Well, John. That's quite a lengthy reply. I’m pleased and flattered that you would write such a long reponse. Now, let me dismantle what you wrote by singling out some choice sentences of yours. Sorry if this will seem like “cherry-picking” to you, but I hope to not quote you out of context.
“It is a beautifully woven set of stories that draw from the stories of its time.” In other words, Genesis is a species of literature. It’s fiction. It’s story-telling, which means that elements within are drawn from the imaginative capacities of the men who wrote it. “Adam & Eve”? Pure fiction in exactly the same way Goldilocks and the Three Bears is fiction. Genesis might be entertaining, it might be amusing, it might even be poetic (fans of the KJV will surely agree, as does Richard Dawkins), but this story of how humans came to be has nothing to do with reality. Remember, my “narrow” focus in going after religion rests with one broad idea: Christianity and all other religions (but Christianity was my focus) make claims about the world and the universe that are not true. If you feel there’s poetic and literary power behind these stories, fine. Have at it. You’re not alone. I’m only saying that these stories have nothing to do with how the world and universe works.
“The typical Christian view is that God has inspired these stories so we can be introduced to ourselves and why things are as they are.” That may indeed be the Christian, but let me say unequivocally that this view is rooted in a delusion. No “God” inspired these stories. The inspiration for these stories is rooted in the limited (though creative) faculties of those who invented them.
“And God is the main character in the story.” Excellent! That’s beautiful! You got it! “God” is a character in a story in exactly the same way that “Sherlock Holmes” is a character in the stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Perfect.
“There is nothing necessarily ‘unreasonable’ about this in the context of its time.” Yes, I agree. Similar to what I wrote about, the many writers who contributed to the Bible were working and thinking from an extremely limited vantage point. Of course people once thought that “demonic possession” was the cause of certain maladies. Is this any surprise in a world where super-natural thinking pervaded nearly all thought? (I do like adding that hyphen as a way to denote the distinction between was is seen and observed and experienced in the natural world from those that are imagined.) Yes, our epistemology changes. Is xyz disease caused by a demon? No, it is not. We learn, and then we throw away (we hope) ideas that no longer work. This is similar to discarding ideas about the natural world such as alchemy and phlogiston.
“God did it” is not foolish in the context of a pre-modern epistemology; it is perfectly reasonable. Barry is assuming a static epistemology — which is probably where the foolishness is to be found.” No, I’m not embracing a static epistemology. I am noting how people once thought something and then through the acquisition of new information, we then change our minds and become smarter as a result. See the above paragraph.
“He assumes, however, that there is a ‘natural’ answer to that question [about the Big Bang] that is discoverable. Well, sure. Why not? I assume there’s a natural answer because everything we currently do know about the nature of the world and the universe has a natural answer. What caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows. But our current ignorance on this matter does not or should not give us intellectual license to assume there’s a non-natural answer to this or anything else that we currently don’t understand. Sam Harris’s challenge remains unchallenged: “I challenge you to think of a question upon which we had a scientific answers, however inadequate [such as alchemy and phlogiston], but for which now the best answer is a religious one.” Science, reason, and logic have done a tremendous job in figuring many things out about the world that are true and valid. That humanity is stumped on some things — how the mind “emerges” from the brain is another — doesn’t mean the answer is a religious that we have yet to unveil. Somewhere in Colin McGinn’s excellent book The Mysterious Flame (I reviewed the book twenty years ago), McGinn says something to that effect that certain “ultimate” mysteries may remain unsolvable because humans are fundamentally ill-equipped to solve them. That sounds reasonable — but it doesn’t follow there’s a religious answer “beyond” our human capacities to understand something.
“What we can induce from centuries of scientific discovery is that for every mystery previously explained by religion that is later explained by science, the scientific explanation provokes more questions — it makes us aware of more mysteries.” Yes, except that religion has never explained anything. See the Harris challenge above.
“If there are other forms of ‘life’ elsewhere in the universe created by God…” Why the quotation marks around that four-letter word? And what is the “created by God” all about? There is no evidence that a god of any stripe created anything. You’re simply referring to your belief — and unevidenced beliefs (of this stripe anyway) are of no interest to me.
“Now if you study the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation…” Study? There is nothing to study. I know all about the ludicrous decree made at the Council of Trent, and I can tell you this with one hundred percent certainty: An admixture of flour and water that is baked, cooled, and then eaten by humans in a ceremonial fashion is… an admixture of flour and water that is baked, cooled, and then eaten by humans in a ceremonial fashion. There’s nothing more to say on this except to say that “Transubstantiation” is most of the most inane ideas ever confected by humanity.
