Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[PRmerger]

How should atheists approach reading the Bible?

In the same way that Catholics do.

The first thing we have to do is wipe any sneers off our faces. Guys of the [Bill] Maher school of biblical criticism imagine they are being hard-headed thinkers when they reflexively reject the possibility of the miraculous.–How Catholics Understand the Bible

 

[minkymurph]

Yes.

Dei Verbum professes these guidelines when reading Holy Writ:

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”;
2. Read the Scripture within “the living tradition of the whole Church”; and,
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.

Thank you PR for providing these authoritative resources as endorsement.

 

[minkymurph]

How should atheists approach reading the Bible?

In the same way that Catholics do.

I totally agree.

The reasonable, educated atheist will approach reading the Bible in the same way as the reasonable, educated Catholic. They will not draw the same conclusions, but their approach will be synonymous.

The radical atheist will approach Scripture in the same way as a fundamentalist. Unlike the fundamentalist Christian not on the assumption the Bible is truth, but on the assumption all Christians are compelled to read it literally. If they do not they are accused of all sorts of things in the absence of any justification for the accusation. If that is not fundamentalism, I don’t know what is other than the term ‘fundamentalist’ only applies to religious fundamentalism which will not withstand scrutiny.

 

[PRmerger]

I totally agree.

The reasonable, educated atheist will approach reading the Bible in the same way as the reasonable, educated Catholic. They will not draw the same conclusions, but their approach will be synonymous.

The radical atheist will approach Scripture in the same way as a fundamentalist. Unlike the fundamentalist Christian not on the assumption the Bible is truth, but on the assumption all Christians are compelled to read it literally. If they do not they are accused of all sorts of things in the absence of any justification for the accusation. If that is not fundamentalism, I don’t know what is other than the term ‘fundamentalist’ only applies to religious fundamentalism which will not withstand scrutiny.

Yes.

And every educated atheist ought to know that the Church saying that Genesis uses allegory and poetry and mythic language is NOTHING NEW.

The Church has taught this from the very beginning.

St. Augustine, St. Jerome…

“So, for instance, Jerome—the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity—tells us that the creation story is written “after the manner of a popular poet” or, as we say today, in mythic language. This is a shock to the Mahers of the world, who just knew from listening to other like-minded Mahers of the world that ancient Christians all took every syllable of Genesis literalistically.”–Mark Shea, ibid

 

[minkymurph]

Yes.

And every educated atheist ought to know that the Church saying that Genesis uses allegory and poetry and mythic language is NOTHING NEW.

The Church has taught this from the very beginning.

St. Augustine, St. Jerome…

“So, for instance, Jerome—the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity—tells us that the creation story is written “after the manner of a popular poet” or, as we say today, in mythic language. This is a shock to the Mahers of the world, who just knew from listening to other like-minded Mahers of the world that ancient Christians all took every syllable of Genesis literalistically.”–Mark Shea, ibid

I listened to a radio broadcast in my part of the world recently. Richard Dawkins was the guest. In the course of discussion he said the Pope excepts evolution. Obviously the Catholic approach to evolution is not the Richard Dawkins approach to evolution, but the fact remains radical atheists claim Catholics are not permitted to accept evolution at all, or are confuse about it, yet we have Richard Dawkins saying this is not the case. Thus, on what is the radical atheist Catholics are compelled to reject evolution outright and read the Genesis accounts of creation literally founded? Answer - they demand a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture from Catholics in the belief this is how Catholics should read the Bible, even though evidence and their reason demands otherwise - yet we are the ones accused of intellectual dishonesty.

To give Richard Dawkins his due he cannot be accused of making assumptions. Catholics obviously disagree with what he says, but it cannot be said he is unintelligent, uninformed, or lacks the capacity to articulate sound argument. It does not follow just because someone is an atheist persuaded by his arguments they are capable of the same. In fact, I would argue the radical, uneducated atheist does exactly what the religious fundamentalist does - repeat what those they revere on the basis of their perceived authority say.

 

[PRmerger]

To give Richard Dawkins his due he cannot be accused of making assumptions. Catholics obviously disagree with what he says, but it cannot be said he is unintelligent, uninformed, or lacks the capacity to articulate sound argument…

Agree with the fact that he is intelligent.

