Not only religion. Not by a long shot.

And I agree. People just pick and choose what they want to believe in. This is exactly why an organized religion is of little value.

I just don’t agree that it is the “fringe” who engage in religious inflexible, incorrigible thinking. My mom is definitely not fringe but she whole-heartedly believes in Noah’s Ark, Adam & Eve and all the other stories of the Bible. So to do all the millions of watchers of the 700 Club.

And it’s not just the uneducated followers. Look at what this nut-job Bishop has said about the recent flooding in the UK. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1370,n,n

God is doing it to punish people for their immoral ways. These are the people in charge of a very large church!

It’s true that without religion evil people will still find reasons for doing horrible things.

However, it’s only religion that can convince a good person to do horrible acts.

But… I don’t feel any perceived name calling or attempt to assert authority or education really undercut my arguments– apart from making me seem like a dick that you’d rather not listen to.

And, seriously, if picking and choosing beliefs weren’t the norm, how do you account for the huuuge number of denominations, sects, subsets, and branches of religion (look at the number of different Islamic groups at each others throats over semantics and politics, each with a different interptretation of what the Prophet wills), the hundreds of protestant denominations, the big splits within the Southern Baptists and others over issues like gay mariage, female ministers and so on. And even Catholicism’s rules have morphed over the centuries– a bit slower than others, perhaps, due to the size and intricate power structures. But even they just pulled their infamous “seven deadly sins” out of their papal ass- no Scriptural basis, they just wanted more things to condemn/cash-in on. Sure, sometimes its the power structure that gets to do most of the picking and choosing, not the individual, but it’s still being done.

Funny example… I work with a hardcore Rapture’s-on-its-way baptist fundamentalist crazy lady (but she’s actually very nice). She’s utterly convinced that everything she believes is (1) in the Bible-literally- and (2) has been the way to worship since the time of Jesus. yet the notion of the Rapture as we know it didn’t come around until the mid 1800s and she also believes her dogs will go to heaven… which has no literal Scriptual basis… but because these things comfort her and help her get through the day, they fit into her personal belief structure. I’m sure not everyone at her church agrees with the dog thing, but the ones with dogs probably do. Because it’s comforting. You can’t tell me she’s the only one who picks and chooses, and her church isn’t going to kick her out for it, because they all do the same things. Of course, there are some issues more flexible than others, but those vary from church to church. None of this is static.

And myth isn’t just about make-believe figures, it’s about the story underlying a culture that may or may not relate directly to anything overtly religious. I’m not condoning delusion or hallucination, just an understanding that there is a bigger picture than the context and the apparent (but mutable) facts of the moment. Myth is neither necessarily irrational or destructive. I think we may be operating under 2 completely different concepts of “myth”.

And sure, I compleeetely agree with you that some manners of thinking are more useful than others. Inflexible, incorrigible thinking is highly destructive (which is why I encourage open thinking WITHIN and ABOUT religion and myth)… and I think that’s the type of thought that you’re condemning when you blame religion for the “awful acts” that God demands. But that’s a fringe, not the mainstream. Let’s face facts, we’re emotional, irrational creatures capable of “rationalizing” anything… whether through faith or reason or whatever. And, really, “God-inspired” violence usually springs more from a sense of political/social/economic disenfranchisement or sometimes just straight-up mental illness. It’s not something that you can condemn all of religion for. Without religion, people’d still find reasons to do plenty of horrible things. We may indeed grow a sense of morality apart from religion, but we’re just as capable or growing a sense of immorality apart from it as well.

Your assertion that the reader gets to pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible (or other holy books) is in direct opposition to the major religions of the world. Catholicism and Islam practitioners would certainly disagree. Perhaps a liberal interpretation of religion allows it but the Vatican doesn’t. The idea that major religions are Highly Open to new ideas is amusing. Clearly, you aren’t a practicing member.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I see no need to defend rational thinking. You don’t need to convince me that people can think differently. But we can both agree that some manners of thinking are more useful than others.

