How do you know which interpretation is the “revisionist view”?
Speaking for myself, one reason I am reluctant to take the Adam and Eve story, for example, as a literal account of historical events, is that I suspect that those who originally told, heard, or wrote down the story did not intend for it to be understood as such.
Bingo. That and, what was their sum total of life experience as “adults”? No other humans, no sin, no knowledge of good or evil… I’d say they were children, regardless of physical form.
And we don’t even know if they were seven days old or 21 years old when this happened. We have an upper bound based on Adam’s age when he died, but it seems rather likely they’d be toddlers in the normal course of events.
I don’t recall any atheist ever doubting the existence of religious feelings and religious experiences you describe here. In fact they can be reproduced. What we doubt is that these feelings represent something not totally inside your head.
Great. What we’re asking is why you believe what you do believe. I can understand why the fundamentalist does. But if I were to use your belief to predict your position on almost any issue, I’d probably have a hard time. Are you a Christian because you believe in certain parts of the Bible? Is it because you had these experience, which you probably connect to Jesus based on your upbringing and culture? Is it from logic?
That’s the problem I have.
That is not that hard. Both of the creation stories are told in the manner of myth*. Both stories have had a lot of commentary written about them, (in which the commentators clearly did not expect them to be taken literally), in periods much closer to the time when they were written.
Treating them as literal is much more recent than accepting them as myth, so why would anyone treat them as literal?
Myth, in the anthropological sense of a story–recognized as a story–written to express a truth held by a people.
In the case of the first creation account, for example:
The story demonstrates (at minimum) the belief that the world was created in an orderly fashion and that the creator considered it to be good. This was in contrast to myths present in the same general region that explained that the world was created in chaos and/or by a malevolent being that allowed the world to be evil.
So you say there are things that God doesn’t know? I thought by definition, God knows everything. The writers of Genesis could be wrong, it wouldn’t be the only time.
I can’t speak for Jews or Christians, I’m agnostic. (If it matters)
Do you mean the original authors included footnotes? Or later readers decided “oh, they surely meant to imply this is an origin myth, the whole God created man from dirt and woman from rib is total hokey”?
No. I mean that there is a longstanding tradition in human history of creating myth and, before the 19th century biblical literalists started corrupting that understanding, it was well recognized.
There have always been a few people in many cultures who have wanted to treat myth literally, but they are generally recognized for having missed the boat (or ark, as the case may be).
Augustine of Hippo, at the beginning of the fifth century, wrote a lengthy discussion of the Creation story, de Genesis, employing, (and noting), metaphor, allegory, and many other rhetorical devices. He also noted, in Chapter 19, in regard to taking the stories too literally:
Not the original definition; that evolved over time. God in Genesis doesn’t know lots of things. Adam and Eve hide from him. It was the merging of Jewish tradition with Greek philosophy (and Pythagorean mysticism) that led to the declaration of the “omni” characteristics. The God who was stymied by iron chariots was not the God of C.S. Lewis.
Augustine spoke as a man of his time, he also wrote in the City of God that it was impossible for the world to be round! That was his belief, and belif like mine or anyone else’s belief is not fact.Fact can cancel belief for then it is no longer belief!
Do you find it so hard to believe that some theists can arrive at their belief not through literal interpretation of the Bible, but rather through research into secondary writings of philosophers, theologists, and scientists; as well the application of reason and rationality? Is that such a bizarre concept that it boggles the mind? I don’t claim that theists rely solely on observable science or rationality, but it seems equally problematic to believe they cannot rely on reason at all, instead of having to rely on a literal interpretation of a book.
Literal, no. But they certainly don’t do so by “the application of reason and rationality”; there are no such reasons to be religious. Religion is without exception irrational and baseless. It all comes from if not that book, some book or some believers somewhere; there’s no objective evidence for any gods, no logic that demands one; there’s nothing in the natural world or reason that will lead them to a god, it all comes from people.
I know entire communities (having once belonged to them myself) who profess to believe almost everything in the OP. Literally. You know, perhaps, people who believe a subset, even if you discard everything leaving only the notion that there is a supernatural higher intelligence.
As Voyager and others have said, no one denying the feelings of religious experience. But experiencing something one would call “religious” and concluding “therefore God” is the same as experiencing something one would call “love” and concluding “therefore Cupid”
Has there ever been a poll to see what percentage of Americans believe the story of Adam and Eve to be literally true?
edited to add-make that Americans that profess to be Christian.
There’s a good term for this “life force” or “life energy”. It’s called “vitalism”. There were reasonable arguments for it, long ago. It’s no longer considered a useful scientific concept.
I have a hard time respecting anyone who can worship a God who would commit anyone to eternal damnation. Then I have to remind myself that I know a lot of people I deeply respect and would trust my life, property, and loved ones to, who do. I have a hard time reconciling these, though. Go figure.
I’d have an even harder time respecting any mathematician who worships a God who would commit anyone to eternal damnation. After all, can’t they do the math? The punishment doesn’t fit the crime, unless the crime is inifinitely horrendous. That’s true even if Hell is only mildly annoying, or even OK but not great.
I also have a hard time understanding the concept of a God who demands worship. Seems a bit petty. I agree with whomever above attributed it to an extension of human characteristics.
I have a really hard time with Christian theology, which seems terribly mystical / medieval. I can see how things like Christ atoning for original sin would be an attractive concept to someone living long ago, but I can’t reconcile it with any sort of rational thinking or ethical system. I mean, what the heck was God thinking? Seriously!