Richard Dawkins on Haiti.

[Matt]

Why this obession with text? Were there no christians prior to the codification of the bible.

What they accept is a belief, not a text.

Because for 1600 years that has been the basis for christian belief.

For 800 years, and longer for catholics, ordinary christians were not allowed read the bible, it was interpreted for them by others, so the fact that many christians don't read the bible is irrelevant.

Your argument is that christians believe in christ, and that this belief comes from their community. Is the notion that this is a semi oral tradition or a way of life handed down generation to generation? That like any other aspect of culture I have no problem with. However, you still come back to the question of how that 'tradition' is sustained throught the generations, how come it does not mutate in form seriously in time and place as most traditions do? The central stories related to christ and why him remain remarkably constant, even where the regular rituals and degree of evangelism etc change dramatically. Such constancy requires a single source - either a text or are they arguing that the bible is unnecessary for this purpose since people are divinely inspired to believe the same thing?

OK so my observation is that not all Christians hold the bible to be the basis of their faith. However many words you wrap it up in, your response is "oh yes they do"

Do you think I'm lying, do you think the Christian who claim not to be bible literalists are lying? Is one party of the other merely mistaken?


When I question why you're obsessed with the Bible as the source of all Christian faith despite Christianity very obviously predating the bible you simply assert without justification that the bible has been the basis of Christian faith ever since the bible has existed.

I can only smile at the argument that if Christianity was largely passed on in oral and cultural traditions then it would mutate in form. Isn't that exactly what you see?

Don't you see a Christianity that has diverged in its beliefs so that the notions of a Christian from a gospel church in Harlem are as different from the notions of a Christian in a catholic church in Glasgow as both are from the offshoot of Greek Mystery cults that edited together the first bible at the council of Nicaea?

When you ask a Christian from where they draw their beliefs, sure some will say the bible. A few of them will indeed be telling the truth committing to independent bible study and holding the text inviolate above all other sources. Some however will actually be drawing their beliefs from their church even if the church dupes them into thinking it's the bible rather than their study guides that is the true basis of their creed. These people are bible literalists, fundamentalists. For them the bible is an authority which they hold must be inerrant. These are the people to whom Dawkins' argument might actually apply. They believe in the Jesus because the bible tells them to. Similarly they should believe that God punishes sin with extreme prejudice, because the bible tells them so. (We should have to ignore as Dawkins does that this book is not entirely consistent with this message) However bible literalists do not comprise all Christians no matter how many times you ignore the fact that there's plenty of Christians who don't take the bible anywhere near as seriously.

If one of these were to lock horns with Dawkins then they might indeed proudly hold a tradition of fire and brimstone, others however might point out that Dawkins' interpretation of the Bible is naïve. As an outsider I can point out that the bible is such a mess of ambiguity and contradiction that it can be bent into shape to support pretty much any view. Dawkins bends it one way whilst more morally liberal literalists place a morally liberal interpretation onto the bible. That doesn’t tell me that the liberal bible literalist is a hypocrite, it tells me that the bible is a crock. The liberal literalist I imagine would simply hold that Dawkins was misinterpreting the bible.

Other churches openly state that knowledge of God comes from them, the clergy. In turn the clergy are expected to get their knowledge of God directly from the big man himself. The Bible was just one conduit through which the clergy were expected to commune with the deity, others included prayer, revelation, signs and portents; not to mention the accumulated dogma of their traditions which ultimately come from through these same conduits. As you acknowledge, historically interpreting the bible was not a pursuit for the laity. Why this 800 year long example of exactly what I'm talking about is "irrelevant" is something you may wish to elaborate on. I would suggest that Catholics for example are largely expected base their beliefs not on the bible but the catechism brought to them by the authority not of the bile but apostolic succession. In practise even the catechism is treated as a menu suggesting the actual basis for the beliefs of the modern Catholic lie elsewhere. Were Dawkins arguments to be applied here we would have to adapt it to: "You believe in Jesus because the church tells you to, similarly if the church tells you to believe in God punishing sin with extreme prejudice then you should believe that too." Fact is though that not all churches do preach this message. Look up Universalism and Apokatastasis. I'm not fantasising these things some churches do preach a loving and merciful god. Many do try to reconcile that with the bible but where Dawkins argument falls apart is with those churches (like the billion of so Catholics aforementioned) who don't hold the bible as the inerrant source of their belief. Take this for example from the Unitarian Universalists.

