Theological illiteracy

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Hello folks
In a discussion on the Christian Bible I was recently accused of being theologically illiterate. This claim has been directed at forum members more than once in the Fantasy Island posts, too. My accuser claimed I had no right to discuss the validity of The Bible as an historical document, let alone a divinely inspired gospel, because I haven’t read much in the way of commentaries on The Bible and theological philosophy.
I replied that discussing the morality of The Cat in the Hat without first establishing that the events recorded in the book of the same name actually happened constitutes only a discussion of the morality of the author of that book, pulling on a smug grin from my large selection and imagining I’d just cut a big A on the shirt of my opponent with a rapier.
Later, in the post smug fug, I began to wonder if there is anything in their statement. I have read a lot of The Bible and keep a copy on hand for reference. I have also read some of the guff passed off as archaeological evidence for events described in The Bible, but I haven’t delved into much in the way of analysis and interpretation. Perhaps it would be good simply for the sake of being better prepared for the arguments that get thrown our way.
Can any of the forum’s former clergy or theologically trained individuals shed light on whether there is any mileage in becoming more familiar with the enormous cache of theological literature?

Cheerio
WLB

[atheist_angel]

Only if you feel like seeing it through their eyes would give you an upper hand.

You're an observer on the outside looking in. Do you know what it's like to be on the inside looking out?

[Seamus]

The claim is no more than the logical fallacy of argument from authority,used by priests for millennia,and may be dismissed out of hand. It's also an ad hominem.IE "you don't know/understand because you're ignorant."


The logic follows the notion "the bible means what it says,except when it doesn't" (and you have to be an expert to decide what the bible REALLY means)



or

Theology;The effort to explain the unknowable in terms not worth knowing (H L Mencken)

[wearestardust]

Another couple of angles on Mr Black's comments.

The "you don't have enough theology" argument is just a way of dismissing you without actually having to engage with what you say.

If the issue is the base question of whether god exists, my response would be something like this. Either god acts in the world or he/she/it/they (for simplicity, "he" from here on) doesn't, then why bother believing except as a curiosity that should be ignored on the grounds of Occam's razor. If he does, then it is a question of interpreting physical evidence, which is an issue for science and rationality - no amount of theology, philosophy, or inwardly directed thinking systems are going to make a relevant difference to those essntially empirically based considerations.

If the issue is strictly a theological one, then, well, yes, you are probably going to need some theology and bible history. But why bother debating with them on their irrational grounds when it is self-referentially circular and (as noted in the previous para) irrelevant?

[kencooke]

So they want you to be literate about something that does not exist?

Why the need to discuss the bible in the first place?

[Seamus]

So they want you to be literate about something that does not exist?

Why the need to discuss the bible in the first place?

Some Christians MUST discuss the bible,it validates their entire world view.I've noticed such people tend to be those who claim "I KNOW there is a god!" with the bravura of a child whistling as it passes a cemetery at night.

People of faith I admire (and there ARE some.OK,two) often have some doubts. At the Catholic school I attended I was taught only a fool never has ANY doubts about his faith.

I discuss the bible ,usually with other atheists and the odd believer,but never with a presuppositional apologist if I can avoid it.. It's not only waste of time, but I'm afraid I don't suffer fools. I tend to end up saying something both unkind and very vulgar to the fuckwit.


WHY discuss it at all? Because I'm a cultural Catholic, with an academic background in Social anthropology. Religion fascinates me and always has.One can learn a great deal about a society by studying its religions.


Religions are created by societies to meet human needs. In practice religions reflect their societies and the people in them. Anti religious bigotry makes the mistake of conflating religion and the believer. Today,there are no 'evil 'major world religions,but there ARE significant minorities of ruthless,amoral, deluded and quite psychotic followers in EVERY religion.

[owheelj]

Compare this. Recently I got in a debate about genetic engineering. The person I was arguing with was ignorant of the science, and so rather than just saying "you're ignorant of the science," I explained to him where he was wrong and what the actual science showed in those instances.

