If Dawkins can stick around for another 2000 or so years he will have earned that place - that might be fair. Anyone can write their opinion in a book. Not everyone can defend it after they're dead.
That's an interesting take on this problem. I usually just dump the bible in the trash can whenever I get to a motel/hotel room with such bad literature lying around.
I think we must be careful when using antiquity as a criteria for deciding the value of any book. There are many writings that are as old, or older than the Bible, but their age has nothing to do with whether or not the content is true, or whether is should be honored or revered as an untouchable authority. Hippocrates wrote one of the first works on the nature of sickness and disease in terms of "four humors" he claimed needed to be in exact proportion to each other to maintain health. It's an interesting piece of historical writing, but I highly doubt you will find any doctor claiming it to be the medical authority today. We have learned much since the time of Hippocrates, and while it is an interesting read, most of us can accept the fact that it's clearly not correct in in most of it's content, and no one would be offended if it was criticized from a purely medical perspective. Nor would anyone present it to an unknowing individual as a scientifically valid document. I would argue that the Bible should be viewed and treated in the same way as other old texts, as a rich and interesting piece of history, but NOT as true history in and of itself. And if it is presented that way, as a true history, (which I believe is the intention of those who place them in hotel rooms) then just like the Hippocratic Corpus or any other book it must stand the scrutiny of anyone willing to read it, or contradict it. If we are talking about the Bible as the literal explanation of the origin of the universe and the creation of life on earth, then Dawkins (while not my favorite author) doesn't need to be around for two thousand years to earn a place along side the Bible in hotel rooms across America. As long as what he says is verifiable by others and complies with the laws of nature, he has done his duty to us the reader and his place next to the writers of the Bible (as a true historical/scientific document) is earned. In fact I would argue that it is the Bible that doesn't belong there. It is true that everyone can write their opinion in a book. But the ability to separate opinions from fact is given to all of us. Using our ability to think logically, reason, experiment, and observe we can discern what is truth and what is someone's opinion. And we must! If it is a good book, it will stand the scrutiny of those that read it. If it is not, then it wont. And quite simply the Bible doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of what we understand about the nature of the universe. So I reject it as an authority in that subject. One day Dawkins will be gone, and his words will have to stand up to future generations. No one can defend their books after they are gone. But that doesn't mean we as readers should stop thinking critically about works whose authors can no longer defend themselves. The books must stand for themselves. The words must reflect truth. AND EVERY BOOK SHOULD BE READ CRITICALLY. To me there are no exceptions. Even the Bible itself says "do not let wisdom and understanding out of your sight, preserve sound judgement and discretion, they will be the life of you." Now that's some good advice;)
If Dawkins can stick around for another 2000 or so years he will have earned that place - that might be fair. Anyone can write their opinion in a book. Not everyone can defend it after they're dead.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting take on this problem.
ReplyDeleteI usually just dump the bible in the trash can whenever I get to a motel/hotel room with such bad literature lying around.
I think we must be careful when using antiquity as a criteria for deciding the value of any book. There are many writings that are as old, or older than the Bible, but their age has nothing to do with whether or not the content is true, or whether is should be honored or revered as an untouchable authority.
ReplyDeleteHippocrates wrote one of the first works on the nature of sickness and disease in terms of "four humors" he claimed needed to be in exact proportion to each other to maintain health. It's an interesting piece of historical writing, but I highly doubt you will find any doctor claiming it to be the medical authority today. We have learned much since the time of Hippocrates, and while it is an interesting read, most of us can accept the fact that it's clearly not correct in in most of it's content, and no one would be offended if it was criticized from a purely medical perspective. Nor would anyone present it to an unknowing individual as a scientifically valid document.
I would argue that the Bible should be viewed and treated in the same way as other old texts, as a rich and interesting piece of history, but NOT as true history in and of itself. And if it is presented that way, as a true history, (which I believe is the intention of those who place them in hotel rooms) then just like the Hippocratic Corpus or any other book it must stand the scrutiny of anyone willing to read it, or contradict it.
If we are talking about the Bible as the literal explanation of the origin of the universe and the creation of life on earth, then Dawkins (while not my favorite author) doesn't need to be around for two thousand years to earn a place along side the Bible in hotel rooms across America. As long as what he says is verifiable by others and complies with the laws of nature, he has done his duty to us the reader and his place next to the writers of the Bible (as a true historical/scientific document) is earned. In fact I would argue that it is the Bible that doesn't belong there.
It is true that everyone can write their opinion in a book. But the ability to separate opinions from fact is given to all of us. Using our ability to think logically, reason, experiment, and observe we can discern what is truth and what is someone's opinion. And we must! If it is a good book, it will stand the scrutiny of those that read it. If it is not, then it wont. And quite simply the Bible doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of what we understand about the nature of the universe. So I reject it as an authority in that subject.
One day Dawkins will be gone, and his words will have to stand up to future generations. No one can defend their books after they are gone. But that doesn't mean we as readers should stop thinking critically about works whose authors can no longer defend themselves. The books must stand for themselves. The words must reflect truth. AND EVERY BOOK SHOULD BE READ CRITICALLY. To me there are no exceptions.
Even the Bible itself says "do not let wisdom and understanding out of your sight, preserve sound judgement and discretion, they will be the life of you."
Now that's some good advice;)