Or both? Or something else entirely?
Thank you for the interesting questions. I covered a bit of this in part 2 of this series:
https://williampoulos.substack.com/p/shut-up-about-the-enlightenment-part
But this does vary between denominations and even between people within the same denomination. To further complicate things, there isn't even an agreement on what "inerrant" means -- some people (a small minority) take it to mean that the Bible is like a historical textbook and all the events in it literally happened; others take it to mean that the the Bible is never mistake in its spiritual message and wisdom, and there are probably other viewpoints about "inerrancy" too.
Happy to talk more if you have further questions.
Thank you! Yes, I later realized that it might be better to have read the other sections first. I’ll read them now and let you know if there’s anything I’m still unclear about.
I have a friend who was raised in the evangelical tradition (her parents were missionaries). From what she’s said, it seemed to me that the majority of evangelicals did believe in the “inerrancy” of the Bible (not sure which of the two interpretations she meant). This may have unfairly colored my views on Christian attitudes regarding the Bible.
"Their texts don’t apply to us because they’re from a different historical period.
They’re riddled with contradictions.
They endorse repugnant beliefs and practices."
This is a strawman, athiests don't believe that religious texts should be discarded because they aren't from the modern age or contain contradictions. Rather, the basis of their claims rest in superstituion and faith, rather than reason. Anyone of any religion can read the words of Locke, critique it, subject it to reason, and adopt its statements based on that person's own reason. The same can't be said for religious texts, which requires that reader accept superstitution based on faith, rather than reason.
I wonder if you've actually read anything from the major religious traditions? People were applying reason to the Bible long before John Locke:
https://williampoulos.substack.com/p/shut-up-about-the-enlightenment-part
Sure, because of Christianity's use of reason in application, Reason was able to grow out of its religous applications and take form independently through the Enlightenment. Reason was no longer the handmaiden of religion, rather religion became the subject of Reason. This is the difference between religious and enlightenment texts that athiests prioritize.
So then we agree that religious people are no less reasonable in their reading and interpretation than anyone else?
"...Locke’s argument – accepting the Restoration and King Charles’s later Act of Uniformity – is that religious dissent is less important than peace, that people ought to accept the religious policies of the reigning establishment...." - clearly he had no idea about the devastating religious war(s) in Europe, leading to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), in which the various parties/countries involved agreed on a much longed-for freedom of religion and religious expression. Spain's violently forced catholicism ('blessed' by Rome) was incompatible with many of the regions it tried to control. fortunately there was Monty Python - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Df191WJ3o
To be fair to Locke, he did change his mind on the topic.