What's the point of the Bible?
Richard Holloway was predictably very articulate this morning in outlining his approach to the Bible. His view won't please traditional believers, but -- and this is predictable too -- it won't really please humanists or non-believers either.
In a previous book, Godless Morality, the former bishop of Edinburgh argues that it is possible to hold onto a substantial notion of morality without recourse to religious commitment. In this new book, How to Read the Bible, he argues for holding onto the Bible (as more than merely an important collection of literature) without recourse to any belief in a supernatural creator (or author).
This strategy accords with Richard's more general apporach to church life: it is possible to hold onto ordination and consecration as a bishop while abandoning belief in God; it is possible to offer prayers in tradtional liturgies without believing they are being heard. You can see how this may be argued. The prayers have a function in a community regardless of the existence of God: prayers are a binding ingredient and express the values and spiritual ambitions of a community that finds its identity in those prayers.
A humanist like AC Grayling -- another of my guests today -- would probably say, "Fine; if it makes you happy, keep saying prayers, and keep reading the Bible, but don't expect me to join in." A more hostile humanist, like Richard Dawkins (who joins us next week on the programme), would probably say, "Nonsense: none of this makes any sense without a God behind it all; and since you've had the good sense to abandon belief in God, do the arithmetic -- follow the logic of your own argument and abandone the trappings of the 'god delusion' as well."
Comments
Glad to say William - I'm with what you think Dawkins would say on Holloway.
- absolute hypochtricy by Holloway - what a lot of waffle from all of your contributors - you can't have your cake and eat it - the bible is just like any other of innumerable ancient texts trying to explain what in those days was inexpliquable by science - but we are in different times now and more and morte of us are realising it - Will - you are going back to the bad old days of sunday sequence where religion is given a free reign without a critical voice and you WILL loose listeners.
In response to Alan Watson who has chosen not to believe as Christians do, its worth noting that if Christians are wrong, it won't matter when they die. But if people like Alan are wrong, it will matter a great deal.
And further, God has been around for a very long time and He never changes. There's nothing the matter with God - it's people that get in the way
Jill- It's worthwhile pointing out that not all Christians believe what you do about heaven and hell. Therefore if Alan is wrong and God does exist there are thousands of ways in which he could exist that do not involve sending souls like Alan (where his principal sin was thinking for himself) into burning damnation. Consider.
Jill - I'm sure you wont be surprised if I say it would be a strange god who would reward you for only believing - just in case!
God hasn't been around for a long time - belief in him only emerged when the brains of our ancestors became capable of wondering about the meaning of life - but there was an excuse for them - we should know better now! Most of us do!
Sorry to disappoint you Alan, God has been about since and before the beginning of creation. forever, ALPHA & OMEGA the beginning and the end of creation. Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
At 02:50 PM on 04 Dec 2006, John Wright wrote:
"Jill- It's worthwhile pointing out that not all Christians believe what you do about heaven and hell. Therefore if Alan is wrong and God does exist there are thousands of ways in which he could exist that do not involve sending souls like Alan (where his principal sin was thinking for himself) into burning damnation. Consider."
John: It beats me where you came up with the 'burning damnation' stuff! I don't think that Jill Fraser Halkett was talking about 'Heaven' or 'Hell' at all as you seem to have assumed. She was talking about the 'Existence' or 'Non-Existence' of God - eschatological verification. This is an entirely different concept.
See for example the following extract from the New York Times Book Review ....
October 22, 2006 NY Times Book Review by Jim Holt ......
Short of such a miraculous occurrence, the only thing that might resolve the matter is an experience beyond the grave 鈥 what theologians used to call, rather pompously, 鈥渆schatological verification.鈥 If the after-death options are either a beatific vision (God) or oblivion (no God), then it is poignant to think that believers will never discover that they are wrong, whereas Dawkins and fellow atheists will never discover that they are right.
As for those in between 鈥 ranging from agnostics to 鈥渟piritual鈥 types for whom religion is not so much a metaphysical proposition as it is a way of life, illustrated by stories and enhanced by rituals 鈥 they might take consolation in the wise words of the Rev. Andrew Mackerel, the hero of Peter De Vries鈥檚 1958 comic novel 鈥淭he Mackerel Plaza鈥: 鈥淚t is the final proof of God 鈥檚 omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.鈥 .......
So now that I have 'saved' poor Alan from your 'delusional' [Dawkins word, not mine :-)] anticipation of his eternity, might I recommend to both of you "The Mackerel Plaza"?
As Ever,
Michael
ps: Am I becoming 'delusional' about Dawkins? He is "Always on my Mind". Maybe I have him confused with Elvis Presley and Willie Nelson. Ahhh - who could be delusional about Willie?
A few years ago, the Danes went Richard Holloway one better, they had a Lutherin Priest who was an avowed athiest. The church tried to get him kicked out but his congregation said that he was doing a good job and didn't want to loose him. Furthermore, in Denmark, Priests are employees of the state and it would be illegal for them to fire someone based purely on their religious beliefs (or lack of them.) This gave theologians something to contemplate.
"Thorkild Grosboel of Taarbaek parish near Copenhagen was accused of 'subverting and confusing' the moral ethics of his flock after recently stating that 'there is no heavenly God, no eternal life and no resurrection'.
After being made aware of the comments last week, the bishop responsible for Grosboel's diocese summoned him to a meeting where it was demanded that he explain his controversial outburst. After Grosboel refused he was suspended from all duties."
(from dphpost.dk)
But he was later re-instated. I don't know where things stand with him now. Bibles without God, Priests without God, meat on Friday, and now heaven and hell without purgatory, what's this world coming to anyway?
The Bible is very clear about declaring the existence of God since it is, after all, His revealed word.
So all this banter about whether God exists or not is missing the point of the original discussion. If one accepts the Bible then one must really accept the creator God who inspired it and is declared throughout.