If you ever want to blow your mind, I suggest attempting to read the Bible as an unbiased, critical thinker. My guess is that smoke will start pouring out your ears before you make it halfway through Leviticus. To save you some of the effort, and the risk to your sanity, I’ll periodically post some nuggets I have encountered in my reads of the Bible. Today I present five “bloopers”–both trite and significant–contained in a god’s allegedly perfect book.
1) When the heavens are shut up and there is no rain because your people have sinned against you. (1 Kings 8:35, New International Version)
So that is why Death Valley is so dry. The people who don’t live there are sinners. And the Bible god apparently loves all those secular liberals in western Oregon and Washington states, for they are yearly blessed with abundant rain. Which is ironic. For not-believing in him is the biggest sin. Without that first, fundamental belief, he has no authority. Back to the weather: according to the 2004-2005 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Oregon was dead last in the number of Christian Adherents (30.1%), while Washington came in at 48th of the 50 states (31.8%). No area of Oklahoma gets the rainfall the western Northwest does, yet it has twice the number of Christians.
And Israel–the land of his chosen people–is a desert wasteland. Go figure.
The author of the Bible (a.k.a. God . . . ghostwriters notwithstanding) had little understanding of the weather. According to the Bible, not only are rain, hail, and snow sent from the heavens, but they are stored there as well. Additionally, the Bible god does not simply make the weather, he sends messages to people via his cold fronts and high pressure systems. In fact, during this most recent decade he sent an angel named Katrina. Some think.
2) Therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste. (Ezekiel 29:10)
The Contemporary English Version words the passage this way: Now I am turning against you and your river. Your nation will be nothing but an empty wasteland. Even under extreme drought conditions, as have been documented, the Nile never stops flowing. Additionally, archeologists know that although Egypt’s population has grown and shrunk over the millennia, it was never devoid of people. In other words, the Bible god threatened a punishment that didn’t come to pass. At least in any fashion that would reflect the work of an almighty agent.
3) Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail? (Job 38:22)
Here is how the Message Bible puts it: Have you ever traveled to where snow is made, seen the vault where hail is stockpiled? And the Contemporary English Version: Have you been to the places where I keep snow and hail? The meteorological sciences did not exist in the time of ancient Israel. Thus the Bible writers did not know, as elementary school students do today, that rain, snow, and hail are part of a cycle of the evaporation and condensation of the Earth’s water. Do we attempt to disguise the ignorance contained in the Bible by claiming that these passages are metaphorical? That the lord did a bit ‘o poetry jam?
Once believers play the “this-verse-must-be-interpreted-metaphorically” card, the entire Bible becomes vulnerable to doubt. Maybe Mary was a virgin . . . metaphorically speaking. And maybe it was just a metaphor that Jesus rose from the dead post-crucifixion. And maybe after death followers go not to a grave in the dirt but up to the airy stratosphere. Let’s call it “heaven.” Metaphor?
4) The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalms 14:1)
Wrong. Totally wrong. Atheists commit crimes in no greater numbers than believers in a god. Our divorce rate is no greater. Etc. Interestingly, in contemporary Christian America, three of the most philanthropic individuals–people expressing their compassion for strangers in need through charitable deeds–are non-believers: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Charles Branson. Through his foundation Bill Gates is saving thousand of lives in Africa. Man that guy is vile.
5) In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun . . . . It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat. (Psalms 19:4 – 6)
Not until a few hundred years ago did humanity discover that the world is not flat. And, gasp, the Earth is not at the center of creation. The Bible god was in no way ahead of his time. Thus his two-dimensional understanding of cosmology. So to speak. The Contemporary English version expresses the same verse with these words: It [the sun] travels all the way across the sky.
The Message Bible engages in a huge act of dishonesty. Here is how you will find the passage in its pages: God makes a huge dome for the sun-a superdome! . . . That’s how God’s Word vaults across the skies from sunrise to sunset, Melting ice, scorching deserts, warming hearts to faith. So the Bible god’s words, rather than the sun, rise and set. Yeah, that makes sense. Believers should thank their god for his abundance of metaphors.
Numerous other verses in the Bible repeat the theme of the flat Earth. If the Bible god is up there in heaven, you would think he would notice that the Earth isn’t flat. And it spins.
Because there is no perfect god in heaven, preachers continue to spin what is in the Bible.