Now if the claim that we're (Or some of us at least) are ignorant of theology is true, then it should be possible for those people making that claim to actually tell us the specific things we're wrong about, and what the truth of those issues is.

Every time somebody tells you this, ask them to explain the details of your ignorance, just as can be done with ignorance of issues other than theology. If they can explain it, then you are (or were) indeed ignorant. If they can't, it's an argument without content.

[wearestardust]

Compare this. Recently I got in a debate about genetic engineering. The person I was arguing with was ignorant of the science, and so rather than just saying "you're ignorant of the science," I explained to him where he was wrong and what the actual science showed in those instances.

Now if the claim that we're (Or some of us at least) are ignorant of theology is true, then it should be possible for those people making that claim to actually tell us the specific things we're wrong about, and what the truth of those issues is.

Every time somebody tells you this, ask them to explain the details of your ignorance, just as can be done with ignorance of issues other than theology. If they can explain it, then you are (or were) indeed ignorant. If they can't, it's an argument without content.


+1,000,000,000

There is also the point, of course, that theology is a special subject only able to be mastered after many years of brain-twisting study, whereas the basic ideas of science - and in particular, scientific method - can be understood by anyone who wants to.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Hello folks
Thanks for your thoughts.

This just came in from a colleague:

Theology as a concept has often made me laugh, and Robert Heinlein expresses this more eloquently than I could ever do

“Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.” R.A. Heinlein

“One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.” R.A. Heinlein

Looks like I can give the extra reading a big swerve.
While not theology per-se, I am on a promise to read Lennox's "God's Undertaker". Will see it through for the fact that the person who suggested it has agreed to read some Dawkins in exchange.
Cheerio
WLB

[atheist_angel]

@WLB: That sounds like a creationism book.

You're a better person than me. I can't stand reading that stuff.

[wolty]

@ AA. The problem with reading them is that they are not even really good. Bad science, bad conclusions. Check this out. (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2801)

I thought after reading this one, I could get a big red pen and dismiss nearly all of it.

[Caio]

Saying that somebody is theologically illiterate is just one of the many one-liners these people like to throw about when they can’t answer something. It’s an attempt at saying that you’re misinterpreting the bible without actually saying how. They seem to assume that you’re an atheist because you haven’t read the bible or something to that tune, like it actually means anything.
Ironically it is precisely these people who are themselves theologically illiterate, their poor understanding of the whole concept, because it relies solely on faith, leaves them with no other answer in the face of criticisms.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

@WLB: That sounds like a creationism book.

You're a better person than me. I can't stand reading that stuff.


I've read a few books of this ilk. The thought that the person who recommended it is willing to give my recommendation a go will make it worthwhile and I might find some as yet unexplored avenue for my own thoughts: perhaps even see a light and jack in my atheist perspectives.
WLB

[wolty]

perhaps even see a light and jack in my atheist perspectives.
WLB


Yeah right. I wouldn't bet on it mate.:) Once you haven't seen the light, there is no going back.

[atheist_angel]

All those poor people that are "blinded" by the Light... Wish we could do something for them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming), but just not in a drastic way.

[Loki]

I suspect the majority of atheist in Aus come from theist backgrounds and have become atheist through thinking, including looking at various theist works, and that therefore most atheists have a better understanding of theism than many theists. Don't tell them that though, they'd think it was a conspiracy

[wardsie]

Rowan Williams attacked Richard Dawkins for exactly the same reason. That he was not sufficiently versed in theology to criticise religion.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1816
The great flaw here is that the Archbishop is happy to accept the religious commitment from his congregation, but how many of it's members would you think have studied theology at all? It would be interesting to know how many of his flock have actually read the Bible.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Have decided to turn it around and encourage the faith full to apply exegesis to Darwin, Dawkins and Russell. Read around the topic to gain a fuller understanding of what the author was thiniking and how they intended you to respond.
WLB