For me mythological thinking is as useful as a belief in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. I see no reason for people to delude themselves. I would much rather have people thinking rationally. Then they might think twice about listening to the voices in their heads to commit the next awful act that God told them to do.

First off… no where in the Bible does it spell out that the earth is the center of the universe, it’s maybe an assumption… but if you’re reading literally, as you suggest Galileo’s detractors were, you’re not going to find that passage. The fact that the church made that cosmological interpretation proves that they were open, especially when it suited their needs, to reading between the lines.

And the fact that you keep referring to a need for “proof” only serves to illustrate the current rationalist state of mind that you’re apparently too entrenched in to entertain the idea that people could think differently. I’m not yanking this stuff out of my ass, I have a degree in religious studies.

The basis for picking and choosing depends on the needs or predsiposition of the reader… and you even see this in science… ignoring or altering margins for error, picking the research that’s most marketable, letting a pre-existing bias decide what type of research you’ll do (or allow to be done) in the first place.

And, yes, maybe there isn’t literally a God… maybe it is a metaphor…. that’s part of my whole point.

If you read it literally, the Bible’s ability to help with moral quandries is very limited in any historical period, not just ours… all the more reason to read it openly, accepting the metaphor and the parables as general ways to think creatively or imaginatively about issues you’re facing. And the purpose of religion isn’t just to solve moral issues, but to place ourselves within a larger context… the history and allegory within the Bible can help us do that— if we so choose (and lets face it, we have built a great deal of our behavior and culture on the Bible… we’ve really run with the notion of having “dominion” over the earth, as prescribed early in Genesis, for example…. so understanding the origin of that book helps us understand the origins of our own thought and our own behavior, so that maybe we can change them for the better… this seems a HIGHLY useful approach to moral problems).

And a 1905 physics text will help you with many current problems… like the rate at which juggled objects fall, calculating the velocity required to travel a certain distance… all kinds of practical things that still apply to us today– and always will.

And religion is HIGHLY OPEN to new ideas. Good lord, have you ever tried to count how many protestant denominations there are? Islam, Judaism, Christitanity have all mutated and changed their look, feel, regulations, creeds and ways of thinking about the Divine constantly- now more than ever. The people that claim relgion to be inflexible are usually not practicing any type of religion, and are stuck in there own inflexible ways of thinking about science and religion. Religion has adapted and is thriving. Most folks who practice religion are just as inclined to ask the types of questions that you ask (regarding picking as choosing, is God just a metaphor, and so on)… give or take a minority who claim to adhere to inflexibility (but even they still sway when it suits their needs). Christianity won’t collapse, it’ll adapt. A great many theologians aren’t sure about the literal truth of the resurrection, but still find value in the stories and the teachings of a man who had radical ideas, stood up to a intolerant politcal system, and died for it. Religion is a springboard for thinking about the universe, same as science, And those who criticize it’s literal interpretations are usually commenting from outside the dynamic structure, as a way of shoring up their own belief system (i.e. the Church of Reason).
And sure, you can criticize the need for each denomination to feel like it’s The Right One, but everybody wants to feel like they’re standing on solid ground… even yourself. Even as you admit to the flexibility of your own system, you stand solidly by the idea that it is somehow Righter than the rest, never to collapse as all else falls away, dispelled by Fact. It really kinda sounds like a religious prophecy to me.

And understand that I’m not a practicing Christian, for many of the reasons you’ve expoused, the whole package has too much baggage for me. I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate here, but I really do feel that folks need a bigger, mythical, spiritual picture to look at. And we need to look at the ones already in place as a way of figuring out what the hell we’re doing and where we’re going. We’ve been innacting a very desctructuve story over the past 10,000 years, one that is informed by-and has informed-religious thought. But the same overarching story still informs our science, politics, economics, everything. That’s why I’m so adamant about getting people to think mythologically… we need to recognize the myth we’re acting out, so that we can realize the damage it’s doing and try to stop our self-destructive way of life.

There is plenty of proof that the Bible was taken literally prior to the Enlightenment. Consider what happened with Galileo and his imprisonment for suggesting that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe.

