| | Robert B.,
Sorry for the delay in response. I wanted to address a few of the points you brought up.
First, you suggest we should let religious practitioners compete over theological interpretations. But your own terminology is biased. You talked about fundamentalists as "literalists", and the moderates (for lack of a better word) as "contextualists". I don't agree with either. You're suggesting that the fundamentalists are taking the various parts (sentences, paragraphs, whatever) of the bible out of their proper context, and the moderates are somehow viewing each part in the broader context. One immediate problem is that you're already siding with the moderates in terms of theological interpretation, something you keep stating we shouldn't do. But it's clear that you're suggesting one group is dropping context and the other isn't. That's clearly biased.
But it's wrong for another reason. The moderates are not keeping the fuller context. They're simply dismissing the parts that they don't like, or pretending that they are "metaphors", or that they're not supposed to be taken seriously and are more to stimulate thought. They're not looking at it from a larger context. They're just pretending it means what they want it to mean. They're subjectivists.
Instead of talking about the bible, let's talk about the Constitution of the United States. There are a few ways of interpreting it as well. There are the literalists, which we could call the Fundamentalists of the Constitution, as they are the epistemological equivalent of the religious fundamentalists (literalists). And the major other group these days is the "living document" supporters, which view the Constitution as more of a set of guidelines. These are the equivalent of religious moderates, who view whatever they want to view in the bible (general welfare clause or interstate commerce clause), ignore what they don't like (2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments), and don't take some parts very seriously (almost everything else).
Are these "living document" supporters contextualists? If someone called them contextualists, wouldn't it give them much more support than they deserve? I think you're supporting the religious moderates in this way.
What would a contextualists look like? David N. Mayer wrote his book "The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson". He describes a contextual view of the Constitution, integrating the words with the purpose and knowledge behind it. While different from the literalists interpretation of the Constitution, there's little doubt someone who took it that seriously would be lumped into the same group, being called a fundamentalist. If someone took a truly contextual view of the bible, they would also be a fundamentalist. Those people who do try to interpret the bible in a more contextual manner are fundamentalists. Not every fundamentalists is a moron who follows the bible blindly. There are some who take it very seriously, through decades of study, not ignoring any of it, not trying to rationalize their own wishes for what it means, and forming an integrated view based on texts. And they are fundamentalists.
So I think your word choice is biased and does exactly what you claimed we shouldn't do.
There's another point I want to address. You ask whether we want to tell the more life-affirming religious people that they are the hypocrites and the anti-life people are correct.
Let me start by saying that we should never distort reality in the hopes of sending "the right message". If the bible is a noxious guide to self-sacrifice and violence, we shouldn't pretend otherwise to try to lend support to those who would distort it. Similarly, if the Koran is a nightmare of violence and cruelty, we shouldn't pretend otherwise. You can argue whether these characterizations are correct, or if there is some room for interpretation, or whatever, but facts are facts. We can't work towards a rational world by favoring irrationality, even if it is a more life-affirming kind.
Of course, it's one thing to state that honesty and rationality are virtues, but it's another to point out how in any particular choice, they lead to better results. What's wrong with distorting reality just a little in this one case? Why not sacrifice the truth in order to give moral support to the lesser of two evils?
I think there's lots of reasons.
First, we'll be supporting a process of thinking that is irrational. We'll be saying it's moral to distort reality if you get positive results. How long will that go without hurting our promotion of reason?
Second, if the Bible and the Koran are really bad books, we'll be lending support to them. We may encourage people to read them more carefully, to immerse their children in them, to push for religious schools to teach it, etc. While we may want to support the more life-affirming, distorted views, we could simply end up giving support to the books themselves. And if these books are objectively bad, more support for them would be a bad thing. Some of it is going to be accepted as true.
Third, we would be supporting the people who don't really believe in these religions, but don't want to explicitly reject them. We would be helping to make it hard for atheists to come out of their intellectual closets. We would support the idea that even if you don't believe, you should still pay lip service to the religion. We'd be saying that it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe, you can still identify yourself as religious, and so make it appear that there are significantly fewer atheists in the world than there are. We'd be robbing atheists of the moral support that they need.
Fourth, I really think it's dangerous to pretend that the moderates have the correct interpretation of the Bible or the Koran. They don't. And by acting as if they do, we treat the religion as less dangerous than it is. We pretend that the fundamentalists are just crazy people who are misinterpreting it all. Or rednecks. Or idiots. We underestimate their position.
Fifth, between any two groups that share a premise, the more consistent wins, or so Rand thought. For those who think the bible is the word of god and the truth, who wins? Those who really believe it, or those who only pay lip-service and try to cash in on the respect it has, while sticking with their own subjective positions?
Sixth, we would be losing an opportunity to convince the moderate religious to give it up entirely. We could be showing them that their more secular ideas are actually pretty good and reasonable, and the only thing holding them back is their attempts to rationalize them with the bible. But if we pretend that they are proper view of the bible, we give the bible credit for every rational premise they hold. We make it seem like the best ideas they have are really because they are religious. I find it much easier to let reason and reality take the credit for their better ideas, and show that they didn't find any of that in their holy books. By pretending, we'd strengthen their resistance to a truly objective world-view.
I could go on. Some of these are abstract and riddled with secondary consequences. Like all cases where irrationality seems like a good choice, the benefits are clear and immediate, and the consequences are widespread and hard to pin down.
In general, I agree with the notion that we shouldn't be focusing on how to best interpret the bible. There are contradictions and vague areas, and room for different views. I agree it's arbitrary, and we don't gain from trying to pick sides there. But that doesn't mean that we can pretend that Christianity or Islam or any other religious completely lacks identity, and anything goes. It doesn't mean we can pretend that the moderates are just as serious about the bible as the fundamentalists are. Sure, let's not get lost in arguing over the arbitrary. But equally, let's not ignore the objective nature of it in order to avoid taking sides (or for the dubious purpose of taking sides with the moderates).
|
|