“In light of Aristotelian metaphysics, the claim [that talking to water changes the water] is perfectly reasonable.” Sorry, but that’s nothing but more hilarity from you. “Aristotelian metaphysics” has nothing of importance to say on this matter — called water. Water is water. Again, what would be the method to determine the distinction between ordinary water and “holy” water? As I wrote, no such distinction is possible; hence “holy” water is a fiction.
“Barry’s understanding is also inhibited by a lack of awareness of the whole Christian tradition, specifically of Eastern Orthodoxy.” You go on to write about the “mystery” about the Eucharist. Let me help you: There is no “mystery.” The ideas that people associate with the “Eucharist” are rooted in make-believe. I felt compelled to italicize that last bit to make sure you don’t miss it.
“Barry draws a relatively poor caricature of the Judeo-Christian idea of morality that really only resembles a highly literalist/fundamentalist view to define theism.” You missed my central point. It is this: There is no reason to discuss any religion when it comes to understanding the nature of our moral impulses. Talk about justice. Talk about fairness. Have that discussion. But my point concerned the source and origination of our moral impulses. Sure, some seers or secular philosophers in later centuries added to or elaborated on what it means to be moral and ethical and what constitutes justice and fairness, and so on. But my central point is that our capacity to be moral has nothing to do with the alleged existence of a Celestial Being handing down to humanity certain precepts that we must follow. (On this point, Christopher Hitchens’s Ten Commandments are superior.)
“[I]f you choose materialism, then you really cannot explain how ‘survival of the fittest’ fits in with an awareness ‘of the effects of behavior on other sentient beings’.” Yes, I can. Altruism, for example, can indeed be explained by evolution by natural selection. For the broader issues at stake here, I suggested a road map: The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. Read it.
“Barry is wrong, however, when he claims there to be no evidence that this arises from theism.” I am not wrong. To clarify and to revisit what I wrote above: A belief in God (theism) may have provided some embellishments and elaborations to our understanding of what it means to be moral. I wouldn’t deny that. What I am saying is that theism does not explain the cause of our moral proclivities. Once again: Read The Moral Animal to get a broad overview and understanding of the root cause of our moral impulses. There are several texts available that discuss this issue, but I always turn to Wright’s book because it is such a wonderfully written introduction to the subject.
“It means morality is a pattern by which the living world around us arranges life successfully.” How secular of you! Very good. That you would write this sentence suggests to me you have some dormant understanding of why humans (and other animals) have moral sensibilities.
“Ontologically most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe ‘life’ comes into existence at the point of conception.” I have no interest in what Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe about life coming into existence. Why? Because a discussion of how life comes into existence that is predicated on what religious “authorities” say (believe) is of no interest to me. I should take “me” out of the equation: What Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe about life coming into existence should, in a rational world, be of no interest to anyone.
“To ascribe the natural loss of the blastocyst as a ‘killing’ done by God is a remarkably foolish conflation of what happens in nature with what is intended by God.” Nope. There’s nothing foolish there at all. The only thing foolish here is the impulse for theists to haul in “God” as an explanation for how life begins and how it may end in utero. I have nothing else to say about abortion except to say the obvious: It’s none of your business — that is, if you’re a male. Wait, I do have something more to say about abortion. I elaborated on the issue here.
“The logic of the Flood…” That’s a funny thing to write. I didn’t know that there was any logic behind any flood, Biblical or otherwise. By the way, while I’m here, I hope you do understand that the idea of a worldwide flood is nonsense. Yes? Good. I’m glad we at least agree on that detail.
“Personally, understanding the larger story our Bible tells us as a story of God’s intentions…” Sure, from a vantage of point of “deciphering fiction” (sussing out themes and whatnot), I’m sure this is acceptable, that is, within the narrative fictional confines of The God Story (I gave those three words initial caps to bring some heft to what theists believe).
“Genealogy of redemption” is another empty but funny phrase that only a theist could imagine. The phrase presupposes the existence of something that is called “sin.” Let me help you out here: There are bad, wrong, and immoral behaviors and actions that occur in this world, but there is no such thing as “sin,” which is just another term in a string of relentless religious fictions that theists love to attach to human behavior.
