3 ms·

> It is really hard to understate the volume of words and man-millenia spent reading and writing about these books. So much brain power spent on scriptures whi

> It is really hard to understate the volume of words and man-millenia spent reading and writing about these books. So much brain power spent on scriptures which are, in the light of current knowledge… improbable to say the least. Sounds like a huge waste of effort, really. Take the Genesis, for instance. Currently, only creationist crackpots actually believe it. It's more of a symbol. It seems however that some centuries ago, every Christian, including the most knowledgeable theologians, believed it. Instead of trying to explain why the text was written for a good reason, wouldn't it be simpler to just recognize, as our knowledge expands, that the Elders were simply mistaken about such and such point, an move on? Just archive the mistakes and strike them from the cannon already, it would be much simpler for everyone. But I guess a religion that routinely admits its own mistakes wouldn't be very religious, now would it?

pnathan 13y ago
Loosely, no. Sorry. :-/ Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). Pretty sure the modern literalist movement is a post-1850 phenomenon. I don't get into the creation story discussions, it is entirely irrelevant in many ways to me. Waste of our time, IMO. Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. I read in one intro book on it (by a rabbi, I think) that doubt is one of the defining characteristics of Jewish faith. Anyway, modern scholarship tries in part to disentangle what was meant in the context of that time and place, determining what the precise meaning (or set of meanings) could have meant, then drawing out inferences to be taken from the work. This does involve, from time to time, revising our understanding of what happened when, where, and why. The story of the early reformation is, in one dimension, loosely a story of rereading the texts and throwing out certain interpretations based on closer analysis.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  > Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. I called them "creationist crackpots" for a reason. What I don't get, is why what shouldn't be interpreted literally, isn't simply stricken from the canon. I mean, what is the point of writing about a world created in seven days (oops, six), if we know it wasn't? Sabbath? > Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). That's sooner than I expected. Which leaves us around 6 centuries to amend the book. > Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. Even if they aggressively show interest in doubt and questioning, I doubt it's for actually doubting an questioning, like, to the point of having some members realizing their religion is probably wrong after all. Here's a related example, from http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ """ Once, when I was holding forth upon the Way[1], I remarked upon how most organized belief systems exist to flee from doubt. A listener replied to me that the Jesuits must be immune from this criticism, because they practice organized doubt: their novices, he said, are told to doubt Christianity; doubt the existence of God; doubt if their calling is real; doubt that they are suitable for perpetual vows of chastity and poverty. And I said: Ah, but they're supposed to overcome these doubts, right? He said: No, they are to doubt that perhaps their doubts may grow and become stronger. [1]: http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ """
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    Could it be that "creationist crackpots" is what triggered the downvotes above? If not, feedback about I did wrong would be most welcome.
fusiongyro 13y ago
I think if you saw the actual content of these writings you'd be surprised how very little of it has anything to do with whatever it is you imagine it to. The bulk of the Jewish literature is about ethics. The historicity of a story is irrelevant to the ethical questions it raises, and Jewish analysis regards the Bible as primarily a source of questions. Judaism is not a religion of creed, so Jews are not required to hold any particular beliefs. I expect you'll be surprised to learn that one can be a religious Jew and an atheist (I know a few, and it's "no other gods before me" not "believe in me" before you ask). Whether you believe in God or treat God as simply some kind of metaphor, the point of Judaism is that you must grapple with it, not blindly accept it. Your final point is hilariously off-base. The mistakes are not only admitted, they are recorded in the book itself. It's easy to impress oneself by reading Leviticus and getting worked up. Make it through Job and Ecclesiastes, and you'll begin to see that complex ideas about this book are established and much older than people assume.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  > Jews are not required to hold any particular beliefs. I don't believe you. More specifically, I don't believe that the majority of people that regularly visit the synagogue think they don't have to hold any particular belief to stay Jew. I believe even less that the majority of Jews who cease to believe in God continue to call themselves religious. > The mistakes are not only admitted, they are recorded in the book itself. Oh. I didn't know the book itself was evidence of the waste of effort I mentioned. Seriously, remove the mistakes already, don't put an erratum 357 pages later.
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    Your disbelief stems from your fundamental lack of understanding of what you're talking about. You imagine that every religion is basically fundamentalist Protestantism. Your loss, I suppose.
    - loup-vaillant 13y ago
      Actually, I was raised in a lukewarm catholic environment, in France. There was no "coming out" as an atheist for me, it was quite… ordinary. My rejection of relativism spurred more heated discussions that my rejection of God, actually. Anyway, every catholic I met believe in God and in the Immaculate Conception. And I think they also believed it was an important, if not fundamental, part of being catholic. Not to mention all the rituals that mention God and Jesus all over the place. Which is why I cannot fathom a religion that does not at least strongly encourages its members to believe in something supernatural. Seriously, you're tempting me to send a e-mail to Robert Aummann¹, and ask him about that. Or read Eliezer Yudkowsky about his childhood. Or just read the wikipedia². Let's see… Oh the chief reason why supernatural belief isn't required is because there's no recognized central authority… I bet however that most Rabbi strongly encourage a belief in something supernatural. If not directly, at least through the rituals they organize. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith

