God is not (so bad after all)

[MorpheusSandman]

Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and several other of the so-called "new atheists" are poor at philosophy, and even disdain it. Their incompetence at philosophy hampers their arguments.

Of all the "New Atheists," Hitchens is the only one whom I have no intellectual respect for. I can forgive Dawkins' and Harris' (and more recently Krauss') tenuous grasp on philosophy as they're actual scientists with full-time jobs besides learning philosophy and honing their rhetoric and debating skills; Dennett is actually is an extremely competent philosopher that knows the issues; but Hitchens has always struck me as nothing more than a public intellectual who isn't very well read in the subjects (at least the religious ones) of which he writes about. Watch his debate with William Lane Craig where he has NO response to any of Craig's arguments. This isn't to say that Craig's arguments are legitimate, but how can someone that does this for a living (arguing against Christianity, I mean) not even know of such arguments enough to be able to refute them? That article seems to confirm my feelings about Hitchens' ignorance of other Christian apologetics as well.

================================================== ================

That's the crux of my objection to New Atheist approaches to religion: they are (often, although not always) as literalist as those of the Fundamentalists.

One thing I will say about this, though, is that it is usually the fundamentalist views that New Atheists are attacking. I don't think most would have a problem with, eg, poetic/literary interpretations of The Bible, those that approach it no differently than, say, The Odyssey or The Iliad. So I think there is a need when arguing against Christianity to knock down the fundamentalist views first and foremost.

================================================== =================

I'm pretty sure if Hitch were alive he wouldn't bother reading a book written by an Old Testament scholar whose "evidence" consists of cherry-picking history then jumping to a conclusion that nobody outside of theological colleges supports. The writer also exposes his ignorance by presuming that just because something is printed by Oxford it cannot possibly be non-factual....

Normally you and I agree, but I have to completely disagree here. You can't "not bother" reading books by Christian scholars/apologists when your job is to debate/write about how bankrupt and corrupting Christianity and religion is. You run the risk of doing nothing but attacking strawmen rather than attacking the actual and strongest arguments within the very establishment you're arguing against. From what I've read, Hitchens sees to do a lot of cherry-picking himself, picking the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion and attacking only the weakest arguments made for Christian apologetics; this IS intellectually dishonest.

Furthermore, lets assume what you say about that book is true, that it's just a weak attempt at twisting the evidence to support the author's a priori belief in Old Testament historicity and that all of the mainstream, non-biased research proves differently; how does this not reflect badly on Hitchens that he doesn't even address the evidence/arguments in the book and counter with evidence/arguments from mainstream, secular research? Also, the notion that the author is arguing that because the book is printed by Oxford it is factual is a blatant strawman; the author argues no such thing, he merely argues that such a publication by a major university press is something that atheists cannot just shrug off as being another biased, ignorant example of Christian apologetics. You wouldn't let such a thing fly if a Christian similarly shrugged off an atheist book published by the same university.

When I read such statements by atheists it just strikes me that they're giving an excuse for being intellectually lazy, as if they can't be bothered to deal with the strongest arguments made for Christianity. It's precisely that attitude that's lead to most atheists getting destroyed in debates with William Lane Craig, including Hitchens.

The writer claims that Hitchens was intellectually dishonest because he ignored one book, written by one theist, that claims there really were Israelis in Egypt.

There were more examples than that.

Only a moron would examine The Little Mermaid for evidence on mermaids, and likewise only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus.

Not a good analogy at all; The Little Mermaid is an acknowledged piece of fiction. Some/Much of The Bible was written as an historical document. We may disagree over precisely how much was written as history and how much was made up and distorted, but it's not as clean and simple as labeling it entirely fictitious.

Apologetics so good it could have been written by a theist. It is highly ironically amusing that the writer attacks Hitch for ignoring evidence, then fails to present any himself!

As for the former, that's actually a good thing! We need more atheists so intimately familiar with the best religious apologetics that they could write some themselves. Knowing your opponent is how you destroy them. Also, the second point is another strawman; the author's point wasn't to present an argument/case for the historicity of Exodus, but to argue that Hitchens ignored the best cases for its historicity. To argue that merely requires showing that, by golly, Hitchens ignored such arguments, and he did. All I see you doing is trying to defend WHY he ignored such arguments, and I just don't find those excuses valid.

