Chris
Perhaps you didn't read the paragraph my remark was a response to, and
perhaps you did not read my whole response, so here it is again:
>SJ
>>And even if the Christian does say "The Bible says it, I believe it.
>Period"
>>what is wrong with that?
>
>Chris
>You mean, aside from the fact that it's unbelievably stupid?
>
>SJ
>>The vast majority of Christians haven't got the
>>ability or training to decide what in the Bible should be accepted and
>>what rejected. In those circumstances, the soundest approach, in the first
>>instance, is to accept it all on face value, and then work at increasing
>one's
>>understanding and resolving difficulties. This is in fact analogous to
what
>>scientists do.
>
>Chris
>No. The soundest approach is not to accept ANY of it initially that one
does
>not already have good reason to believe, and then incrementally accept any
>of the rest of it that stands up to criticism. THIS is in fact analogous to
>what scientists do.
>
>If we had to accept the entirety of every book we come across on face
value,
>which is effectively what you are claiming we should do, we'd have to
>believe so many contradictions, and our minds would be so bogged down in
>internal gibbering, that we would no longer be able to walk, recognize our
>relatives, or visually track moving objects. ;-)
Chris
Which part(s), SPECIFICALLY, of this little homily do you find
objectionable?
If you think that mindlessly taking what some book has to say as all true
and then concerning yourself with evidence and difficulties later is a good
idea, perhaps you might try this little experiment: Replace the implied
reference to the Bible with a reference to Mein Kampf, or the Koran, or
Atlas Shrugged. Jason was talking about the Bible, but I was trying to point
out the GENERAL stupidity of taking a book as THE TRUTH in the way he was
suggesting: "The Bible says it, I believe it. Period" How about: "'Mein
Kampf' says it, I believe it. Period"? Would you go for it if I tried to
excuse this attitude by saying that "Mein Kampf" reveals divine truths WHEN
PROPERLY INTERPRETED? Would you find such an excuse acceptable?
I was not attacking the Bible AT ALL, I was attacking the WILLFUL
mindlessness of the attitude that says: "------ says it, I believe it.
Period" (where ------- is the name of some book). The Bible is just a
collection of ancient writings, WHEN PROPERLY INTERPRETED. It's what people
do with it, how they relate to it, that's often stupid.
Underlying my remarks was the usual: The burden of proof issue. The Bible
makes a mass of positive claims. Therefore, before anyone can rationally
accept it, that massive collection of burdens of proof must be carried, at
least with respect to the basic philosophical claims made. If the potential
believer does not make these demands, then he is abrogating rationality.
Jason was INVERTING the proper basic relation to books and to intellectual
authority in general. One should not START by believing everything they say,
properly interpreted or not. One should start by NOT believing anything they
say that you don't already have good reason to believe, and then judiciously
adding on to what you believe those items in the book that stand up to
critical tests (whether empirical or logical).
THE basic principle of rational belief is to believe all and ONLY what you
have good COGNITIVE reason for believing, and only to the EXTENT that you
have good cognitive reason (the weaker the cognitive basis, the weaker the
belief should be). By inverting this principle, Jason was saying, in effect,
"Believe everything your favorite book says, and then concern yourself with
truth, proof, and reality later." I should think the stupidity of this
approach to life would be obvious, REGARDLESS of what book was involved. Was
it not so obvious?