We do not, however, hold the Bible - or any other account of human experience - to be either an infallible guide or the exclusive source of truth. Much biblical material is mythical or legendary. Not that it should be discarded for that reason! Rather, it should be treasured for what it is. We believe that we should read the Bible as we read other books - with imagination and a critical eye. We also respect the sacred literature of other religions. Contemporary works of science, art, and social commentary are valued as well. We hold, in the words of an old liberal formulation, that "revelation is not sealed." Unitarian Universalists aspire to truth as wide as the world - we look to find truth anywhere, universally.

The fact is that there are a broad range of institutions from the fire and brimstone of WBC or Pastor Robertson's mission to the wooly liberal Unitarians or the village Vicar in his bicycle. The bible for many is figurative and is subject to interpretation. Many devoted Christians are happy to delegate the task of this interpretation to their clergy others prefer to leave the last word to their god given conscience or a more direct communion with Jesus or at least pray for guidance before reading the bible – something I suspect the good Professor neglected to be before interpreting the gospels for us.

Martin Luther declared five books of the bible to be non-canonical. Surely he must have had a deeper basis for his belief if he felt it gave him the authority to edit out the bible.

Even the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints like to call themselves Christians. Are you seriously telling me that you think the basis of their beliefs is the bible?

An example less divergent from mainstream Christianity is the everyday examples of people praying for guidance. Many people feel that God provides answers to these prayers whether they be signs and portents or by clearing the mind and making it easier to arrive and an answer. Centuries ago this would have been the sole preserve of the clergy and one of us mere peons having the temerity to address the Lord on a personal basis would be considered a heresy. Now we have evangelical churches where lay preachers call down the Holy Spirit and perform miracles. Is that enough of a mutation in form for you to accept that Christianity is a belief in evolution?

The cynic is bound to point out how God's will in these examples often reflects the person's own individual and cultural predispositions but the point is that the source, whether it actually be divine revelation or something internal is not the bible.

The fact is there are people who believe in and worship Jesus but to not accept the whole bible as inerrant.

If the only possible reason to believe in and worship Jesus was a belief in an entirely inerrant bible then we could hold that people who believed in and worshipped Jesus should also logically believe in the literal truth of the entire bible. Otherwise we can't.

The counter examples are Christians who believed and worshipped before the Bible was written; or Christians who don't read the bible but simply accept what their church and culture has to say about god (which in turn is not entirely or not at all based upon a literal interpretation of an entirely canonical bible); or Christians whose beliefs are based upon what they feel is their own personal relationship with the divine.

These people exist and are not being hypocritical by being at odds with Dawkins own interpretation of the Bible because they don’t claim that the bible is either inerrant or the source of their beliefs.

[Pebble]

Do you think I'm lying, do you think the Christian who claim not to be bible literalists are lying? Is one party of the other merely mistaken?

I am unclear why this is such a sensitive subject that it merits this response.

The catholic position is quite clear. The bible is the word of god, but requires expert interpretation, this is the purpose of the clergy.

Unitarian Universalists vary from christian - those who accept part of the bible as true to non christian, those who regard the bible simply as one of many holy texts.

Like islamists, mormons have gone their own way - but I will buy that they have reprudiated much of the bible.

I have no problem with the idea of groups that state the bible is wrong in certain respects. If they choose to believe other aspects fine. However, simply delegating the responsibilty to the clergy or church authorities and then trying to distance themselves from the aspects they personally don't find appealing is not really enough. The concept of 'not in my name' springs to mind.

[Matt]

As an asside the catholic church has been ambiguous on biblical inerrancy. Some statements suggest that the bible is completely inerrant, others that only the original texts, now lost were inerrent, some that the bible is inerrent on matters of faith and morals but not on matters of science. As for what individual catholics believe on that matter that, varies even more wildly.

I use the catholic church as an example of how something other than the bible is the source of their creed. It is a creed that has suposedly been passed down in an unbroken chain of apostolic sucession from Jesus himself. The bible isn't the source of this creed, if anything this creed (as it was then, ealier in it's evolution) is the source of the bible.

It's an example of where the argument shouldn't be - "but the bible says" but rather "your church says"

However it's not the best argument against all chirstians believing in a vengeful and vindictive God. The Catholics suffer from as much critiscim in that regard as anybody.

With unitarians are you once more insiting that only those who hold the bible to be true (inerrent?) are actually christians. This is simply wrong. By that definition the people Nero persecuted weren't Christians.