“Again he is missing the distinction between ontology and theology.” Ah, you’re so charming to haul out theology, as if the theology has anything important to say about anything. One of my favorite quotes about theology comes from Sam Harris: “The history of theology is the history of bookish men parsing a collectively delusion.” Exactly. Now, if any theologian happens to take a side detour into an issue that is utterly secular, that’s fine, but once they get back on the main road to discuss “God,” delusion is back behind the steering wheel (that last clause about the steering wheel is a bit awkward or maybe strained, but I’m keeping it in cuz it’s fun).
“It was an effort to determine what all Christians agreed on.” Well, sure. But that’s like saying that devotees of Tolkien’s sprawling novels require an “agreement” on what fans of the work believe, that is, in determining what this or that theme really means. I have zero interest in understanding what early Christians wanted to believe when it comes to saving this or that text in order to decide what’s canonical (or not).
“The theologies we find in the earliest stories merely imagine ‘Sheol’ — a place separated from the presence of God, which would have been recognized as being in the temple.” Have you noticed that “separation from God” has become the new go-to phrase to replace “Hell”? Seems that “eternal torment” — another phrase that some Christians are busy trying to erase from the theological lexicon — is also too stark, too offensive. Me, I’m forever amused by all of this talk about “sin” and “being saved” and “separation from God.”
“Jesus engages the literary imagination of his day.” Well, that’s helpful. No, I’m not being snarky. I’m serious. If you’re saying Jesus only engaged in the tools and methodologies of narrative fiction to get his points across, great! Have at it, Jesus! Humanity has always loved stories and we always will. Some exist as mere entertainment (a thriller, for example), some suggest some moral principles that we might want to follow. Whatever, as the kids like to say. It’s all fiction. It’s all literature. But here’s a question that could have been an eleventh question. Why are so many believers literal-minded when it comes to believing certain things in the Bible? Why does anyone believe in a literal “Adam & Eve”? Why do many people believe that Earth is only ten thousand years old (or younger)? Why do some believers think the Jonah story is about something that really happened? Ditto Noah and his stupid ark. Why do some believers believe in “angels”? Angels! Wow.
See, you and others may come at me and say that I’m foolish to focus on certain things in the Bible as being literally true. “Barry, stop it with your literal takes on Biblical stories! You’re such a fundamentalist atheist!” Whoa, Nelly. It’s not me you want to stop. It’s the millions of people who truly believe in the supernatural non-sense of the Bible that you want to “stop” (for want of a better word). (That’s another deliberate hyphen in that previous sentence for emphasis.) You may complain that it’s shame that certain believers take this or that literally. Fine. But to complain about people being literal misses the point: Why is anyone on the planet taking these stories literally? That’s what fascinates me. Once again and I can’t underscore this enough: Millions of people really do believe that there was a first human male and a first human female that was “created” by a cosmic snap of a finger, so to speak, by some Unseen Celestial Being. Incredible, isn’t it? So ponder this for a while, and as you do consider this: Once you come to your senses and realize that Adam & Eve never existed, the entire corpus of Christianity crashes to the ground. Think I’m mistaken? I am not. Without Adam & Eve, there is no Garden of Eden. With no Garden of Eden and a ludicrous talking snake there is no “Original Sin,” and with no “Original Sin” in the world… well, you should be able to figure out the rest.
I’ve never read The Screwtape Letters, so thanks for that. I’d be open to reading it for its satirical qualities, but I will always pass on Mere Christianity, thank you very much (though I suppose I could read that for some horse laughs).
“This one [my tenth question] is so easy I am almost embarrassed.” Sorry, John. The embarrassment is all yours. Why? It’s because you launch into a disquisition of the “meaning” of “Adam,” of the “meaning” of “Satan” and the “serpent.” Look at what you wrote: “The serpent then says the command was given because God wanted to withhold something from humanity — that knowledge of good and evil.” Wow! How is that you don’t see that your analysis here is akin to analyzing a Charles Dickens novel? The difference between a fan of Dickens and a fan of the Bible, is that Dickens fans know they are dealing with a make-believe universe! Theists? With the most incredible degree of gullibility, they go on and on with utmost seriousness, as if any analysis about “Satan” and a talking snake (!) has anything to do with the real world. Is this sad or pathetic? Both, I guess.
Your “The way to know whether Satan is pretending to be God is amusingly simple” is somewhat amusing for its naive charm, but it’s also sad because it tells me that you are deep in the rabbit hole of belief. Oh, John. Give this all a rest. Be utterly and totally secular in your outlook in life. Carl Sagan did it. Oliver Sacks did it. Douglas Adams did it. Ricky Gervais does it. And if you do it, more satisfaction and gratification in life will come your way. Guaranteed.
Anything else?