Vehemently disagree that he is informed on Catholicism, philosophy, and the classical arguments for God’s existence.

 

[minkymurph]

Agree with the fact that he is intelligent.

Vehemently disagree that he is informed on Catholicism, philosophy, and the classical arguments for God’s existence.

Probably not.

I don’t think he is uninformed on Catholicism. Not as informed as Catholics - obviously- yet may well think he is. But not uninformed and many radical atheists are completely uninformed. That said, they don’t want to be. Suffice Catholicism is wrong - end of.

I don’t think Richard Dawkins has sufficient interest in philosophy or classical arguments for the existence of God to become informed. Even if he did become informed he would discount such arguments, just as the radical atheist would in veneration of Dawkins superior knowledge - synonymous with fundamentalism. Follow the leader whom we revere no matter what he says he must be right as he is so educated and intelligent. The radical atheist denies they do this but they do. Arguments they present are not of their own orientation but a reiteration of what someone they revere has said. I would not criticize them for this - we all do it. What I would criticize them for is the claim they have thought for themselves. They have not. They are repeat what someone else has said on the ground they like what they say. They claim it is based on ‘evidence,’ but only evidence that support the preferred hypothesis. Evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis should be discounted as not evidence.

How easy it is to critique another’s arguments in the absence of an obligation to support your own. How easy it is to make disparaging remarks about another’s arguments, and offer nothing else in return but your argument is flawed for this reason.

I’d like to present an argument to the radical atheist. I will do so on another thread.

 

[minkymurph]

New thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1055583

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think Richard Dawkins has sufficient interest in philosophy or classical arguments for the existence of God to become informed.

Indeed.

He is a biologist, whose specialty is studying creatures like wasps.

I would no more go to him for his expertise in religion than I would go to Mother Angelica for her opinion on the breeding habits of termites.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Your definition of ‘very few’ is different to mine. Especially when it runs into the scores of millions in just America. Sixty percent, Christine. Sixty percent believe they went in two by two. That’s an awful lot of fundamentalists.

washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

But you can take some consolation that only 40% of Catholics can be described as such.

The Washington Times - Monday, February 16, 2004 – 14 YEARS AGO BTW!

The poll, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted Feb. 6 to 10 among 1,011 adults.

…

The levels of belief in the stories, however, differed among Christians.
The poll found that 75 percent of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account and 73 percent in Noah and the ark.
Among evangelical Protestants, those figures were 87 percent, 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Among Catholics, they were 51 percent, 50 percent and 44 percent.
The stories still proved somewhat compelling among those who had “no religion.” A quarter said they believed in Creation, almost a third said Moses parted the Red Sea, and 29 percent believe in Noah.

So poll surveyed about 1000 people 14 years ago and did not define “believe” - a vague word so much so that “no religion” folks were able to answer they also “believe” to higher level than anyone would consider reliable.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So poll surveyed about 1000 people 14 years ago and did not define “believe” - a vague word so much so that “no religion” folks were able to answer they also “believe” to higher level than anyone would consider reliable.

Thanks! Polls are not good for anything! They have tiny samples, usually are done by land line phone, and have “margin of error”. I never answer my land line phone to someone I don’t know, and I don’t think I am in the minority (although we could take a poll, I guess.) Most people have cell phones today, and polls, so far, are not conducted by cell phones.

 

[PRmerger]

and I don’t think I am in the minority (although we could take a poll, I guess.).

 

[Bradski]

My how our number change Bradski. In post 11 you claimed 40% of Catholics were fundamentalists. Now you are down to 21%. Maybe in a few more posts it will be 10%?
How accurate!

You have to read what is being polled. The first asked only if you believed in various stories told in Genesis. And we were specifically discussing the flood:

And you just proved my point that Atheists are just as fundamentalist in their reading of Christian scripture as Christian fundamentalist are. After all…only atheists and Christian fundamentalist read the story of Noah’s ark as an historical event.

The figure of 40% represents the percentage of Catholics who said that they believed the account of Noah’s ark.

The 20% in the other poll were the percentage of Catholics who said that they believed that the* whole* of the bible was to be taken word for word.