The argument stands, christians are people who put their faith in christ not necessarily poeple who put their faith in the bible. That's just a notable subset. As such people who believe in Christ but disregard say, the biblical prohibitions on fornication are not being hypocrites unless they also happen to subscribe to biblical inerrancy.

I agree that there are those who don't read the bible but instead have the bible read to them and this alone is not enough mean that the bible is not the source of their faith, however if those giving religious instruction are actually passing on a creed with only a thematic realtionship to parts of the bible then the good book is no longer the source of their faith but merely a frame of reference. In such scenarios it is often openly acknowedged that the bible is not the source of their belief.

Dawkins argument did not appear to me to be that people who disagree with Robertson should publicly reject (his interpretation of) the scriptures. It was rather that christian who do publicly reject (Roberton's interpretation of) the scriptures are hypocrites because they believe in Jesus and that's just the same thing as blaming victims/sacrificing animals and other barbarism.

[Pebble]

Dawkins argument did not appear to me to be that people who disagree with Robertson should publicly reject (his interpretation of) the scriptures. It was rather that christian who do publicly reject (Roberton's interpretation of) the scriptures are hypocrites because they believe in Jesus and that's just the same thing as blaming victims/sacrificing animals and other barbarism.

OK I'll buy that.

So now I must find some christians that don't believe jesus died for our sins, because I have yet to meet one who simply took the view that he was a nice guy with a progressive view of human relations.


"Jesus was supposedly tortured and executed to atone for sins that, any rational person might protest, he had it in his power simply to forgive, without the agony."


Any pointers as what such christians believe in respect of why 'the son of god' crucified?

[Legaleagle]

Matt, I have enjoyed your postings on this thread very much and commend them to all those members of the skeptical community who get tumescent with glee each time they have a chance to put a boot into the old religion (as only they can who have a really soft target to aim at).

I can only add by way of anecdote a story from a few years back when I got into discussion with a good friend of mine who is a quaker. One evening I decided to canvas his views on biblical interpretation with, what I though was a quite clever, but admittedly pre-concevied, diatribe concening the activities of St.Paul throughout the book of Acts and the new testament generally and his seemingly complete abandonment of the teachings of Christ.

Instead of the mealy mouthed, embarrased answers I was expecting, I was simply confronted by a blank stare and a sigh. He told me that scripture to him is simply a guide, the real business of god is conducted through the individual. The quaker simply tries to live his life as he believes his God wishes him to.

Personally, I now find that trying to trip up such simple folk with the word of their own prophet does not serve to convince them of anything, neither does it turn out to be the merry sport I once thought it might be.

My own hope is that Chiristianity will eventually morph into something combining the humaistic and social aspects and the peaceful ideology of the church, but with a more rational and practical approach.

I don't like Dawkins as I feel that he would tear down the temple leaving a need in it's place which he and his ilk are incaplable of satisfying.

[Pebble]

Matt, I have enjoyed your postings on this thread very much and commend them to all those members of the skeptical community who get tumescent with glee each time they have a chance to put a boot into the old religion (as only they can who have a really soft target to aim at).

I also happen to think Matt has put forward very good arguments, even if I am surprised by some of the sensitivity shown and disagree with his conclusions. I will assume you are referring to me (and presumably others that might take the same view) with the second half of this comment.

My general take is that all christians serve directly or indirectly to sustain belief in a vengeful, jealous god and whatever their protestations the bible remains at the core of christian beliefs. Matt has successfully shown that not all christians accept that such a connection is reasonable to infer and has correctly pointed out that christianity predates the bible, but that does not get to the nub of my argument.
If 'swearing on the bible' disappeared from public life, if fanatics who believe in the inerrancy of the bible could not influence (using this silent majority) political discourse and law making and if wars were not still being waged in the name of various interpretations of these ancient texts, then I might have a more relaxed view of what perpetuation of belief in these texts means.
The question I have previously asked continues to bug me. Are those who do not openly reject the bible as a contributor to many evils, providing the breeding ground for future acts of madness. I do not see this as a harmless text, too much blood has been split in its name. I struggle to get my head around the concept of restricting children's access to sexualised imagery when it is perfectly acceptable to use the bible to teach them to hate.

PS I happen to have many christian, jewish and muslim friends, and no I don't bait them - as individuals I don't mind what people believe.