[Ecurb]

I read "God is not Great" when it came out -- and quickly, so I don't remember all the details, just my general impression (which was in agreement with White's Salon article). I'll agree that while Dawkins' and Harris' arguments may be simplistic, it would be a stretch to call them "intellectually dishonest", as White calls Hitchens' arguments. Hitchens was a public intellectual, who should (at least) have been aware of (as just one example) Kierkegaard when he was bashing the Isaac and Abraham story.

I used "The Selfish Gene" as a text when I taught Introduction to Anthropology, by the way. I have nothing against Dawkins the biologist. My specialty when I was a grad student in cultural anthropology was mythology (because of my interest in literature). Morpheus is correct that most preliterate and early literate cultures do not differentiate between what we would call "myth" and "history". They use the same word for both.

Perhaps I shouldn't let "The Atheist" annoy me, but he writes crap like, "only a moron would look at religious texts for evidence of an Israeli exodus." Huh? The implication that religious people (or anyone else who thinks religious texts have evidentiary value) are 'morons' is clearly incorrect (they might be 'wrong', but that doesn't mean they are 'moronic'), and clearly bigoted. It's ethnocentricity is similar to that of which White accuses Hitchens, at the end of his Salon piece:

Personal ethics tend to reflect cultural ethics, and cultural ethics usually follow tribal interests. For Hitchens, too, has a tribe: the “reasonable,” the clean, the well-spoken, the “right sort,” the Oxford men, the ones who know and revel in their difference from the ignorant, the slaves, the Baptist rubes, the ones who don’t go to Cambridge and don’t eat good lunches. Hitchens was of the oligarchs and shared their most intense privilege: the right not to have to take seriously their own lies and misdeeds.

This is all debatable, of course, and a worthy debate it would be. What’s appalling is that none of this seems important to Hitchens. Our sense of “decency” is innate. Period. Have it your way, but I thought the truths you were interested in were based on evidence, and you have none.

As Nietzsche wrote in “Beyond Good and Evil,” “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”

We all like to descry the speck in other people's eyes, while missing the log in our own.

[The Atheist]

Normally you and I agree, but I have to completely disagree here. You can't "not bother" reading books by Christian scholars/apologists when your job is to debate/write about how bankrupt and corrupting Christianity and religion is. You run the risk of doing nothing but attacking strawmen rather than attacking the actual and strongest arguments within the very establishment you're arguing against. From what I've read, Hitchens sees to do a lot of cherry-picking himself, picking the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion and attacking only the weakest arguments made for Christian apologetics; this IS intellectually dishonest.

You're quite right!

However, I do think Hitch wrote the way he did knowingly, because he wanted to be the most anti-religion author and be acknowledged as such. Worked.

Would he have had the same book sales and profile if he hadn't been unreasonable? Probably not, but what he did do was popularise anti-religion, which is something atheism has been far too slow to embrace. I also wonder whether being based in USA made a difference to his view - seeing people every day base actions and decisions that affect other people's lives on a book of myths. Had he stayed in England, where religion is largely ignored, he might not have been the same author.

Furthermore, lets assume what you say about that book is true, that it's just a weak attempt at twisting the evidence to support the author's a priori belief in Old Testament historicity and that all of the mainstream, non-biased research proves differently; how does this not reflect badly on Hitchens that he doesn't even address the evidence/arguments in the book and counter with evidence/arguments from mainstream, secular research? Also, the notion that the author is arguing that because the book is printed by Oxford it is factual is a blatant strawman; the author argues no such thing, he merely argues that such a publication by a major university press is something that atheists cannot just shrug off as being another biased, ignorant example of Christian apologetics. You wouldn't let such a thing fly if a Christian similarly shrugged off an atheist book published by the same university.

In the particular case of the exodus, how many books should he have read? I'll bet there are thousands of books and articles, just as there are on Noah's Ark. There comes a point where you say, The evidence shows this, do I need to look at views that aren't based on evidence and rely on postulates and assumptions?

