LINK The closed mind of Richard Dawkins
“Quite apart from the substance of the idea, there is no reason to suppose that the Genesis myth to which Dawkins refers was meant literally. Coarse and tendentious atheists of the Dawkins variety prefer to overlook the vast traditions of figurative and allegorical interpretations with which believers have read Scripture. Both Augustine and before him the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria explicitly cautioned against literalism in interpreting the biblical creation story. Later, in the twelfth century, Maimonides took a similar view. It was only around the time of the Reformation that the idea that the story was a factual account of events became widely held. When he maintains that Darwin's account of evolution displaced the biblical story, Dawkins is assuming that both are explanatory theories—one primitive and erroneous, the other more advanced and literally true. In treating religion as a set of factual propositions, Dawkins is mimicking Christianity at its most fundamentalist.”
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
35 comments (26 - 35)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.As to the Genesis creation stories being considered allegorical, let us consider what everybody's favorite Genesis allegoricalist, Augustine, thought about the age of the Universe. From his book City of God, book 18 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm):
Chapter 40.— About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years.
In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily.
(the "chapters" are all very short" )
Yes, Augustine was a young-earther, and most Christian and Jewish theologians were young-earthers until the last few centuries, despite many pagan philosophers believing that the Universe is much older than what one would calculate from the Bible's genealogies. In fact, some philosophers believed that the Universe is infinitely old -- eternal.
lpetrich
Level 5
Apr 12, 2019
1
This seems like gotcha apologetics: "Gotcha! It's allegorical!"
Allegorical interpretation is indeed old. For instance, Plutarch, in his book "On Isis and Osiris" (46 - 120 CE), states "Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom, since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks." [penelope.uchicago.edu]*/A.html
But how does one tell what's literal and what's allegorical? If something is allegorical, then what is an allegory of? The Bible does not discuss allegorical interpretation anywhere, as far as I know.
lpetrich
Level 5
Apr 12, 2019
1
It’s allegorical of human psychology, particularly the unconscious. Religions are a collective waking dream that helps, at the species level, to process mostly unconscious conflicts.
“The Bible does not discuss allegorical interpretation anywhere, as far as I know.”
par·a·ble
/ˈperəb(ə)l/
noun
noun: parable; plural noun: parables
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels."the parable of the blind men and the elephant"
synonyms: allegory, moral story, moral tale, fable, lesson, exemplum; Haggadah; rare apologue "the parable of the prodigal son"
Origin
Middle English: from Old French parabole, from an ecclesiastical Latin sense ‘discourse, allegory’ of Latin parabola ‘comparison’, from Greek parabolē (see parabola).
Strong's Bible Concordance reports that the word "parable" appears in the Bible some two thousand four hundred fifty seven times, at least one of which strikes me as being of particular interest to this conversation:
Matthew 13:34 (King James Version)
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them."
Perhaps it would not be far off the mark to assume the entire Bible is parable, or allegory.
The Genesis Story is required for Christian dogma insofar as it describes the generation of Original Sin which is the reason for the human sacrifice; it is Adam and Eve's sin that Jesus propitiates. If you say it's a myth, you don't need the crucifixion.
Moreover, there is a passage wherein Jesus references Moses and Adam in the same breath, not something one would do if one was real and the other allegorical. The claim that Genesis is allegorical is pure dodge.
racocn8
Level 9
Apr 12, 2019
1
It is the height of irony that we may now say with certainty that none of the three, Moses, Adam and Jesus, are fictional characters.
No contemporaneous documentation nor any other sort of evidence. But we do have extensive evidence in hand that the stories were re-purposed plagiarisms.
Augustine argued that the world was flat because the bible says so. He even said if there in fact were people walking (upside down!) on the underside of the earth, they were not sons of Adam anyway, and therefore not really people. It's hard to imagine a more literal reading of the bible.
If we are to read the bible as literature, and not think Jesus literally rose from the dead, or was literally the son of a literal god, or necessarily literally existed, etc., I'm fine with that. That's how I've been reading it for decades anyway.
greyeyed123
Level 7
Apr 11, 2019
1
It DOES make for fairly entertaining fable, if read as fiction, doesn't it?