Sphere: Related Content
No Related Posts
23 comments
Andrew Bernardin says:
October 31, 2010 at 9:42 am (UTC -5 )
@Brent –
Seems the date/time ordering of the comments is off . . .
A few things:
1) I am not absolutely certain that no god exists. I do find the idea very, very, very unlikely. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: “Most people don’t believe in the majority of the gods ever conceived. I just go one god further.”
2) I am skeptical of my atheism. And I am aware of hazards such as the confirmation bias — the tendency to seek out and heed information that confirms our beliefs, but to ignore and overlook information that challenges it. A few years ago I intentionally sought out 3 highly reviewed “reasons there is a god” books and carefully read them. As an honest challenge to my thinking. What I discovered is reflected in your comments.
3) A bulk of the arguments for a god generally boil down to “arguments from ignorance” (a logical fallacy) — ‘because I don’t understand X, the answer must be Y.’ In a sense, this is a non-sequitur. That science cannot provide an answer to a question, or that it boggles the mind, and the validity of an answer proposed by religion are two separate issues.
Others describe this tendency — to inject a god into the gaps of what we know, as the “god of the gaps” phenomenon. Again, because there is a gap does not provide argument for the existence of a god. This is akin to claiming that because Fords are lousy cars, then Chryslers are good.
I invite you to consider this: In terms of the history of human knowledge, how many times has a gap in what we know been closed with naturalistic/scientific elements? A ton of times. How many times has a gap been closed with a god or supernatural element? Not once. So why would this pattern not continue?
One last time: the unknown is the unknown. It has no special meaning.
Andrew Bernardin says:
October 31, 2010 at 9:43 am (UTC -5 )
Oops. Ordering is okay. I just noticed that you had commented on my comment.
Brent Croker says:
November 1, 2010 at 1:04 pm (UTC -5 )
Thank you for the respectful debate, Andrew. I do appreciate your sincere reflections and thoroughness in considering the issues. Just a couple of final points and then I’ll rest and agree to disagree. I do agree that countless times, people over the millenea have subsituted ideas (related to deities but also to non-god related practices) for unexplained phenomena – the sun god, the rain god, etc. but also phrenology and the medical practice of blood letting, just to name a couple. We as humans seem very uncomfortable with the unknown, finding the need to explain the unexplained and plug in the gaps. Good science has plugged in the intellectual gaps of the material world in many places previously filled with faulty science, superstition, or belief in concrete gods. I argue, though, that the explanation of how the universe exists does not rest solely in one “truth” continuum in which the gaps previously filled by religion are now filled by science. Science is science and only valid scientific findings can account for the scientific gaps in the material world you speak of. Religion cannot take the place of science and inappropriately hope to fill in the gaps of physical universe knoweldge within a space-time continuum. But neither can science explain phenomena outside of the space-time continuum. Instead of the car analogy, to describe the god of the gaps logic, I would say let’s play the general manager of the Yankees in place of the pitcher and see if we win. The GM stunk as a pitcher so let’s get rid of him. The bottom line is the GM, who is great as an executive, should have never played on the field. But he still has much value. The same thing can be said of trying to plug God in where he (for lack of a better term) does not belong. In parting, the unknown could be something amazing.
Brent Croker says:
November 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm (UTC -5 )
Andrew, just curious if you had seen the position papers on the Templeton Foundation website re: the issues of science and belief in God. There were some great discussions there.
http://www.templeton.org/belief/
Andrew Bernardin says:
November 12, 2010 at 4:41 pm (UTC -5 )
I have, Brent. When they first came out I sent the whole lot of papers to my printer so I could give them a careful read. Seeing the line-up, I had great expectations. Can’t say I was impressed or swayed by any of the arguments for the “pro-god” position.
Andrew Bernardin says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:26 am (UTC -5 )
Brent,
A few things:
First, the charge of cherry-picking – My purpose of the post was to show that the Bible is not a perfect guide to truth. I find your calling some content “symbolism” to be a bit of a dodge. Many fundamentalists will tell you it is all true. Eve was indeed created from Adams rib, etc. For those who don’t take all of it literally, please inform me where I might find the key to what is symbolism and what is not? My guess is that the key changes from generation to generation, shaped by the advance of more modern, secular, scientific thinking.
Centuries ago I’m sure many of the pro-slavery verses (or at least slavery-neutral) were not considered symbolic. Today many apologists maintain they are.
I wonder, did the ancient writers get only some of it wrong? If they got some of it wrong, doesn’t it throw all of the writings into question?