And even if it was meant to not to be taken literally, what is the basis for picking and choosing?

How would someone know whether Jesus was an actual person or was a metaphor for God’s presence in the world? Perhaps he only metaphorically transformed his body into bread and blood into wine. Catholics believe that it actually happened. Perhaps only metaphorically hung on a cross.

Maybe the whole notion of God is just a metaphor and there isn’t literally a God.

Where does the basis for chosing what is literal and what is metaphorical come from?

I agree that a 1905 physics book would be useful to a historian and maybe interesting to a modern day physicist. However, it is mostly useless for solving current problems in physics. Just like the Bible is mostly useless for solving problems of morality.

You can call science a religion all you want but there is a fundamental difference. Science is open to change based on rational data. Anything in science could be modified if the data warrants it. Religion however, is dogmatic and defies new data. Even if it were proven one day that Jesus never rose from the dead, Christianity wouldn’t accept it. The whole system would collapse.

However, if it were proven that evolution were wrong or gravity or the theory of atoms were wrong, science would adapt and thrive. This is a significant difference.

Random example… if, a thousand years ago you told someone the heart was a pump, they’d have looked at you like you’d just stepped off the crazytown express, but if you’d said “the heart is a lion”, they’d have nodded understandingly, yes, yes, of course the heart is a lion. Now, they didn’t actually think there was a lion in everyone’s chest… but they were more free than we are to think of things in these meaningful, expressive, qualitative (rather than quantitive) –if not precise– types of ways.

There’s no disclaimer in the Bible saying “don’t read this like a 21st rationalist/literalist” because no one creating poetry, literature, prophecy, etc, 2000 years ago could have predicted that we would think like we do these days. It’s not so much that they were not taking the words seriously, or thinking no one would pay exacting attention to the words they used, but words really meant different things in different ways, many of them more expressive and imaginative than we see them today.

The question isn’t really what is the basis for a non-literal reading of the Bible, but what is the basis for a literal reading of it.

If you ever get the chance, read Karen Armstrong’s ‘The Battle for God’… she does a great job of tracing the way modernity has spawned new kinds of religious thinking (none of which are actually returning to a past basic “fundamental” type of worship, as they’d like to believe, but which are really quite innovative and modern, whether they know it or like it or not).

And a physics textbook from 1905 is very valuable if you’re at all interested in how modern physicists got to where they are, and following that line, where they might be headed. And that’s a large part of the point of religion, to place us within some sort of context, in between our history and our hopes for the future.

And if you think religion is unecessary… ponder on this… scientific rationalism IS your religion… inasmuch as it’s a way of understanding your place in the universe, and you very much consider it the right way (or the necessary way) to place yourself within that universe. It’s a new and innovative kind of religion, that treats information differently than its forebearers, but it is one.

Perhaps ‘evolved’ was too much of a loaded word. It was meant metaphorically of course.

How about “Our morality has advanced beyond the notions in the Bible making that book about as valuable as a physics textbook from 1905.”

But still, what is the basis for a non-literal translation of the Bible?

And my morality isn’t innate so much as it is a cultural and social construction. But that’s a whole other ball of wax… as is using the words “evolve” and “beyond” together in reference to morality. Evolution isn’t a journey upward that puts us on a plane higher than those misguided idiots of yesteryear, it’s a random response to an environment. Beware social darwinism, it’s responsible for just as much division and destruction as any of your hated, supposedly unecessary religions.

There is an innate human morality that doesn’t require God. You say (Henry too) that the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally. But what is the basis for saying that? Where is it written in the Bible that you are NOT supposed to take it literally? And if you’re not, where did your notion about what is supposed to be literal and what is metaphorical come from? It couldn’t have come from the book so it must’ve come from somewhere else. I contend that your metaphorical interpretations come from you, in your mind. From your innate morality.

This is how the Bible can condone slavery but modern day people can find it morally reprehensible. Our morality has evolved beyond the Bible making it about as valuable as a physics textbook from 1905.