@TheMiddleWay Are you quote mining on purpose? You even deleted the part after "accepted by scholars" that says "[who?]", and then dropped the very next line, "That view has been challenged:"
Then you conveniently left out...
"[Augustine] was familiar with the Greek theory of a spherical Earth, nevertheless, (following in the footsteps of his fellow North African, Lactantius), he was firmly convinced that the Earth was flat, was one of the two biggest bodies in existence and that it lay at the bottom of the universe. Apparently Augustine saw this picture as more useful for scriptural exegesis than the global Earth at the centre of an immense universe.[89]"
Moreover, you skip the entirety of the lengthy quote directly from Augustine that supports everything I just said and more:
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the Earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part that is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the Earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.[86]"
Why would you skip all the salient points to give the impression that Augustine thought the earth was round, and not flat, as the bible says because the bible "gives no false information"?
@TheMiddleWay Perhaps the passage is too difficult for you to read. "Supposed" means people SUPPOSE the earth is round, and SUPPOSE it is scientifically demonstrated. The entire passage is an argument for a flat earth and against a round earth as a round earth cannot be suspended in the concavity of the sky. The "concavity" of the sky is the firmament dome described in Genesis that fits over the flat earth. Augustine is saying it is absurd to believe a round earth is suspended in that dome. Rather, the dome is covering the flat earth, and the flat earth is at the bottom the dome, as described in genesis.
The bible describes the four corners of the earth (that's where the phrase comes from), says the entire earth can be seen from high places, that all eyes will see Jesus come down from heaven, that an angel can stand on east, that the solid firmament has "floodgates" to let down precipitation, that god set the pillars of the earth to hold up the earth, etc.
The book of Enoch goes into even more heavily.
@TheMiddleWay I am curious. What is it you think the first sentence means?
"But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the Earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours that is on no ground credible. "
@TheMiddleWay He doesn't believe people live on the other side of the earth because believing such would entail accepting a round earth where you could sail to the other side, and walk around upside down. He calls this idea a "fable", and he calls the possibility of a round earth "scientific conjecture" that there would be as much room on one side as on the other.
He is certainly hedging his bets, but the entire passage denigrates the idea of a round earth, the idea that there is something "where the sun rises where it sets to us", etc. To read it any other way is simply obstinance.
@TheMiddleWay I don't think scholars are in the habit of quote mining and altering quotes "[who?]" to make it appear they exist. It's also baffling why a lengthy passage of Augustine's spherical earth theory is pasted right in the middle of the "flat earth" wikipedia page. Weird! (If those scholars are walking around upside down on the other side of the earth, they don't count anyway.)
You mean they think Moses didn't exist? Wow. I had no idea.
Storm1752
Level 8
Apr 11, 2019
1
@TheAstroChuck Interesting...
@TheAstroChuck a bit like, there may have been a Robin of Loxley, but no dude called Robin Hood in green tights and merry men and his squeaze called Maid Marion in Sherwood Forest, eh? At least most people know that's a fable.
Lots of people take Genesis literally! Come to the South! The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it! I love Dawkins!
Coffeeman
Level 7
June 24, 2019
0
I’ve lived nowhere but Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida. Does that qualify? I’m very familiar with what the fundamentalists say. But their majority status doesn’t make them the entirety of “religion”. And it doesn’t make them right. I love Dawkins too. But he totally is a fundamentalist. The “New Atheism” of today believes that “god” is to be taken literally, just like the fundamentalists do, the only difference being that they then reject that god instead of accept it. There is little to no recognition in them that there is any other way to see the matter.
Rubbish face the facts and proof that evolution speaks for itself loud and clear
RobertGalloway
Level 5
Apr 14, 2019
0
Lizard_of_Ahaz
Level 9
Apr 12, 2019
0
Chriistianity is too ludicrous to be fundemental
RobertGalloway
Level 5
Apr 12, 2019
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3003 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.