 

[PRmerger]

You have to read what is being polled. The first asked only if you believed in various stories told in Genesis. And we were specifically discussing the flood:

The figure of 40% represents the percentage of Catholics who said that they believed the account of Noah’s ark.

The 20% in the other poll were the percentage of Catholics who said that they believed that the* whole* of the bible was to be taken word for word.

Best not to talk about what Catholics believe but what Catholicism professes.

After all, most American Catholics believe divorce and re-marriage is just fine but it would be a mistake to think that this is a metric for what Catholicism teaches.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You have to read what is being polled. The first asked only if you believed in various stories told in Genesis. And we were specifically discussing the flood:

The figure of 40% represents the percentage of Catholics who said that they believed the account of Noah’s ark.

The 20% in the other poll were the percentage of Catholics who said that they believed that the* whole* of the bible was to be taken word for word.

Pretty sketchy info Bradski.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks! Polls are not good for anything! They have tiny samples, usually are done by land line phone, and have “margin of error”. I never answer my land line phone to someone I don’t know, and I don’t think I am in the minority (although we could take a poll, I guess.) Most people have cell phones today, and polls, so far, are not conducted by cell phones.

And I’m still…er…scratching my head about the significance of posting this poll.

If 20% or 60% of Catholics have a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of Scripture…so what?

That means that they have not followed the guidelines of the Faith which gave them this Bible.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And I’m still…er…scratching my head about the significance of posting this poll.

If 20% or 60% of Catholics have a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of Scripture…so what?

That means that they have not followed the guidelines of the Faith which gave them this Bible.

Actually it means much more. It means that the apologists are not up to the task of convincing their fellow Catholics, much less “spreading the good news” to the heathens. The problem is in your court. Unconvincing apologetics. And the “holy spirit” does not come to your aid either… of course it did not come the aid of the church, when it failed to denounce the actions of the pedophile priests - UNTIL it was impossible to sweep the problem under the carpet.

 

[reggieM]

Actually it means much more. It means that the apologists are not up to the task of convincing their fellow Catholics, much less “spreading the good news” to the heathens. The problem is in your court.

That’s a good thought for us to reflect on. Yes, true – every single one of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world needs to do their best. Catholics in the U.S. have less excuses since we have the resources. Parish life always needs improvement and so does education and support for apologetics. So, you’re right to give this advice. We always have to do a better job.
But we keep in mind also, Jesus Himself had a traitor among His apostles. He was put to death by His own people. We wouldn’t say that He had unconvincing apologetics. Some people do not want to love God. They prefer to love themselves.
And some (Catholics and everyone) are lazy or seriously lacking in virtue. Many follow the culture and don’t even want to know what Catholic teaching is on the Bible.

And the “holy spirit” does not come to your aid either…

We will certainly disagree with that. The Church is alive and doing great things. We see many converts, baptisms and growing Catholic families each year. For us, this is the work of the Holy Spirit - because accepting the Catholic Faith does take the grace of God. It’s not merely an intellectual proposition.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s a good thought for us to reflect on. Yes, true – every single one of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world needs to do their best. Catholics in the U.S. have less excuses since we have the resources. Parish life always needs improvement and so does education and support for apologetics. So, you’re right to give this advice. We always have to do a better job.
But we keep in mind also, Jesus Himself had a traitor among His apostles. He was put to death by His own people. We wouldn’t say that He had unconvincing apologetics.

Indeed.

Even if 1 billion of the 1.2 billion Catholics are poorly catechized, it says absolutely ***nothing ***about whether Catholicism is true, and even less (!) about whether God exists.

We will certainly disagree with that. The Church is alive and doing great things. We see many converts, baptisms and growing Catholic families each year. For us, this is the work of the Holy Spirit - because accepting the Catholic Faith does take the grace of God. It’s not merely an intellectual proposition.

Beautifully articulated.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Actually it means much more. It means that the apologists are not up to the task of convincing their fellow Catholics, much less “spreading the good news” to the heathens. The problem is in your court. Unconvincing apologetics.

Note taken.

And the “holy spirit” does not come to your aid either… of course it did not come the aid of the church, when it failed to denounce the actions of the pedophile priests - UNTIL it was impossible to sweep the problem under the carpet.

Well… you keep coming back so He is doing something.