pnathan 13y ago

Loosely, no. Sorry. :-/ Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). Pretty sure the modern literalist movement is a post-1850 phenomenon. I don't get into the creation story discussions, it is entirely irrelevant in many ways to me. Waste of our time, IMO. Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. I read in one intro book on it (by a rabbi, I think) that doubt is one of the defining characteristics of Jewish faith. Anyway, modern scholarship tries in part to disentangle what was meant in the context of that time and place, determining what the precise meaning (or set of meanings) could have meant, then drawing out inferences to be taken from the work. This does involve, from time to time, revising our understanding of what happened when, where, and why. The story of the early reformation is, in one dimension, loosely a story of rereading the texts and throwing out certain interpretations based on closer analysis.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
> Please don't take hardcore fundamentalist strictly-literalist narratives as the accepted "way" of Christianity. I called them "creationist crackpots" for a reason. What I don't get, is why what shouldn't be interpreted literally, isn't simply stricken from the canon. I mean, what is the point of writing about a world created in seven days (oops, six), if we know it wasn't? Sabbath? > Genesis was regarded as metaphorical around ~400AD, iirc (Augustine). That's sooner than I expected. Which leaves us around 6 centuries to amend the book. > Judaism in particular is aggressive about doubt and questioning. Even if they aggressively show interest in doubt and questioning, I doubt it's for actually doubting an questioning, like, to the point of having some members realizing their religion is probably wrong after all. Here's a related example, from http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ib/the_proper_use_of_doubt/ """ Once, when I was holding forth upon the Way[1], I remarked upon how most organized belief systems exist to flee from doubt. A listener replied to me that the Jesuits must be immune from this criticism, because they practice organized doubt: their novices, he said, are told to doubt Christianity; doubt the existence of God; doubt if their calling is real; doubt that they are suitable for perpetual vows of chastity and poverty. And I said: Ah, but they're supposed to overcome these doubts, right? He said: No, they are to doubt that perhaps their doubts may grow and become stronger. [1]: http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ """
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Could it be that "creationist crackpots" is what triggered the downvotes above? If not, feedback about I did wrong would be most welcome.

fusiongyro 13y ago

I think if you saw the actual content of these writings you'd be surprised how very little of it has anything to do with whatever it is you imagine it to. The bulk of the Jewish literature is about ethics. The historicity of a story is irrelevant to the ethical questions it raises, and Jewish analysis regards the Bible as primarily a source of questions. Judaism is not a religion of creed, so Jews are not required to hold any particular beliefs. I expect you'll be surprised to learn that one can be a religious Jew and an atheist (I know a few, and it's "no other gods before me" not "believe in me" before you ask). Whether you believe in God or treat God as simply some kind of metaphor, the point of Judaism is that you must grapple with it, not blindly accept it. Your final point is hilariously off-base. The mistakes are not only admitted, they are recorded in the book itself. It's easy to impress oneself by reading Leviticus and getting worked up. Make it through Job and Ecclesiastes, and you'll begin to see that complex ideas about this book are established and much older than people assume.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
> Jews are not required to hold any particular beliefs. I don't believe you. More specifically, I don't believe that the majority of people that regularly visit the synagogue think they don't have to hold any particular belief to stay Jew. I believe even less that the majority of Jews who cease to believe in God continue to call themselves religious. > The mistakes are not only admitted, they are recorded in the book itself. Oh. I didn't know the book itself was evidence of the waste of effort I mentioned. Seriously, remove the mistakes already, don't put an erratum 357 pages later.
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  Your disbelief stems from your fundamental lack of understanding of what you're talking about. You imagine that every religion is basically fundamentalist Protestantism. Your loss, I suppose.
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    Actually, I was raised in a lukewarm catholic environment, in France. There was no "coming out" as an atheist for me, it was quite… ordinary. My rejection of relativism spurred more heated discussions that my rejection of God, actually. Anyway, every catholic I met believe in God and in the Immaculate Conception. And I think they also believed it was an important, if not fundamental, part of being catholic. Not to mention all the rituals that mention God and Jesus all over the place. Which is why I cannot fathom a religion that does not at least strongly encourages its members to believe in something supernatural. Seriously, you're tempting me to send a e-mail to Robert Aummann¹, and ask him about that. Or read Eliezer Yudkowsky about his childhood. Or just read the wikipedia². Let's see… Oh the chief reason why supernatural belief isn't required is because there's no recognized central authority… I bet however that most Rabbi strongly encourage a belief in something supernatural. If not directly, at least through the rituals they organize. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith