I would say rather that God won't "prove" himself to you in any event, faith or not. The experience of God or the path to God does not involve God demonstrating its existence to your satisfaction.

From a traditional monotheistic perspective this is obviously backwards, or as Paul would have said "can the clay say to its maker, why have you made me thus?" Although to be clear I think monotheism of that type has its flaws. But what I would say is the expectation you have misapprehends the nature of the Divine, mostly by being too anthropomorphic. I think that (if the word God has any referent) the Divine is by nature what it is, and available to us in the way it is. It is not a question of "choice" in that sense. Or at least that understanding makes more sense than a theist trying to justify God's "choosing" not to do those things.

The problem is that if the word God is to have any meaning as an answer to a question about the ultimate nature of reality, then it isn't analogous to a fairy or any other hypothetical (but fantastic) being among other beings. I tend to think the classical attributes posited for the Divine are probably wrong in some ways, but it should be clear that we don't posit "a fairy" as the source of Being itself, present in all things, omnipotent or omniscient, and etc.

The methodology for seeking the Divine, according to almost every tradition, is not one of objective evaluation of evidence, but of initiation, self-purification, and love. I think it is reasonable from the methodology of science to reject the existence of both Gods and fairies. The hypothetical definition of fairy is such that applying another methodology beyond that towards seeking its existence would not make sense. But God, being a symbol for the ultimate nature of reality and the source of existence itself, has a nature that is posited to be unique and sui generis. That is why the analogy between fairies and the Divine breaks down, even though both may be invisible.

I think we are in danger of mistaking who the experience is supposed to convince. I understand why he considers it convincing and I understand why you don't.

Try better rather than good, if you think personal experience is one of the worst reasons and worst is comparative then what are better reasons. What would be less unreliable?

It is more likely that something doesn't exist when people are denying it exists than when no one is denying it exists sure. I generally think though that when smart people hold conflicting positions that either agreeing with them or withholding judgement are defensible positions in a way that I don't when no one is holding a position.

I highlighted the IF above because yes, the analogy between the fairies and the Divine does break down IF God is completely undefinable (or represents the ultimate nature of reality).

However, if classical or any particular attributes cannot be posited for the Divine then how is the concept of God useful in any way? You may as well just refer to "the ultimate nature of reality" as "the ultimate nature of reality" as opposed to 'God'. Why use the word God in the first place then? if you can't attribute any attributes to it at all?

The word God isn't necessary imo, although using language is necessary

There are attributes that can be posited for the Divine, obviously lots of attributes have been. I don't think I said that it is impossible to do so. I would say that such are always incomplete, tentative, unfinished, etc as a description. They do not "comprehend" God. This is obviously in contradiction to your belief that reality can be described (represented might be a better word) in its entirety, which I think is the crux of the matter. If the bounds of the real do not extend further than the bounds of what can be known via the senses and processed by reason, then the scientific methodology is clearly the best approach to almost any question about what is real. My theism (and much traditional theism) disagrees with that, and that fundamental disagreement colors the way in which traditional religion approaches questions of knowledge in comparison to a scientific naturalism

I'm clear on this, he doesn't expect me to be convinced by his personal experiences and I understand why he is convinced. What I've been saying the whole time is that perhaps he shouldn't be convinced by them in light of what we're learning about Cognitive biases. This is not proof that god doesn't exist, only that NR's evidence might not be as compelling as it seems to him, that his primary reason for believing is not a good one.


Something not as prone to misinterpretation. You keep asking me for good/better reasons but I can't give you one because they don't exist, nor can I even suggest what form they might take. What I can say is that the reason that NR has offered is one that I consider a bad one for the same reasons that eyewitness testimonies are becoming less and less relied on in courts of law.


This is like some kind of appeal to what smart people think. I'm not buying it, I'm not even certain that you're being serious. 2500 years ago the smartest people in the world thought things that we now know not to be true. Just because some smart people now think that there is a god exactly as described in the bible (even though they're outnumbered by those smart people that don't) does not make it more likely to be true, it's what they argue and the evidence that they present that matters, not their IQ.

Have you considered that your interpretation of N_R's experience is going to be influenced by the cognitive bias you are also subject to. If you have then how do you subsequently reject them as relevant if you haven't why not.

I am asking you for good / better reasons because you are offering bad / worst as descriptions of his reasons. If personal experience is the worst it must be worse than something.

The point is that while smart/reasonable people are in genuine disagreement we should, in the absence of any obviously contradictory evidence, give their position some credit. I am not claiming that any are correct, in the 2500 year old example just because what they thought was true was subsequently found to be not their views at that time merited some credit.

The reason that fairies is not the same is because they are on no one's radar. God is a legitimate explanation for the universe and an ongoing topic of debate.

That said, I can agree with your statement, even if you meant it facetiously, that if fairies are spiritual beings that cannot be detected by natural means, then yes, closing yourself off to the possibility of anything spiritual, will drastically hinder your ability to detect fairies, if they do exist.

The more important thing here is that if I decide to discount fairies, my life is not really affected, whereas it is far more dangerous to discount the idea of God, given that he created the universe. So why would one willingly make it difficult to acknowledge God when there is so much at stake? (and fairies, but since there is nothing at stake, and nothing to suggest they are even plausible, I'm not too worried about that one).

We really are going in circles, but I'm not just saying "when you're right you're right", I'm saying you've made it very difficult to acknowledge God in a scenario where he does exist. Do you really not agree with that? At first I said "impossible", but I'll go with "difficult to acknowledge".

Yes, I admit that God may simply be some delusion, I discount that it is a mere bias, it's not how biases generally work.

Who can know. If God is not real, then most likely. If God is real, then less likely.

The bears are supposed to be the cognitive biases. You were saying that experiences are irrelevant, and I'm saying that by saying that, you are speaking from the outside, not knowing what it actually feels like to go through it.

Edit: This isn't very clear. My experiences is largely what drove me to believe in God. You claimed that my experiences are irrelevant, and that even without experiencing them, you can see that they are biases, and you would not make that mistake. My point is that without experiencing them, you are like a man critiquing a bear-attack from his television, you can't know until you go through the attack.

Agreed.

I've been fine using the term cognitive bias, but if I am indeed being fooled by some mechanism, it is more than just my own cognitive dissonance wanting God to be real. Cognitive dissonance is not strong enough to produce the experiences I've had, which have convinced me of God.

Every book in the bible has a different flavor and style depending on who wrote it. Paul has a distinct style, it's one of the reasons scholars can accurately accept or reject who wrote which book. Read Psalms and Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, they are very poetic, and filled with figures of speech.

Regarding forgiveness, it is discussed in many other areas, and no where is it understood that you must forgive someone an x number of times, that doesn't even make sense, you must forgive them once and for all.

This is an obviously false dichotomy. There are now and always have been vast numbers of Christians who believe that biblical inspiration is not a matter of literal word-for-word inerrancy, dictated by God.

As an example, I don't have it in front of me to quote, but the preface to Gregory of Nyssa's homilies on the Song of Songs (written late 4th century) is a defense of his thoroughly allegorical method of interpretation. Which was already not a novelty, as his own homilies are also based on Origen's earlier and also thoroughly allegorical reading of the same text, which is mid 3rd century. Gregory's justification is in part based on an argument that Jesus regularly spoke in parables.

Or consider Galatians 4, which gives an allegorical interpretation to Genesis ("Now this may be interpreted allegorically..." Gal 4:24)

Outside of Christianity, there are examples such as Philo's allegorical exegesis of various O.T. books. I'm sure there are more.

They're wrong and they simply want to cherry pick the bible for reasons of their own (probably to support the credibility of it which is tricky if you take a literal interpretation). 2 billion Muslims don't believe that the Qur'an is open to interpretation with some parts being literal and some allegorical, for them it's the literal word of god.

I'm sure there are plenty but if the bible is the word of god, transcribed by men, then it's can't be open to interpretation. If it's the work of men, then it's up to you how you interpret it because you're not second guessing a deity.

On what basis or by what authority do you conclude that

a) the bible is the word of god, transcribed by men (operative word being "transcribed")
b) It is "wrong" to read any bible passage in an allegorical, metaphorical, or otherwise "spiritualized" sense?

Obviously no one is arguing that it's not true that some religious people take such a view of their scriptures (although the Qu'ran is not the Bible and Islam is not Christianity), but you are making a much stronger claim than that. You are asserting that those who take such an approach to the Bible are objectively correct. But for what reasons?

I think it may be worth reviewing the exchange you had with OrP on this very question. When asked what your evidence was that the bible was intended to be taken literally your answer was considered unsatisfactory, do you think there was any merit in that response.

Is it possible that your position with regard to how believers do believe or should believe is subject to the cognitive biases you are aware of?

I'm always reminded of Jesus' words in John:

Some people believed that Christ meant this literally, but the NT expounds on this idea, and what it actually represents. MB, do you really think Christ was condoning salvation through cannibalism by these words?

Why do you think they didn't find the body in the tomb?

Zing!

Javi... I hope you don't believe the reason theists don't go around harming others is only because they think god exists. And if they somehow knew he didn't exist they would instantly just go around hurting every person they see. Likewise I hope there aren't any theists out there thinking that all atheists are immoral people.

Whether or not someone is a psychopath has nothing to do with them being an atheist or a theist. I could go further into this topic but I think the point is clear. We can know nothing about the character of someone by just knowing they believe in god or don't.

I have actually heard Theists say verbatim that they only reason they aren't a criminal is because of God. Not sure if i've ever heard anyone go as far as murder, though.

Please note that I obviously don't think this is the case for all theists, it just struck me that you think this is such an odd proposition.

I have definitely heard this exact comment made by theists as well. It's always in the context of the alleged necessity of religion as a precursor to morality. I suspect that generally the person saying these things would not actually start engaging in criminal behaviour were they to cease believing in God, rather than they simply want to bolster their own rhetorical position.

More usually, the comment is made in reference to the unwashed masses: "Well of course, *I* wouldn't just start raping random passers by if I stopped believing in God. I'm talking about all the people out there who need religion."

Of course, there probably are people who need religion in order not to be criminals, I think this speaks more about their personal failings than anything else though.

This kind of cherry picking metaphorical phrases always irritates me. You find one obvious metaphor and then use that as a crutch to claim everything else that sounds ridiculous must also be a metaphor. You know when someone gives an absolute value, like 6000 years, it is illogical to assume that the number itself must be a metaphor for something. That would be like a scientist claiming water boils at 50°C and then when disputed claims it was a metaphor for a different number. Dafuq is that?

From what I've read and heard from the bible I find it easy enough to understand. Afterall the book was not written so that it would confuse the hell out of everyone who read it, because what purpose would that serve? If anything -- common sense says that the bible should be understandable by all those who read it like any other book. Books are meant to be understood, not filled with riddles to troll society for a millenia. When I come across absolute values in the bible it's pretty evident to me that they are not metaphor's but just falsehoods. It makes more sense to me that the "numbers" given are the result of ignorance on a particular subject. Claiming anything else is just an excuse. These numbers were never challenged until recently, and only then did all the theists come up with this explanation that we are reading into it too literally. If that were true then it would have been said hundreds of years ago "by the way guys, this **** isnt meant to be taken literally". But once again science intervenes and suddenly it's "oh um... wait wait... ok ya see, that whole 7 days things is a metaphor.. yeah thats right, whew!"

The bible does not say anything about 6000 years, that is an extrapolation, and may not be accurate. My only objective in the above verse is to dispute MB's false claim that everything MUST be literal. There is no reason to suppose that the authors are not allowed to use literary devices, a claim you have agreed with by acknowledging that this is an "obvious metaphor". That is my only aim here.

Agree and disagree. The bible is fairly easy to understand on a surface reading, but there are also hidden mysteries that must be investigated further. The bible even states that the Holy Spirit himself will reveal things about the scripture. Like anything of value, you must dedicate yourself to deciphering some deeper doctrinal truths.

I have no problem acknowledging that the 7 days in Genesis may be literal, but there are other possibilities. For instance, it also says that 1 day to God, is like 1000 years to us.

I think it's reasonable to suppose that at the time they were written, the genealogies were thought to be literally accurate, and I believe they are the source of the 6k year conclusion. Same with things like Methuselah being 900 years old. Or the flood, or any of a number of other examples. There are absolutely cases where I consider the Biblical authors to have been wrong in their claims, and where it's unlikely that they intended their stories to be purely allegory.

However, MB's assertion is that nothing in the Bible can be taken as a metaphor, analogy, or allegory. The counter claim is not that everything in the Bible has an esoteric meaning, or that the plain meanings are irrelevant, but that it's silly to claim that the "correct" hermaneutic is that absolutely everything is literal. Since MB's claim is absolute, it is not cherry picking to provide a counter-example that is so blatant as to be self-evident.

It is also the nature of Biblical interpretation that how books are read and what is emphasized has changed over time, and it is not necessarily "correct" to assert that there is only a single authoritative interpretation, nor have Christians always thought that there must be only one interpretation. It is also not true that it is easy and obvious what the plain meaning of any ancient text is, separated as we are by some 2k+ years as well as many differences in culture and worldview.

You say that the non-literal interpretations are recent inventions, but that is demonstrably false. There are allegorical/metaphorical interpretations of Biblical passages in the N.T. itself, as well as in many ancient Christian writings. There are even allegorical interpretations of parts of the Genesis creation story.

Augustine, in the 5th century, did believe that the earth was roughly 6k years old (he didn't have the benefit of modern evidence), but he also remarks:

Thanks for this post, well articulated.

Javi, this sentence perfectly explains my motivation for sharing that verse, and nothing more.

Yes "well named" wrote a very good post, the only thing I take issue with is that there is a sort of inverse logic applied to everything anyone takes issue with in the bible. Most of us agree that the bible swings back and forth between the subjective and objective, but in standard literary communication there is typically an innate understanding when the author is presenting an opinion and when he is stating a fact. It seems to me that every time someone points the finger at something the bible says they are immediately contradicted by this idea that they have interpreted it incorrectly. That is just far too convenient of a scape goat for everything the bible says.

In no other context can someone never lose. You cant open a biology textbook, point out some flaws, and be told that you simply misunderstand what you read time and time again. There has to be some give and take. The only reason this doesnt happen is because the bible is supposed to be the infallible word of god. So if god writes a passage that says 1+1=3.14159 then we must seek an excuse to make this true, and I just see no reason to play along with that.

The alternative is that the entire bible is metaphorical, and I'm ok with that. If anything that makes the most sense. If God feels that humans arent intelligent enough to play by the numbers then maybe he should appeal to our emotions and create a series of symbolic tales in order to allow us to guide ourselves in the right direction. But once again, we are just seeking questions to a conclusion we have already made. We have the bible and we dont understand how, so we create an elaborate story to give the bible purpose.

Im not sure this would get in the way of faith. But for those who like to use the verse to tell non believers the evidence is there they have no excuse on judgment day. I think its fair to question them on whether faith when it comes to belief is necessary or even possible with that view.

I mean you cant in one moment tell me there is undeniable evidence and the next tell me faith is necessary. Not that Naked_Rectitude has done that, i kind of wanted to see if he would though...

Not all Christians view the Bible in this way. For instance in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, they qualify "inerrancy" to some extent to admit that the Bible isn't inerrant on all subjects. For example this response on catholic.com says that "inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert."

I would personally just own that Biblical Inspiration is a more nuanced subject than even that (i.e I would admit to errors), and I have issues with the characterization in that article, for example:

I think this doesn't leave enough room for the reality of the fact that the authors of the text are still human, and inspiration is not a matter of dictation. There is an old Thomist principle (to lean more on the Catholic tradition) that "whatever is received is received according to the modality of the receiver". The human writing styles, presuppositions, and worldviews of the authors of biblical texts are all very apparent. I have no problem granting that sometimes their views would benefit from updates, and I still assert that it's a false dichotomy to claim that either they must be wholly and entirely dictated word for word by God, or else there is no Divine Inspiration. I think a more subtle view of Inspiration is both found in traditional Christian understanding and far more harmonious and coherent with other theological principles.

It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of Biblical texts are essentially narratives. They are story telling. That doesn't mean that they didn't think the stories were true, but the aims of the ancient authors and the "genres" (if you will) of the texts don't seem to lend themselves to this more modern kind of distinction. A good example might be how common pseudepigraphy is among ancient religious texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

I think another important thing to consider is that sola scriptura is a modern and thoroughly protestant principle. A lot of the presuppositions you and MB proceed from assume the view of the role of the Bible that flows from that principle. But among other Christians the Bible doesn't have to play that role in exactly that way. They give more authority and more importance to the role of the Church and the Spirit in giving continued guidance, rather than trying to concentrate everything into fixed texts.