Second, you mention a worm being unable to perceive color. How do we know this? Not by faith, but by scientific thinking and real-world discovery. If humankind has a pressing need to know something, to the best of our abilities, the smart bet is to turn to science.
And finally, the question of god or no-god (and “don’t know about god”) is not the same thing as absolute certainty for “god” or absolutely certainty for “no-god.” That’s a bit of a straw man. It also sets up the agnostic position quite nicely. Absolute answers have no place in science. Rather, the designations are more akin to plausibility or degrees of confidence in a claim, hypothesis or theory. My conclusion on this issue happens to be that the existence of a god is very, very unlikely. Ludicrously unlikely. Same could be said for my conclusion that the Loch Ness monster exists. But to say I’m agnostic because I don’t fall into either absolute certainty camp would be equivocating. Which is something, as a critical thinker, I prefer not to engage in.
Brent Croker says:
October 30, 2010 at 6:00 pm (UTC -5 )
Yes, I agree, the Bible is not a perfect guide to the truth. But to dismiss it outright as not holding any truth based on a few quotes (cherry-picked, to use your term) is akin to fundamentalists using quotes taken in isolation to prove their own points. I disagree with religious fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is all literal. To me, it is ridiculous to claim the earth was made in 7 days, is 6,000 years old, and that Eve was taken from the rib of Adam. My point with the worm I believe you missed – I agree 100% that we know what I worm can perceive through science. I am a firm believer in science, and what we can learn from the world by science. I believe in evolution. My point with the worm was that there are things we know (yes, by science) that a worm cannot perceive. So, how do we know whether or not there are things that WE, as humans, cannot perceive? I believe that it is highly LIKELY that there are things in the universe that are beyond our limited sensation and perception, possibly the existence of a creative force. You seem to be saying that something cannot or is very highly unlikely to exist because we cannot perceive it in the way that you might be expect (through sight, touch, taste, etc.). That was my point. I might be setting up the agnostic viewpoint, but to me that is more valid than an atheist viewpoint, which also takes a leap of faith. My argument is not with agnostics. My argument is with those who say with certainty that god cannot exist AND with fundamentalists that try to ram “truth” down your throat in the face of good science.
Brent Croker says:
October 30, 2010 at 10:00 pm (UTC -5 )
Andrew, some other thoughts after reflecting further on what you said, from what I see posted here, your argument is between which is true, science or religion, truth or myth. Through science, we have discovered amazing things and I am a firm believer in science, which is why I cannot buy a religious fundamentalist point of view. I do not believe in a god that sits up on a throne in the clouds, passes judgment on each small action that passes, etc. Many people do. This is a concrete notion of god and what it appears you are poking fun at through tongue in cheek humor. That’s fine. That’s not what I’m talking about. I am not a Christian fundamentalist and do not believe Christianity holds THE corner on the truth (although I do believe that Christianity does hold some truths, as do some other religions and views in spirituality, that are important in our lives). But neither do I believe that science can explain EVERYTHING. We can fairly well agree that neither you nor I have seen or heard the Loch Ness Monster and if we drained Loch Ness, we would probably not find anything there based on our own perceptions. Agreed. The concept of the Loch Ness monster is a finite entity, though. You mentioned that the existence of “god” is very very unlikely, ludicrously unlikely. Let me ask you, though, a billion years ago, what were the odds that just the right conditions would come together to form the billions and billions of cells massed together to form your body, to make up who you are today, that you exist and were created in the form you are in with your unique thoughts and personality? What were the odds? We might not be able to compute how astronomically small those odds were at that time, how very very unlikely it would be that you (or I) would exist today. But you are here. Life, which scientific discoveries have supported, is truly remarkable and complex, and for lack of a better term, a miracle. It’s amazing that we even exist. The complexity…
Brent Croker says:
October 30, 2010 at 10:56 pm (UTC -5 )
(continued from previous message)
…The complexities of DNA, evolution, etc. are beyond my words to describe – how amazing these vehicles for life are. Andrew, based on your comments and how you express yourself in writing, you seem to be a very smart man, probably much more so than the average person. But there are some things that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else for that matter that is a human being, knows or may ever know. We are finite beings and as such, cannot possibly know everything there is to know about all things, everywhere, for all times in the universe (or universes). To claim that we do is fallible logic and untrue. I’m not sure why questioning atheism is not grounds for a critical thinker such as yourself when questioning the certainty of God (in its many forms of belief) is fair game. At this time, science based on limited human knowledge (although remarkable), can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an all encompassing creative force (my view of God). I don’t think science can prove what I know to be beautiful or that I love my daughter, either. To claim atheism in the face of all that exists around us, in the face of the extremely small odds that these things could exist, seems illogical. The truth is, with our limited brains, we do not know the answers to these questions of creation outright and to claim that we do is a leap of faith no matter which stance you take.
