God is not (so bad after all)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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 Leviticus could be described as an historical document not because it describes factual events, but actual practices of the time.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.

---

Exactly. In addition, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is a work of "history", not a work of "fiction", even though some of the incidents it recounts are no longer considered factual. The only reason people look for "physical evidence" either substantiating or refuting biblical accounts is that they are basing their research on the "historical evidence" provided by the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.

---

You're probably right. It's not really important -- although I continue to think that one motivation for calling a work "fictional" is to suggest it is "made up", like novels and short stories (or fictional poems).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

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.”

---

Ok, but for example, Merriam-webster says:

Definition of FICTION

1
a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)
c : a work of fiction; especially : novel
2
a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>
b : a useful illusion or pretense
3
: the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

Curious to find the definition i gave to you is exactly in the first line.

Quote:

---

Of course we can define words however we want

---

No, we cannot. That is when you say "my" dictionary we have a limited or even wrong definition. It is not a Humpty Dumpty thing.

Quote:

---

– 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.

---

If there is no author, how you claim the derivation of the creation? Also, the author is basically unknow, not inexistent and in oral stories they obviously added a lot at some point. It is necessary a lot of imagination to derive a wolf talking with a kid, a woman turning in a salt statue for looking back, a sailor lost in home for 10 years and this is all oral tradition. Also, fiction can be derivated from real circustances, in fact, one of th original meaning of fiction came from legal procedure when they spectulate about the possibilities in case.

Quote:

---

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).

---

Fiction is hardly a form, modern critics would not bother much with the marketing genre. Most critics also know novels and short stories can come in verse, so they would not bother to came with a definition to restrict it form, even considering the term is not applied only to literature. Most critics would also consider lots of books of the bible as fictional narratives. (Which would still make the bible a historical document, btw, as the definition of historical document is hardly as something that tell the real story of that but rather something that represents the society of that time)

Quote:

---

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.)

---

Again, Fiction is only offensive if you are translating to "Lies" and not to: work of imagination. I worked years with oral storytellers and they have a lot o ironic coments about "Make to believe" such as "i never told a lie that wasn't true", which indicates they pretty much know the fine line about being feinged and lying, meaning, fictional and false as two different things.

I repeat, calling the bible fiction is not a problem at all, biblical literalism is the only affected by it and either way, literalism is an awful way to read it.

Merriam Webster clearly suggests that "fiction" is used to describe "novels or short stories" (definition b), "novels" (definition c).

I don't believe that the authors of the bible would admit to "inventing by the imagination" their stories. Would Gibbon have been offended if "Decline and Fall" were called a work of "fiction"? Probably.

Obviously, there are many forms of oral storytelling. Some might be called (in English) fables; others myths; others riddles; others fairy tales, others something else. Oral storytellers often tell fictional tales. Let me ask you: do you think the authors (storytellers) should be able to define their own works? If the storyteller claims that the story is "historical", is that significant to how we categorize it? Calling a work "fiction" is disrespectful to the storyteller who claims it is not fiction (i.e. not "invented by the imagination"). By calling the story "fictional", you are calling the storyteller a liar. Perhaps the storyteller is a liar, but the truth or falsehood of the story is not what determines whether the storyteller is lying. Instead, the story teller is lying if he intentionally invents an imaginary story, and then claims the story is "non-fictional". If the historian tries to write an accurate history, he is not writing "fiction" simply because his history is factually incorrect.

My only point is that calling a religious document "fictional" suggests something more insulting than calling it "innaccurate" or "historically incorrect"; it suggests that it was INTENTIONALLY "invented by the imagination or feigned".

So it's like a history textbook with some errors in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.

---

Aha, now I see your problem - you just don't really understand the meaning of the word "atheist".

Atheists have but one thing in common: a lack of belief in god. They includes Buddhists, people who follow David Icke's insane teachings, many "new age" bleevers that accept psi and paranormal forces as real, and people who claim to be atheists while actually hating god - a contradiction. Lots of them give atheists a bad name. In fact, it might be why atheists are the most-despised group in USA, but then again, that may just be fear.