In the case of Oxford, you're doing much the same thing as the article writer - it is an appeal to authority: because Oxford published this, it is of value. ("Factual" was indeed a poor choice)

Like most fallacies, it's 100% wrong, as the immensely-popular Hanndbook of Alternative and Complementary Medicine shows. That book is a treatise in favour of sCAM medicine, but is considered worth reading by many people simply because it comes from OUP. SCAMmers use it as a bible and I have no doubt that it is one of the most dangerous books in print.

Not a good analogy at all; The Little Mermaid is an acknowledged piece of fiction. Some/Much of The Bible was written as an historical document. We may disagree over precisely how much was written as history and how much was made up and distorted, but it's not as clean and simple as labeling it entirely fictitious.

I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document.

Which parts do you think fit any version of accepted history? In the OT, I don't know of a single one that even comes close, while bits of the NT are not too far from the mark, but I don't credit the bible as much as early editors who cherry-picked bits they knew were close to recent fact.

I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical.

Please note that I am not arguing against the parables and lessons of the bible; some of them are so good I taunt christians with them. My all-time favourites are christian justification for war or the death penalty - two things I'm reasonably confident Jesus wouldn't vote for.

In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

As for the former, that's actually a good thing! We need more atheists so intimately familiar with the best religious apologetics that they could write some themselves. Knowing your opponent is how you destroy them.

Here, I agree with you entirely, and it's why I know the bible better than almost any christian you'll find outside of the pulpit.

Also, the second point is another strawman; the author's point wasn't to present an argument/case for the historicity of Exodus, but to argue that Hitchens ignored the best cases for its historicity. To argue that merely requires showing that, by golly, Hitchens ignored such arguments, and he did. All I see you doing is trying to defend WHY he ignored such arguments, and I just don't find those excuses valid.

Hey, Hitch was a busy bloke - I can live with him ignoring books he didn't see a need to read and setting fire to the occasional strawman. Do you think there's any irony in seeing the bible as a historical document while berating Hitch for the odd lapse of judgement?

[Drkshadow03]

His postulates are still not evidence, and the overwhelming body of historical and archaeological opinion still says "no Exodus" so I'm happy to stick with it.

From what I can tell from the reviews I read his arguments are based in archaeological, textual, and cultural evidence though. So his arguments are still evidence-driven and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. At least, that is what I discerned from the reviews of the book.

I have nothing against anyone siding with the majority opinion of a discipline. I do, however, take issue with someone refusing to look at counter-evidence in the first place.

To be honest, this argument seems off. Ethics, conscience (which are the words quoted) are not the same as moral. And romans saw crucifying as something horrible and abominable, hence a roman citzen was spared of it. Crassus was not honored for crucifixation either, but for defeating an enemy. Not much different from moderm world, America can throw a enemy body in the sea and be heroic, rebels can take pictures as trophy of Khadaffi body and be heroic and there goes. Specific historical and social moral codes are probally not what we should see as conscience or empathy.

But this doesn't really address the problem. I'm understand conscience as it's being used here to mean that people have "an innate sense of right and wrong." I'm not disagreeing it is possible conscience is innate, but clearly given the many examples of changing moral standards in history and across cultures, the idea must be wrong or there are other factors and variables at play that can drastically modify our so-called "innate sense of right and wrong." As the original article points such a problem is inherent in the critique of religion itself.

Theist: There is no reason to be moral without G-d.
Atheist: A person can be moral without G-d because conscience is innate. However, it is clear from my various cherry-picked examples and anecdotes that religion makes people do bad things and therefore the religious performs immoral actions.

But, of course, if all people are born with "an innate sense of right and wrong" how do we reconcile the idea that religion leads people to ignore their so-called "innate sense of right and wrong" and perform immoral actions.

I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document.

Which parts do you think fit any version of accepted history? In the OT, I don't know of a single one that even comes close, while bits of the NT are not too far from the mark, but I don't credit the bible as much as early editors who cherry-picked bits they knew were close to recent fact.

I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical.

