Atheists and biblical literalism
Over at Subversive Christianity, “A deacon” has written a post decrying the atheist’s penchant for biblical literalism. Emphasis as original:
What the not-so-good atheist blogs have in common with not-so-good atheist books and some not-so-good reader comments even on the good atheist blogs is this: biblical literalism. I was surprised to discover that atheists, like evangelicalists, (sic) can fall victim to this poison.
Biblical literalism, of course, is the inability or (even worse) dogmatic refusal to read scripture with a critical eye. When the evangelicalist (sic) falls victim to it, he or she insists that every verse in scripture must be given equal weight and read with equal seriousness. As we all know, this sort of uncritical reading of any text, sacred or otherwise, is foolish–and, in worse case scenarios, dangerous.
I wrote a reply to this post, pointing out that we, as atheists, don’t have any agenda to try and twist some kind of meaning out of particular passages within their scripture, and how there is no concensus even amongst the christian believer community as to what is supposedly literal, symbolic or allegorical.
I’ve been accused of being too literal with scripture before (even, on one occasion, by another atheist) but my point is this: how is one supposed to read it? How is one to know which bits to take literally, and which other bits one has the prerogative to come up with creative arguments to justify an agreement with a particular non-literal mind set? As I wrote in my reply:
Tell us what episodes detailed in that book are symbolic, and which are merely allegory. Let us into the secret of how you discern which bits of your bible one can take liberties with creative interpretations. Do you have some sort of crib sheet that we atheists are ignorant of, telling you how to read each individual passage as it’s supposedly intended, outwith it’s literal rendering? Please, share it with us, and we’ll read the bible accordingly.
As I’ve said before, I have a singular kind of respect for fundies: not for their beliefs nor for what they say or do, but for the conviction that they have for their scripture, no matter how bigotted, hate-filled, contradictory or just plain ridiculous it is. It about the only respect I do have for these people, but isn’t it said that one should find the good in all people?
No other posts are likely to be like this.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: no tags
Comments
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
2192 Responseshttp://www.nullifidian.net/2007/04/29/atheists-and-biblical-literalism/Atheists+and+biblical+literalism2007-04-29+03%3A40%3A33nullifidian to “Atheists and biblical literalism”
Blogroll (UK)
Blogroll
- Adult Christianity
- An Apostate’s Chapel
- Atheist Ethicist
- Atheist Hussy
- Atheist Media
- Atheist Perspective
- Atheist Revolution
- Bad Astronomy
- BEEP! BEEP! IT’S ME.
- Black Sun Journal
- Bligbi
- Canterbuty Atheists
- Chicken Girl
- Daylight Atheism
- Deep Thoughts
- Dwindling in Unbelief
- evanescent
- Evolution Space
- Evolved and Rat/i/onal
- Five Public Opinions
- Friendly Atheist
- Geoff Arnold
- Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes
- Homosecular Gaytheist [and friends]
- Honjii’s Harangues
- Humanist Dad
- Irreligiosity
- Kazim’s Korner
- lol god
- LOLgod
- Lord J-Bar For Democracy, Not Theocracy
- No More Hornets
- One Good Move
- Oz Atheist’s Weblog
- Pharyngula
- Pooflingers Anonymous
- Possummomma (aka, Atheist in a mini van)
- Religion *is* a problem
- Saint Gasoline
- Sandwalk
- Sean the Blogonaut (new URL)
- See Mike Draw
- Sexy Secularist!
- Spanish Inquisitor
- Splendid Elles
- Stuff God Hates
- Stupid Dinosaur Lies
- The Atheist Experience
- The Atheist Jew
- The Barefoot Bum
- The Flying Trilobite
- The Iron Chariot
- The Perplexed Observer
- The Religion Virus
- The Uncredible Hallq
- toomanytribbles
- Unscrewing the Inscrutable
- Velocity Inversion
- Way of the Mind
- Wrong In Their Mind Tanks
Good Stuff
- Atheist Blogs Aggregated
- Center for Inquiry
- Centre for Inquiry
- Does God Exist?