Brent Croker says:
October 29, 2010 at 3:16 pm (UTC -5 )
It’s more than a little ironic that a “free thinker” such as Mr. Bernardin would apprently base much of his certainty that a universal, all-encompassing, eternal, and creative force (or my conception of God) does not exist based on his interpretation of text taken out of context from the Bible. This is no different that religious fundamentalists taking similar quotes out of context to prove a narrow point of view to condemn others. Personally, I believe that similar to other great works of life’s truths, there is much symbolic language in the Bible. And yes, roughly 2000+ years ago, those who transcribed this text based on their life experiences at the time did so within the context of limited scientific understanding compared to today’s knowledge. In claiming that you know for sure that there is no divine creator or God, you must have a tremendous amount of faith and claim to know everything there is to know in the universe. A worm cannot perceive vivid color images like you or I can. Does that mean that these images do not exist? No, it just means that the worm cannot perceive them. Just becuase you do not perceive God, does that mean that God does not exist? Are there greater things that could be perceived with our continual evolution? Perhaps. To say that these things do not exist is limited and narrow thinking, exactly the kind of thing Mr. Bernandina argues against. Why not say that you don’t know? The creative energy or God that I believe is likely to exist is much greater than the concrete god you know for certainty does not exist.
Andrew Bernardin says:
October 19, 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC -5 )
Seeketh -
Congratulations. In your one comment you managed to commit two errors of logic. 1) Quoting out of context. 2) Equivocation.
First, quoting out of context.
Sure, Victor Stenger did write that. Big deal. The overall point of his piece, however, was clearly spelled out in the abstract. Namely, Stenger’s model “serves to refute any assertions that the universe cannot have come about by natural means.”
Second, equivocation — which involves the misleading use of terms.
Faith has a number of meanings. These include religious faith, and, in addition to but not completely synonymous with, a non-religious faith. Religious faith means something distinctly different from the “faith” of scientists. The second is is akin to confidence. An example of a scientist’s “faith” would be this: I have faith that when I drop an apple it will fall to the ground, for I have observed it countless times and have equations that make confirmed predictions about it.”
The believer’s faith is something altogether different.
To better understand the “faith” of the scientist, I recommend checking out my website, “the evolving mind,” beginning with this post: “Quick Hits: The Strength of Science.”
http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2009/10/quick-hits-the-strength-of-science/
seeketh says:
October 16, 2009 at 3:24 am (UTC -5 )
“Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.”
- Atheist, Victor J. Stenger, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf
…that is quite strong testimony of atheist’s faith…..
Andrew says:
September 17, 2009 at 7:41 am (UTC -5 )
Seeketh -
There are many definitions of information. Which are you using?
In lieu of a response, I invite you to check out a post at my science blog that addresses the issue.
“DNA as a Code . . . With a Code-Maker”
http://evolvingmind.info/blog/2009/01/ccet-%E2%80%93-5-dna-as-a-code-with-a-code-maker/
seeketh says:
September 17, 2009 at 5:21 am (UTC -5 )
Andrew:
Do you know what information is? Can information be explained by natural processes as a non material entity?
Existence of information alone in genetic code refutes any materialistic philosophy, anthropology and whatever else you consider as so called “objective evidence”.
Andrew says:
August 14, 2009 at 10:27 am (UTC -5 )
seeketh -
To quickly answer your questions:
- Yes.
- Yes.
- Yes.
- Lack of objective evidence. (I don’t own the book so can’t consult it. I’m sure I could get more specific but I don’t have the time and am unconvinced it would accomplish anything.)
- You have a bogus premise in this question/statement. The foundation of my criticism is an understanding of science and knowledge of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and world religions.
seeketh says:
August 14, 2009 at 8:44 am (UTC -5 )
You: However, being a “free thinker” says nothing of free will. All it means is that a person is committed to exploring, scrutinizing and even criticizing any and ALL ideas without needing to consult religious authority. If there is truth out there, we believe that a mind free of constraints is more likely to find it. So yes, we do not prevent ourselves from reading the Koran critically, just as we don’t prevent ourselves from reading the Bible critically.