Please note that I am not arguing against the parables and lessons of the bible; some of them are so good I taunt christians with them. My all-time favourites are christian justification for war or the death penalty - two things I'm reasonably confident Jesus wouldn't vote for.

In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

I would think Kings I and II would qualify, Macabees, Ezra, Nehemiah,

Here, I agree with you entirely, and it's why I know the bible better than almost any christian you'll find outside of the pulpit.

I strongly doubt this.

[The Atheist]

From what I can tell from the reviews I read his arguments are based in archaeological, textual, and cultural evidence though. So his arguments are still evidence-driven and suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. At least, that is what I discerned from the reviews of the book.

I have nothing against anyone siding with the majority opinion of a discipline. I do, however, take issue with someone refusing to look at counter-evidence in the first place.

Well, I'm basing my opinion on Hoffmeier on this piece, by an evangelical christian, Peter Enns, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary.

He says:

These scholarly evangelical responses are aimed at defending the historical reliability of Old Testament narratives by demonstrating their plausibility

Enns didn't see any archaeological evidence beyond that, so I'll rely on his view.

As Russell's teapot exemplified, lots of things are plausible, but that doesn't mean we should seriously consider them.

[Ecurb]

The Bible is clearly a historical document (which is not to suggest that it is an ACCURATE historical document). In addition, it clearly constitutes "historical evidence". Witnesses at a trial can give "evidence", and jurors can find that evidence unpersuasive. But there is no reason to ban the Bible for being "irrlevant and immaterial", like some potential trial evidence. We should, instead, accept the evidence for what it is -- a traditional history influenced by Jewish religious concepts and literary styles and traditions. The Bible is not "fiction". Since this is a literary forum, we should be careful in describing literary forms -- just as some posters should avoid writing "book" when they mean "novel", we should avoid calling something "fiction" when it is "myth" or "history" or "biography" or some other literary form.

[JCamilo]

Calling it fiction is not a big problem at all. Genre is irrelevant there, it just means it is a created by man and not a historical chronicle, which can apply to many books of the bible and cannot apply to some others. Most literary techniques ignore the distinction anyhow, truth can be fiction.

But this doesn't really address the problem. I'm understand conscience as it's being used here to mean that people have "an innate sense of right and wrong." I'm not disagreeing it is possible conscience is innate, but clearly given the many examples of changing moral standards in history and across cultures, the idea must be wrong or there are other factors and variables at play that can drastically modify our so-called "innate sense of right and wrong." As the original article points such a problem is inherent in the critique of religion itself.

Theist: There is no reason to be moral without G-d.
Atheist: A person can be moral without G-d because conscience is innate. However, it is clear from my various cherry-picked examples and anecdotes that religion makes people do bad things and therefore the religious performs immoral actions.

But, of course, if all people are born with "an innate sense of right and wrong" how do we reconcile the idea that religion leads people to ignore their so-called "innate sense of right and wrong" and perform immoral actions.

Yes, it is all arguable, but the article is attacking Hitchens for claiming the consicience and then giving an example of Morality (and a false example at all). It is a bit of the same thing he was attacking Hitchens to do. I have no idea how Hitchens develop the theme in this work or another, but the critic in the article is not coherent.

[Ecurb]

Since when are "historical chronicles" not "created by man"? The distinction is relevant because a purported history constitutes "evidence" that the events it recounts really happened, while a work of fiction does not.

By the way, I wrote my Masters thesis on a Hopi "myth" ("oral history") recounting an event in 1620 that was also recorded in written Spanish histories (the Hopi massacred some monks at Old Oraibi Pueblo). The Spanish left written records of the event; the Hopi left an oral literary record (recorded by anthropologists 300 years later). The Hopi stories were influenced by Hopi literary and religious motifs -- although it was also clear that they recounted an event for which there was persuasive corroborating evidence. Doubtless the Spanish written records were also influenced by literary styles and political objectives. However, calling either version "fictional" would misrepresent both the literary style and evidentiary value of the stories.

[JCamilo]

No, War and Peace fiction and have events that happened. The charge of light brigade happened. A Chronicle would just be a register of what happened, not created by human imagination.