[Floppit]

The question I have previously asked continues to bug me. Are those who do not openly reject the bible as a contributor to many evils, providing the breeding ground for future acts of madness.

I'm a lefty but I don't think that implicates me in extreme communist acts of violence. I accept what you say about a single text but it is an ambiguous one, one chapter dashing babies against rocks and the next the whole mill stone thing for harming a kid. It doesn't agree with itself and cannot be understood by only perceiving the nasty bits, just as it cannot be understood by those wilfully blind to to the thunderbolts stuff.

I grew up in a very christian family, the bible wasn't read out, mostly what was passed on was done so orally and not carefully either. I remember my Mum telling me god was like the sun while drawing a kiddy sun picture with rays poking out, she told me all religions were like the rays leading to god - that's not biblical, yet she was passing it to the next generation as part of her faith at the time (then the fundies got her but that's a whole other story). Faith isn't reasonable, the following of it isn't either.

My take on it is that religion is just one of many 'off the shelf' ideologies, easily, all too easily, replaced by extreme political ones just as violently. Using religion is quick, some already believe, it's all pre written and best of all it doesn't agree with itself so is easy to shape for any given purpose. But it was written by people, the problems in it are those of people and removing it won't remove those problems.

I think this guy articulates what I started this thread feeling better than I did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xG...layer_embedded

Ultimately I want to see religion fail, but unless reason can replace it I don't see any such failure achieving much. Watching recent events re RDF forums I can't help but think these people who Dawkins describes as...:

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

...these were those who had bought all his books, gone to his lectures, read his articles verbatim, atheists - his brand of. Regardless of who's been wrong in the events leading up to that post, if it was RD then what I first posted would still stand, if it is those steeped in the traditions he hopes will be the future then the sentiment behind my posts on this thread would still stand.

I have less and less doubt in in NOT being the pragmatic or even rational way forward, it appeals to emotion, inflames it and that does nothing in the long run to improve reasoning.

[Pebble]

Hi Floppit,

I think I see where you are coming from. Christianity has many facets and not all of them can be linked fairly to its bloody history nor its future potential for evil.

I am also left of centre, but I would not hold Das Kapital as an important source of my world view. Any attempt to hold the bible responsible for so many destructive acts and their on going consequences in the world would be met with fierce resistance. Nevertheless, directly and indirectly it is implicated in the crusades, the inquisition, Napolean's rise to power, Northern Ireland, the Balkan's conflict, the current islam - western conflicts. I accept that other factors contributed and continue to do so, so the bible is neither necessary nor sufficient.

I simply think it is time to put it in its place. Allowing those who wish to foment trouble or alter the world to their narrow view to have a sympathetic hearing just because they quote this peice of nonsense, is the problem.

[Floppit]

Hi Floppit,

I think I see where you are coming from. Christianity has many facets and not all of them can be linked fairly to its bloody history nor its future potential for evil.

I am also left of centre, but I would not hold Das Kapital as an important source of my world view. Any attempt to hold the bible responsible for so many destructive acts and their on going consequences in the world would be met with fierce resistance.

Agreed.

Nevertheless, directly and indirectly it is implicated in the crusades, the inquisition, Napolean's rise to power, Northern Ireland, the Balkan's conflict, the current islam - western conflicts. I accept that other factors contributed and continue to do so, so the bible is neither necessary nor sufficient.

I don't know how much I agree with this, I suspect I do almost completely but 'implicated' can have a different strength of meaning to different people. I would readily agree that religion played a substantial role in all the above, however whether any other well worn ideology would have done equally well is both something I question and, largely, think likely. Something I'm more sure of is that the presence of ethics over morals would have been helpful, the presence of dialogue over authority and the education of those being asked to fight and support fighting would all have had a significant effect, moreover that effect would remain regardless of what brand of ideology is put to use in order to gain and retain power

I simply think it is time to put it in its place. Allowing those who wish to foment trouble or alter the world to their narrow view to have a sympathetic hearing just because they quote this peice of nonsense, is the problem.

(my bold) This is where I see the crux of the matter, it is not so much a person's beliefs as how they act on those beliefs. For those who take the line you describe in the part I put in bold I agree fully they should not be given quarter - the thing is while we brand all as such, regardless of their actual acts, we increase rather than decrease sympathy for the whole, not to mention (I think) behave a little irrationally in the process. Those looking to cause harm should not be given a sympathetic hearing - so why attack the believers who refuse to offer such a kindly ear? Further to that, if a non believer seeks to ferment trouble to alter the world to their narrow view shouldn't we equally refuse to give quarter? You said that you have many friends of differing religions, do you believe them to be child abusers and yet fail to even raise the subject for concern you might bait them?

