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?
April 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
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…
May 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
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.