Believe it or not, I used to think the same way - that atheists have a responsibility to display rationality, common sense and critical thinking.

I grew out of it eventually.

(You may like to note that I have never read any of Hitch's books, let alone bought one. In fact, I haven't ever even touched one, and I'm pretty sure that I've never seen an actual hard copy of one.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.

---

Being the obsessive type he was, I suspect that he didn't do that, because once he started, he would never have stopped. How far should he have read? How many books are worth reading on the subject?

I think you're making a mistake in seeing Hitch as an intellectual, for starters. He was a street-fighter with a bottle in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

I'm not going to agree with everything he said, but I can't hold him accountable to the same standards as Dawkins. The comment before that someone quoted about forgiving Dawkins because he's only a biologist made me laugh. If anything, people should forgive Hitch because he was only a journo, while Dawkins - especially as the Simonyi Chair - really did have a responsibility not to make stupid errors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.

---

Unfortunately, the authority appealed to in this case is somewhat dubious, so I'm pretty confident it fits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

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.

---

Fair enough. In return, I'll change the statement I made to "reliable historical document" because plain historical document applies to many works of complete fiction as well and the bible has a place in history, it's just not a history textbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

... it's not surprising we don't have tons of physical evidence for these building projects during Solomon's reign.

---

I think you'll find it's not a question of not having tons of evidence, it's the case that there is almost none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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

---

Even Clive Cussler uses facts in his fiction. My point is that the history in the bible can be shown to be fatally flawed, therefore the bits that relate to reality are not reliable at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

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.

---

Funny you should mention fundies, because I destroyed one in a televised debate on the bible about 25 years ago, and he was actually a bible teacher at a christian high school.

Also, note that fundies are only a tiny percentage of christians, although the publicity they garner may make it look the other way round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

So it's like a history textbook with some errors in?

---

Mythologies are narrative accounts purporting to be an accurate representation of some group’s past. So are history textbooks. We believe history textbooks are accurate and mythologies are not, although both are probably correct about some things, and incorrect about others. Mythologies are more fun to read, generally.

Quote:

---

The Atheist: Funny you should mention fundies, because I destroyed one in a televised debate on the bible about 25 years ago, and he was actually a bible teacher at a christian high school

---

.

“History”, “fiction”, “myth” or “delusion”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Merriam Webster clearly suggests that "fiction" is used to describe "novels or short stories" (definition b), "novels" (definition c).

---

And? You now choose the part that applies to your argument and ignore other? Inst exactly that the author of the essays is accusing Hitchens? Anyone reading the dictionary entry know you cannot claim fiction is just what you claim to be and that calling the bible fiction as i defined is not a problem.

Quote:

---

I don't believe that the authors of the bible would admit to "inventing by the imagination" their stories. Would Gibbon have been offended if "Decline and Fall" were called a work of "fiction"? Probably.

---

I do not believe you are comparing Gibbon to an author of oral tradition, are you? Two completely different process of production. (Reggarding specific books)

Quote:

---

Obviously, there are many forms of oral storytelling. Some might be called (in English) fables; others myths; others riddles; others fairy tales, others something else. Oral storytellers often tell fictional tales. Let me ask you: do you think the authors (storytellers) should be able to define their own works? If the storyteller claims that the story is "historical", is that significant to how we categorize it? Calling a work "fiction" is disrespectful to the storyteller who claims it is not fiction (i.e. not "invented by the imagination"). By calling the story "fictional", you are calling the storyteller a liar.

---

No, I am not. Calling a product of imagination is not the same as lying. Do you call Herman Meliville a liar?

Quote:

---

Perhaps the storyteller is a liar, but the truth or falsehood of the story is not what determines whether the storyteller is lying. Instead, the story teller is lying if he intentionally invents an imaginary story, and then claims the story is "non-fictional". If the historian tries to write an accurate history, he is not writing "fiction" simply because his history is factually incorrect.

