stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic, and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that directly affect theological sourcing. It's always slightly ironic when atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design, one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as flat and contrite a way as possible.
Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible. He disbelieves them all. Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact.
While I did say that there were point of view issues to take into consideration when dealing with similarly polarizing subject matter, I would never say that certain people were more qualified* than others. Especially not atheists. By the way, an "atheist who [hasn't] gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs" is called an "agnostic" - not an "atheist." Atheists *hate agnostics.
"Qualified" is you word, not mine. Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful. It is one thing to believe that there is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a "devotion" to a cause. Your crude hypothesis that atheists hate agnostics imputes upon non-believers the kind of sectarianism that is such a comfort to Christians.
[agnostics] are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological subjects objectively.
Which ones? Even the moderately tricky ones like lapsed soteriological consubstantiation might be a challenge for them.
That atheist just reports what he sees. Maybe he'll supply a few pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow their vaudeville to entertain a larger population.
The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible.
What faith? If you are talking about the capacity to reject dogmatic interpretation, people of faith do that anyway. Catholics, for example, buy and use condoms even though there are several fatawa against them.
It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments. Rejecting dogma is only one aspect of the objectivity. Decrees about condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church. Jesus never wore them. The Jesuits have often been at odds with the church's dogmatism.
He [the agnostic] disbelieves them all.
Hardly an endearing trait, but anyway the ability to reject the dogmatic aspects does not mean "disbelief." I know for a scientific fact that there are plenty of crypto-believers walking around.
Of course, again, I said "the atheist", not "the agnostic." Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing. It's true enough that disbelief goes well beyond rejecting dogma; it rejects the foundations for the dogma that god exists. Yes, there are plenty of crypto-believers; somebody had to take over the closet when the gays vacated it. But how does "scientific fact" come into play. Those who follow scientific method are more likely to say that there is no such thing as scientific fact.
Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact.
"Artifact," as in "obsolete?" "Purely cultural" as in "non-Divine?" "Purely literary" as in "purely fictional?" Hence your hypothesis is only that non-believers can view things non-believingly? Ha!
Artifacts are regularly being produced as long as there are humans to produce them, and a writing does not need to be fiction to be literary, though I am more willing to find "non-divine" acceptable. Your final characterization of my hypothesis is reasonably accurate., but then it's also very close to an understanding of NPOV.
Ec