Where people wish to encourage harmful consequences to further their own ends I couldn't give a flying rat's bahooey which side of the fence they stand in deciding to remove my sympathetic ear and I suspect that sentiment is shared by many believers. Hell the Quakers refuse to even make a living through the production of ordinance.

*I have a soft spot for Quakers BTW, they were the only place that offered our group of kids in care a place to meet, booking venues was a nightmare unless I kept who they were secret, which entailed keeping the Soc Serv's address equally secret and paying from Soc Serv funds in cash! The Quakers charged us no extra, and gave us a meeting room every fortnight for 4 years. They never, literally never treated that group with any less respect and no hiding who they were was required. I owe them one.

[Pebble]

Those looking to cause harm should not be given a sympathetic hearing - so why attack the believers who refuse to offer such a kindly ear? Further to that, if a non believer seeks to ferment trouble to alter the world to their narrow view shouldn't we equally refuse to give quarter? You said that you have many friends of differing religions, do you believe them to be child abusers and yet fail to even raise the subject for concern you might bait them?

Child abuse is an interesting concept. Do I agree with what they are teaching their children - no, but then they would not agree with what I teach mine. If I could remove the children from every religious person in the world and move them to a non religious orphanage or foster parents, do I think that would improve the world? Do I think there are worse things that children can be taught to believe in than the bible/quoran/thalmud?

So my approach to friends is that I do not raise the issue of beliefs deliberately, but it almost always comes up through events. There are those who deliberately raise beliefs, I have a born again evangelical christian friend and a number of orthrodox jewish friends, these guys have insisted on putting their religion in my face - so I equally robustly put my view back, but there after we accomodate each other.
For the rest I simply take the view that if they inadvertently go religious - e.g. 'bless you' etc I feign offence, so it becomes a game of tolerance.

As I indicated in my first post on this subject, I think Dawkins has missed the target with this particular rant, but I do not believe that he does not have a point. Matt, correctly pointed out that the reason why he missed the target is that hypocrisy requires that one has accepted first that christ died for our sins, second that god remains vengeful. Where I think Dawkins was right is that as long as christians ensure that the bible is in its current form offered protected status, they must accept some responsibility for how it is used.

Matt has argued that there are christians that do not use the bible as the sole source of their beliefs, this is irrelevant. If, say for example, the catholic church was to announce that they disagree with fundamentalist christians literal biblical approach, and wished to distance themselves from such beliefs. Their apostolic creed was the true word of the lord, so the bible should no longer be used in church. The bible is to be accepted as a quasi historical document, with some scriptural relevance but should not be venerated under any circumstances. Then I would agree they had very clearly distanced themselves in such a fashion as to have no culpability for its misuse.

[Floppit]

I agree with Matt in this instance but I asked different questions, perhaps ones unworthy of response?

[Pebble]

I agree with Matt in this instance but I asked different questions, perhaps ones unworthy of response?

Mabey I am being thick, I saw two questions

1. Whether I should challange believers on child abuse
2. Whether I thought believers that did not support those who use the bible to cause trouble should not be accepted as part of the solution rather than the problem.

I thought I addressed both these points, perhaps too poorly to help, can you clarify.

There was a third possible question I did not address, whether non believers who encourage violence and or intolerance should also be rejected. On the violence side no problem. Intolerance? In general I am against intolerance, but I am intolerant of intolerance, leading to an irrational position by definition. I have no problem with belief or believers, but those who believe they have the right or duty to convert moves the argument to a whole new ball game where my tolerance breaks down. I have yet to see a sensible way round this problem. The bible demands conversion, the bible is protected by christianity etc.

[Floppit]

Sorry I was being cranky - yes the third option is what I meant but I have a few mo's for a kip so I'll come back to it.

[Floppit]

I'm a bit cream crackered so this might come out a bit lopsided but here goes.

There was a third possible question I did not address, whether non believers who encourage violence and or intolerance should also be rejected. On the violence side no problem. Intolerance? In general I am against intolerance, but I am intolerant of intolerance, leading to an irrational position by definition. I have no problem with belief or believers, but those who believe they have the right or duty to convert moves the argument to a whole new ball game where my tolerance breaks down. I have yet to see a sensible way round this problem. The bible demands conversion, the bible is protected by christianity etc.