- Encyclopedia of Life
- Fundies Say The Darndest Things!
- God Checker
- Humanist Society of Scotland
- Iron Chariots
- James Randi Educational Foundation
- Michael Shermer
- New England Skeptical Society
- Pat Condell’s Godless Comedy
- Planet Atheism
- Planet Humanism
- Robert M Price
- Sam Harris
- Science/AAAS
- Talk.Origins
- The Brights
- The Official God FAQ
- The RDF
- The Reason Project
- The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager
- The Science Network
Petitions
Petitions (closed)
- [failed] Abolish Faith Schools (UK)
- [failed] Ban Promotion of Faith in State Schools
- [failed] End Faith Schools
- [failed] Rename The ‘Church’ of Scientology under section 32 of the Companies Act
- [failed] Secularise the UK
- [failed] Tax Churches
- [ignored] Refuse state funding of church maintenance
- [partial success] Ban the usage of Narconon in any publicly funded orgianisation
- [partial success] Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain
- [partial success] Stop misleading advertising by religious groups
- [success] Recognise Atheists
- [success] Remove Creationist Literature from State Schools
-
Twitter
-
Chat
Join nullifidian on IRC in #atheism at blitzed.org or use the chat right here
Or head on over to Secular Chat.
-
Feeds
-
Current readers
-
Recently played
-
Recent Comments
-
Recent Posts
-
Tags
- activism
- advertising
- anti-atheism
- anti-science
- Arkell v. Pressdram
- atheism
- atheist bus
- bad arguments/logical fallacies
- BBC
- BBC News
- bible
- bigotry
- blasphemy
- blog
- books
- British Humanist Association
- cartoon
- catholicism
- Charles Darwin
- chart
- christianity
- Christian Voice
- creationism/intelligent design
- culture
- demotivation
- dogma
- Edinburgh
- education
- employment
- entertainment
- evidence
- evolution
- evolution denial
- FAIL!
- faith/belief
- free speech
- fundamentalism
- government and politics
- government and politics
- homophobia
- homosexuality
- humanism
- humour
- hypocrisy
- I demand respect!
- image
- islam
- Jerry Springer:The Opera
- legal
- letters
- literalism
- LOL
- lying for Jesus
- media
- medicine and healthcare
- medicine and healthcare
- Mohammed
- news
- nullifidian.net
- opinion
- persecution complex
- personal
- petition
- photo
- Photoshop
- prayer
- quote
- Ray "Tampon Case/Banana Man" Comfort
- reality
- religion
- response
- Richard Dawkins
- Sam Harris
- scepticism
- science
- Scotland
- scripture
- secularism
- special treatment/religious privilege
- special treatment/religious privilege
- Stephen "Birdshit" Green
- superstition
- taking the piss
- technology
- television
- the arts
- The Guardian
- The Independent
- theocracy/anti-secularism
- theocracy/anti-secularism
- The Stupid It Burns
- The Telegraph
- The Times
- thought
- UK
- USA
- video
- web
- WhiskyTangoFoxtrot
- woo woo
-
Archives
- April 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006










Well said. The bible (or any other, similar, holy book) is supposed to be the word of God. If we, mere mortals, can pick and chose which bits God really meant and which he didn’t, doesn’t that pretty much undermine the nature of the Sky Pixie?
This argument about “literalism” is normally trotted out when some theist is presented with the contradictions and nonsense of the bible. They must think a moving target it harder to hit…
The argument from literal interpretation is best employed as a refutation of the intrinsic authority and veracity of any scripture: If a desired moral interpretation contradicts or invalidates the literal text of scripture, one must abandon either the desired interpretation or the authority of the scripture; likewise for truth claims.
If intrinsic authority or veracity is not asserted, then an argument from literal meaning loses force, but so what? The rub is that many scriptural theists will deny the authority of their scripture while still covertly relying on it. This is usually not intentional, though, and they will express genuine outrage when one points out that they are in fact relying on the authority of their scripture when such reliance is favorable to their position.