---

Except, there is no such disctinction. Usually, a traditonal storyteller credibility do not come from the story itself, either it happened or not, because all is true, but came from the manifestation of the story, i.o.w., the storytelling itself. Often a storyteller will create the appeal to illusion even claiming it happened with a friend of a friend or other similar formula and this is used for a fantastic story or some anedocte.

Quote:

---

My only point is that calling a religious document "fictional" suggests something more insulting than calling it "innaccurate" or "historically incorrect"; it suggests that it was INTENTIONALLY "invented by the imagination or feigned".

---

So, that is why it is fictional, someone had to invent a garden of eden allegory. It is hilarious, so it is historically incorrect (lets say) that Moses existed, then how there is a Moses history? Obviously if it is not what really happened, someone made it up. If Solomon was a king, but nowhere as rich as suggested, so how those details came to the register? God sent and Angel with the mission to make stories more funny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think you'll find it's not a question of not having tons of evidence, it's the case that there is almost none.

---

As I already pointed out, the palace burned down and the temple burned down during the Babylonian siege. So why should we expect to find a palace as evidence if it's gone? Fairly recent archaeological explorations are finding more and more evidence each day that David's kingdom may have been more expansive and possibly for various artifacts mentioned in Solomon: Link, Link, link, and this is hardly an exhaustive list.

Quote:

---

Even Clive Cussler uses facts in his fiction. My point is that the history in the bible can be shown to be fatally flawed, therefore the bits that relate to reality are not reliable at all.

---

You're just merely restating your conclusion, which isn't evidence or a rebuttal. Much of the history has been shown to be reliable and even when certain details have been shown to be questionable, the general gist tends to be accurate. As already noted, nobody, at least in this discussion, is claiming the Bible should be read as an historical textbook.

Quote:

---

Funny you should mention fundies, because I destroyed one in a televised debate on the bible about 25 years ago, and he was actually a bible teacher at a christian high school.

Also, note that fundies are only a tiny percentage of christians, although the publicity they garner may make it look the other way round.

---

I find this hard to believe as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Aha, now I see your problem - you just don't really understand the meaning of the word "atheist".

---

I understand the meaning of the word atheist just fine. Just because I hold atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I don't understand the word. To me, the rejection of God should be the first step on a journey towards bettering ourselves as human beings, especially on a rational, cognitive level. If you're going to reject God but hold on to all of the other reality distorting biases that lead others to believe in the supernatural and God to begin with, then I'm not going to respect you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I grew out of it eventually.

---

So what made you grow out of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Being the obsessive type he was, I suspect that he didn't do that, because once he started, he would never have stopped. How far should he have read? How many books are worth reading on the subject?

---

To me, if you're going to write about a subject you should at least display a certain level of knowledge on that subject. How far should he have read? At least as far as William Lane Craig reads on the scientific subjects he writes about when arguing the case for theism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think you're making a mistake in seeing Hitch as an intellectual, for starters. He was a street-fighter with a bottle in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

---

He was undeniably a public intellectual in the traditional sense of the term. The fact that many public intellectuals aren't all that intellectually formidable (probably Hitchens included) is another matter entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The comment before that someone quoted about forgiving Dawkins because he's only a biologist made me laugh. If anything, people should forgive Hitch because he was only a journo, while Dawkins - especially as the Simonyi Chair - really did have a responsibility not to make stupid errors.

---

Well, I'm the one that said that, but I think you misunderstood. What I meant about "forgiving Dawkins" is that Dawkins devoted his life to evolutionary biology. His "philosophy" follows from his knowledge of that field. He didn't spend his life studying philosophy just to be able to debate theists on these issues. If there is a question about evolutionary biology I think we could rely on Dawkins to answer it accurately. However, contrary to Dawkins, Hitchens WAS a public intellectual whose job it was to be informed on the matters he debated about. He didn't have a full-time as a scientist to occupy him with like Dawkins and Krauss. I mean, I could forgive him not being as informed as Dennett, as Dennett is a professional philosopher, but I can't forgive him for not being as informed as, eg, the writer of the OP's article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

it's just not a history textbook.