Calling fiction would not misrepresent both of them, unless you think fiction = false. Which is something doubtful. Calling bible fiction just means you do not believe it was a register of facts, but rather a register of narratives that were adapted (in this case) by oral tradition. Nothing else.

[The Atheist]

I would think Kings I and II would qualify, Macabees, Ezra, Nehemiah,

Perfect examples of what I mean. The biblical account of Solomon especially seems to be at complete variance with the tiny amount of physical evidence.

Given that some remains of King David's realm have been uncovered, it seems unlikely that the great Solomon, with his enormous palaces and temples would have all but disappeared from the region.

David seems to be a little closer to reality, but still hardly qualifies as a scholarly account of his reign - if indeed he was a king of anything more than a small region of a few thousand people.

Ezra & Nehemia - I see them both as just a load of blarney; which parts do you think have historical relevance?

Certainly some of the characters in the bible did exist, but I don't believe the biblical accounts are anywhere near accurate to the point where they give any kind of genuine historical perspective. It would be like trying to get a picture of modern English life from Harry Potter.

With the Macabees, however, you have me stumped. Are they in the Scottish bible?

I strongly doubt this.

When I first realised god/s were analogous with Santa and the Tooth Fairy as a teenager, I figured it was only reasonable to check the claims made in the bible and I know it pretty well from end to end, plus I've done a fairly in-depth study of the Summa Theologica. You can doubt it as much as you like.

[MorpheusSandman]

However, I do think Hitch wrote the way he did knowingly, because he wanted to be the most anti-religion author and be acknowledged as such. Worked.

Maybe it works with gullible atheists more interested in buying into emotional/passionate rhetoric as opposed to a more rigorous, logical, scientific, or intellectual approach, but then what makes those atheists any different from Christians seeking validation for their beliefs and not really caring about the intellectual/factual integrity of the arguments? As I've said before, I hold atheists to a higher standard, and Hitchens just doesn't reach it. Maybe it "worked," but it probably only "worked" with the types of atheists whom I'd say give atheism a bad name.

In the particular case of the exodus, how many books should he have read?

He could've at least provided a clue that he had read any of them and were aware of the strongest arguments for its historicity, and alternatively aware of the best counter-arguments and evidence.

In the case of Oxford, you're doing much the same thing as the article writer - it is an appeal to authority: because Oxford published this, it is of value... Like most fallacies, it's 100% wrong...

Appeal to Authority is only fallacious in certain circumstances: It's fallacious if one uses it deductively, as in "X said Y, X is authority, so Y is true;" or it's fallacious if the authority isn't an actual authority. However, I don't see either case applies here to the Oxford book. The point about Oxford is that they aren't just going to publish something from Joe Schmo off the street that has no background in the relevant field. Of course reputable publishers publish inaccurate twaddle all the time, but that doesn't mean that we should lump Oxford in with the Go Jesus! Publishing House.

I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document.

History is probably the subject I know the least about, so I'll let others tackle this issue; but my argument would be similar to Ecurb. I don't think it's as simple as calling it either fiction or history.

Hey, Hitch was a busy bloke - I can live with him ignoring books he didn't see a need to read and setting fire to the occasional strawman. Do you think there's any irony in seeing the bible as a historical document while berating Hitch for the odd lapse of judgement?

Hitch was busy, but his job (that he was busy with) required him to write about subjects that he seemed to not know all that much about. William Lane Craig is busy too, but the man knows the subjects he writes/speaks about quite well; far more than most atheists. Anyway, I'd still maintain The Bible is a historical documents of sorts to a certain extent that also contains a tremendous deal of fiction and mythological/religious tradition.

[Drkshadow03]

Perfect examples of what I mean. The biblical account of Solomon especially seems to be at complete variance with the tiny amount of physical evidence.

Given that some remains of King David's realm have been uncovered, it seems unlikely that the great Solomon, with his enormous palaces and temples would have all but disappeared from the region.

David seems to be a little closer to reality, but still hardly qualifies as a scholarly account of his reign - if indeed he was a king of anything more than a small region of a few thousand people.

Ezra & Nehemia - I see them both as just a load of blarney; which parts do you think have historical relevance?