Perhaps I should, but I don't feel any such dilemma. Like in good debate I see the defining issue to be whether it's the acts and things said that that remains un-tolerated or the people. Secondly, using sweeping generalisations without care catches up people not responsible for the acts or the things said. In The Times article Dawkins does that here:

"Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated, gentle Christian, you cannot be serious. Your entire religion is founded on an obsession with “sin”, with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the odious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus’s incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the “sins” of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the “sin” of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?

Yes, I know you hate the word “scapegoat” (with good reason, because it is a barbaric idea) but what other word would you use? The only respect in which “scapegoat” falls short as a perfect epitome of Christian theology is that the Christian atonement is even more unpleasant.

I'll try to be clear - in the above the insults are inferred rather than direct - Dawkin's style, but I find it an anathema that people could genuinely miss the opening sarcasm or the personalisation of 'you' when referring to what someone is signing up to. I'm open to be called on this but to my eyes this is completely about the person and harbours a level of disrespect which I honestly believe Dawkins does want to spread. Perhaps though it is clearer here:

You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits...

And here - I've added the bold:

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for “sin” — or suffering as “atonement” for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.

In dealing with the reaction of his forum members and fans he does the same:

Surely there has to be something wrong with people who can resort to such over-the-top language, over-reacting so spectacularly to something so trivial. Even some of those with more temperate language are responding to the proposed changes in a way that is little short of hysterical. Was there ever such conservatism, such reactionary aversion to change, such vicious language in defence of a comfortable status quo? What is the underlying agenda of these people? How can anybody feel that strongly about something so small? Have we stumbled on some dark, territorial atavism? Have private fiefdoms been unwittingly trampled?

In this paragraph he opens by extending vividly from the act to the whole person, including those who are more moderate (or even fail to actively support the changes), within the assessment of those who did spew some pretty dire ad hom attack. The overall effect is similar to his Times article, ok this is opinion, but I think it is a reasonable one to say that his aim is to reduce the respect for the whole person.

Watching the events unfold as I have the last few days what has perhaps surprised me the most is that suddenly what I saw in the Times article is now seen by others in his Outrage post, yet until that point it seemed many would argue with passion that RD is both a polite and even mild mannered man, many (as I learned on a brief spell at the forum) would quickly resort to banal ad hom in defence of RD's fairness. Moreover suddenly the nature of the criticism that has been seen matches that said by many believers, that Dawkins concentrates on the extremes, ignores the middle ground and treats people with contempt.

I'm all for intolerance of ideas and actions that cause harm but to do so and retain my tolerance of people I HAVE TO remember that people amount to more than their mistakes, more than their worst acts and need to be seen as a whole. I apply the same to religions because it's helpful and also because dammit, regardless of reason, I do not want to wind up like Dawkins or some of his previously more avid fans. Seeing a whole rather than an incendiary fraction helps me understand how a person can be attracted to something and there still be hope for them as people, people who I eventually hope will engage with reason and learning. If I only viewed the despotic areas of religion, the effect that would have on me would be to judge ALL those who sign up to it by it's worst acts and statements - I don't see how I could avoid that, nor do I see how it would be the best kind of reasoning as it refuses to engage with the positive parts that also exist.

Does that make any sense?

[Pebble]

I agree Dawkins has done himself no favours in all this, he come across as intolerant and clearly will not win anyone over with his arguments.

The difference between your position an mine as I see it is that I think his argument has merit, even if offesively put, whereas you do not appear to see merit in his argument. I would argue that christians in supporting the bible as a holy text must accept responsibility for how it is used and cannot claim honestly that just because they would interpret it differently, Robertson is wrong to interpret it as he does. This is what the bible actually says, and disowning the messenger but not the message doesn't cut it.

The argument that many christians only see the bible as a guide or one source of inspiration can be rephrased as saying that the vast majority christians accept the bible as a source of inpiration or more. Those who rely on it to push a message of sin, suffering and vengence are using the same text and while some groups may choose to down play these elements, they are unwilling to have those texts removed or modified, to prevent further misuse/misinterpretation of this venerated text.

The connundrum therefore is holding that the bible is too holy to permit modification, allowing unspeakable acts in its name and simply doing a Pontious Pilot on the consequences.