---

Yeah, but it's not like we have any historical textbooks from back then. Most historians take whatever they can get that will give them clues.

MorpheusSandman, you are delusional. You don't have the power to forgive any thing, or any one, not even yourself. May the Grace of God make you aware of this.

There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

As I already pointed out, the palace burned down and the temple burned down during the Babylonian siege. So why should we expect to find a palace as evidence if it's gone? Fairly recent archaeological explorations are finding more and more evidence each day that David's kingdom may have been more expansive and possibly for various artifacts mentioned in Solomon: Link, Link, link, and this is hardly an exhaustive list.

---

Ok, let's assume the temples and palaces existed in the form stated.

Given we know for sure that an extraordinary amount of the OT is pure bunkum - Noah, Moses, Exodus, Lot, Sodom, Jonah, ... it's quite reasonable to look at Kings as just as much myth as the other books. Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Much of the history has been shown to be reliable and even when certain details have been shown to be questionable, the general gist tends to be accurate.

---

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because from the iron chariots to Job to Jonah, all I see is contradictory flim-flam. Call it allegory by all means, but I can't accept any kind of claim for accuracy without substantial evidence. That does not - and I'm sure will never - exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I find this hard to believe as well.

---

That fundies are a tiny percentage of christians? You should know better than that.

As to the former, I don't care whether you believe it or not. I know what happened, as I was there at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.

---

Also the notion of true, fact, are quite different. The use of imagination would not make something less truthful, the force of "take my word" was strong enough to give credibility, etc. Anyways, today, we can easily see people used imagination to enrich the narratives, it is not just adding a giant people in the promissed land, is about making it is also needed imagination to give it an interesting literary form. The Bible is not dry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

I understand the meaning of the word atheist just fine. Just because I hold atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I don't understand the word. To me, the rejection of God should be the first step on a journey towards bettering ourselves as human beings, especially on a rational, cognitive level. If you're going to reject God but hold on to all of the other reality distorting biases that lead others to believe in the supernatural and God to begin with, then I'm not going to respect you.

---

Rationalist atheists will always be a minority of all atheists, so you can only ever be disappointed if you think like that. You seem to be incorrectly conflating atheists with humanists.

The fact of "rejecting" god disturbs me as well. What is there to reject? I never rejected god in any way as I was never a believer, and the idea of rejection implies that there is something to reject, when there isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

So what made you grow out of it?

---

When I realised that atheism simply means: a=without, theos=god.

The position you're in reminds me of Douglas Adams, who used to call himself a "radical atheist" to separate himself from other atheists who believe all sorts of crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

He was undeniably a public intellectual in the traditional sense of the term. The fact that many public intellectuals aren't all that intellectually formidable (probably Hitchens included) is another matter entirely.

---

I don't think Hitch qualifies in any way.

From your Wikipedia link:

Public intellectual is a common term for an intellectual (a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity) engaged in public rather than (or as well as) academic or other professional discourse.

Regardless of the field of expertise, as a public intellectual, one is addressing and responding to the problems of his or her society and thus such an individual is expected to "rise above the partial preoccupation of one’s own profession... and engage with the global issues of truth, judgement, and taste of the time.

I don't see Hitch in that at all. The whole argument here is that Hitch didn't act in an intellectual manner, and that on its own would mean that he wasn't an intellectual.

You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Well, I'm the one that said that, but I think you misunderstood.

---

No I understood fine, I just disagree with you. Once he was appointed the Simonyi Chair, Dawkins was no longer a scientist, but a true public intellectual - that's what he was being paid for, so opening his mouth without doing the research was unforgivable, but he kept doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Yeah, but it's not like we have any historical textbooks from back then. Most historians take whatever they can get that will give them clues.

---

We have almost no written records from many parts of earth's history, but we know lots about them because physical evidence exists.

I think you've raised a good point though - the bible does give a few clues, but we've been able to discern from evidence gained since that it was mostly mythical. It's a bit like early Wikipedia; right some of the time, wrong lots of the time, with the rest based on reality, but unreliable.