Me: Have you ever heard of laws of thermodynamics?
Have you ever heard of the most fundamental principle of science, namely cause and effect?
Have you read “God delusion” critically?
If so, name some scientific arguments Dawkins uses to support his idea of believers being deluded with God.
And again: what is the base of your criticism when reading the Bible since your thoughts are result of pure chance and chemistry?
Pamela Dodd says:
August 13, 2009 at 2:51 pm (UTC -5 )
I concur with Andrew’s last point. Psychologists and philosophers have proven that you don’t have to believe in god to think and behave morally.
This probably comes as a shocking idea to believers — that you don’t need the wrath of god to keep yourself in line. If you don’t need belief in god for that, what else might you not need him/her for?
Andrew says:
August 13, 2009 at 2:08 pm (UTC -5 )
Seeketh –
I will respond to your statements one at a time.
You – your “freethinking has no logical base in reality.
Me – And your belief in an invisible being does? Logic must be coupled with verifiable evidence to be of worth.
You – If there is no God then everything “evolved” from chaos.
Me – That is a false dichotomy, an error in logic. If there is no God there are a whole number of other options as to why the universe is as it is.
You – Do you realize then according to materialism, that your “free” thoughts are only result of chemistry in your brain. Why then you should call yourself “free thinker”. Free from what? What is wrong what is right,what is free what is not? Again: what is the logical base of your arguments?
Me – The first part of that statement is an intriguing and fascinating topic. I have many thoughts about it. However, being a “free thinker” says nothing of free will. All it means is that a person is committed to exploring, scrutinizing and even criticizing any and ALL ideas without needing to consult religious authority. If there is truth out there, we believe that a mind free of constraints is more likely to find it. So yes, we do not prevent ourselves from reading the Koran critically, just as we don’t prevent ourselves from reading the Bible critically.
You – Say openly: you want to have sex with anything that moves and the Bible makes it clear you can not do that.Then I will understand….
Me – What kind of perverted mind would think that? My wife of over two decades is the only person or thing I want to be intimate with.
Finally, I think you have a poor understanding of atheists and freethinkers. For one, study after study has shown that those without belief in a god are no more immoral/unethical than those with belief in god. We are all people seeking to live the best lives we can. Some include religion in what makes their lives better, others, such as myself, do not.
seeketh says:
August 13, 2009 at 6:10 am (UTC -5 )
your “freethinking has no logical base in reality. If there is no God then everything “evolved” from chaos.Do you realize then according to materialism, that your “free” thoughts are only result of chemistry in your brain. Why then you should call yourself “free thinker”. Free from what? What is wrong what is right,what is free what is not? Again: what is the logical base of your arguments?
Say openly: you want to have sex with anything that moves and the Bible makes it clear you can not do that.Then I will understand….
Fitz says:
June 11, 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC -5 )
It is alleged that Socrates reasoned the Earth was round in 350 B.C. by noting that the Earth’s shadow on the moon was spherical. I was a victim of a couple of JW’s the other day. When I explained why I am an Atheist, she asked “Well, what about the prophecies in the Bible which describe the Earth as a sphere? We later found that to be true.” My response was “Well, the Bible also says the Earth sits upon pillars. That’s NOT true.” Grasping at straws.
Andrew Bernardin says:
June 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm (UTC -5 )
Frank -
A couple things: 1) The validity of a position is independent of the tone/style it is expressed in.
2) In my opinion it has been to the world’s detriment that religion has been and continues to be taken so seriously.
Frank Pearce says:
June 8, 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC -5 )
So, this is what you call an example of critical and unbiased thinking?! How misleading and sad. What’s the value in just spouting your angry beliefs? You end up revealing that you are no different from those whom you criticize.
Fred W. Hill says:
June 6, 2009 at 1:33 pm (UTC -5 )
I’d just like to note that people ancient Greeks figured out the world is not flat over 2,000 years ago and even figured out the circumference of the planet, off by only a few hundred feet from what I’ve read. This knowledge was well known to the better educated at the time Columbus was trying to convince Isabella and Ferdinand to finance his proposed western route to China. Columbus, however, had miscalculated, believing the circumference of the world to be much smaller that it actually is, which was the real reason many royal advisors distrusted Columbus. Of course, “God” himself apparently remained ignorant of both the true shape of the Earth, but also of the continents half a world away from the supposed holy land.