Certainly some of the characters in the bible did exist, but I don't believe the biblical accounts are anywhere near accurate to the point where they give any kind of genuine historical perspective. It would be like trying to get a picture of modern English life from Harry Potter.

With the Macabees, however, you have me stumped. Are they in the Scottish bible?

Well, given that II Kings 25:10 describes the palace being burned to the ground during Zedekiah's reign (presumably the same palace) and there is currently a gigantic mosque on top of where the Temple probably was located (and this constitutes the two major building projects of Solomon's reign) it's not surprising we don't have tons of physical evidence for these building projects during Solomon's reign.

Archaeological evidence has confirmed numerous kings and other personas mentioned in the two Kings narratives, the Babylonian and Assyrian invasions, etc.

As far as Ezra and Nehemiah, do I think Ezra or Nehemiah actually existed? Not sure. However, the narratives tell us about the Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity under Persian rule and I think it gives general sense of what the recovery effort must have been like during that period.

But this is all beside the point. You seem to want an ancient book to match up with 21st standards of history, which is ridiculous. The ancients didn't really write scholarly accounts of history the way we did. As Morpheus writes, "Some/Much of The Bible was written as an historical document. We may disagree over precisely how much was written as history and how much was made up and distorted, but it's not as clean and simple as labeling it entirely fictitious." There is a general historical core to many of these works, with many accurate events, but obviously not perfect accuracy and many distortions too. What does this mean and how is this different from Harry Potter?

Well, often the Bible was our first clue these events actually happened in the first place and was later confirmed by archaeological evidence and extra-biblical records. Then there is the problem of your limited definition of history, by which you seem to mean: mere events or description of facts. Leviticus could be described as an historical document not because it describes factual events, but actual practices of the time. Even Genesis 1, 2, and 3 could be described as historical, not because they describe literal events, but because their themes as literary objects tell us tons about the values of the culture in general and their thoughts about the world.

When I first realised god/s were analogous with Santa and the Tooth Fairy as a teenager, I figured it was only reasonable to check the claims made in the bible and I know it pretty well from end to end, plus I've done a fairly in-depth study of the Summa Theologica. You can doubt it as much as you like.

You may know it pretty well from end to end, but that doesn't demonstrate you know more than most Christians, especially of the evangelical stripe, which is the part I strongly doubted.

[cafolini]

Of course the bible is a historical document. That's all it is that has any value.

[Ecurb]

No, War and Peace fiction and have events that happened. The charge of light brigade happened. A Chronicle would just be a register of what happened, not created by human imagination.

Calling fiction would not misrepresent both of them, unless you think fiction = false. Which is something doubtful. Calling bible fiction just means you do not believe it was a register of facts, but rather a register of narratives that were adapted (in this case) by oral tradition. Nothing else.

My dictionary defines “fiction” as “A division of literature consisting of prose works in narrative form, the characters and incidents of which are derived from the imagination of the author.”

Of course we can define words however we want – but in oral histories the characters and incidents are traditional, and are not derived (or at least not wholly derived) from the imagination of the author. In fact, there is no one author. I’ll grant there are gray areas. However, when critics describe as "fiction" a narrative that native speakers would identify using a word best translated as “history”, they are conflating two separate literary forms. Most modern readers think of the literary genre of “fiction” as comprising novels and short stories (poetry, including The Charge of the Light Brigade, is not generally called “fiction” in standard English).

There’s no point arguing about definitions, however. It’s more important to agree on them. My only point about calling “oral histories” “fiction” is that it seems judgmental and ethnocentric, and appears to be an attempt to beg the question of whether they constitute “historical evidence” by comparing them to novels and short stories that are intentional inventions of a single author. (Most of what I know about Napoleon's invasion of Russia was gleaned from War and Peace -- but that's a whole other can of worms.)

[MorpheusSandman]

Most modern readers think of the literary genre of “fiction” as comprising novels and short stories (poetry, including The Charge of the Light Brigade, is not generally called “fiction” in standard English).

I think you're conflating denotations and connotations. Narrative poetry that's "made up" (like Paradise Lost) would still be considered fiction, it's simply fictional narrative poetry as opposed to fictional narrative prose.