Let’s see if it’s possible to turn the heat down a little around here. Question for moderates only please!

Question

Most of the Atheists who post here (the non-idiotic ones, that is) seem to fall into the category of scientific atheists like Richard Dawkins. They start from the premise that Truth can only be ascribed to propositions that are empirical, falsifiable and logically coherent. Since religious claims do not have those properties they cannot be described as True.

So far so good, but many valuable things cannot be described as true under that definition, Shakespeare comes to mind. I think most atheists would hesitate to describe this cultural artifact as ridiculous.
If we accord a special status Shakespeare then we can accord a special status to the Bible. An atheist who has not read the Bible is badly educated and deprived of some very great literature. The story of Job and the Lamentations of Jeremiah the Prophet are some of the greatest writing the world has ever produced.

So, how many of you, believer or not, find this an acceptable compromise between the two camps?

I had a limited number of characters to work with so I had to compress my argument more than I wanted to. Allow me to clarify a few points.
1 - By Shakespeare I mean his writings of course.
2 – The exact value of the Bible as literature is not central to my question but I can assure you that quite a few people view it as great literature. Even Nietzsche admired the Old Testament. Of course he read it in the original. The philosopher Walter Kauffmann was an atheist and similarly admired Job and the Lamentations. Many existentialists have been attracted to Job as well.
3 – Perhaps most Atheists have read the Bible but I’m betting plenty of people who post here have very limited knowledge of what’s in it.
4 – I’m not saying the Bible is true because its good literature anymore than I would say that of Shakespeare.
5 – But the crucial point for me is that the total vilification of an ancient text simply because it’s untrue in the scientific sense is overblown and unreasonable.

6 - I'm not implying any individual here is uneducated.

Answer 1

I concur with you that most atheists, of the educated variety, don’t completely denigrate the value of the Bible, and are in many cases well versed in it. Most open-minded secularists see that the Bible has made many important contributions to society, from being a catalogue of Semitic culture and history, to being a seminal literary work that lays the foundation of many other works of literature throughout the Western World.

The reason most atheists sustain such a diminutive tone when speaking about the Bible, is that most fundamentalist Christians, like the ones that you encounter in forums such as this one, don’t emphasize the Bible as merely a great literary work. They aren’t asserting the Bible’s great style or colorful prose. They are contending that the Bible is the ultimate proof for the existence of the God they believe in, and that it is proof of his miraculous interventions in the course of human history, and that the Bible represents objective truth with respect to morality.

It is in addressing these declarations of fact, that the atheist, in the course of refuting these claims, inadvertently, in most cases, vilifies the Bible as a whole. I think most atheists, who even have a modicum of comprehension of history, will readily acknowledge the pertinence of the Bible in shaping Western civilization, however, most atheists deny that it holds any significant truth with respect to the existence of the supernatural, the inner workings of nature, and with proper morals.

In short, it is the Christians promoting the Bible for more than what it is – a historically relevant cultural achievement – that elicits the malicious rhetoric of many atheists. If Christians were to one day, instead of using the Bible, use Shakespeare or Keats work as a basis for how we should author public policy or what we should teach in our schools, then I think atheists would be just as antagonistic to their works as they are to the Bible. Good literature becomes the “collateral damage” of intellectual conflicts when those works are pushed beyond their legitimate boundaries.

Answer 2

If you are gonna make claims such as the ones that you made at least get your information correct. First flaw in your statement is that non believers or the likes there of have no knowledge of the bible or the religion of Christianity which in fact is a false premise being as many Atheists, Agnostics, FreeThinkers, Humanists, and many others were once Christians and have read the bible cover to cover. Second flaw in your statement is if you are gonna say that about the bible then why not throw in other religious texts such as the Hindus scriptures aka The Bhagavad Gitas, or how about the Qu'ran aka the Islamic scriptures or any other religious texts or how about The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey, or any other books of the sort. Me personally I prefer to read something by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche or some other sort of philosophical thinking.

Answer 3

Sure the Bible as literature has many merits. It is a historical record of the thinking and development of a segment of human kind. I don't intend to disparage it as such. I also believe that it points to some common themes in our spiritual development just not that all of it is good or applicable today nor that it should be the endpoint of our ethical and spiritual development. I get along with many Christians and I enjoy the companionship of many moderate and liberal Christians. I am sure I derive some of my own notions of ethics and morality in part from ideas that are expressed in the Bible.

I find what the fundamentalists are doing with the Bible appalling though. From the denial of modern reality (evolution, age of the earth), intolerance in some branches to other spiritual world views, to the archaic adherence to no longer always useful or appropriate notions on sexuality and gender roles. Although I enjoy Shakespeare very much there are no people advocating that we should be modeling today's world significantly based on the views that are expressed in his work and that those who don't should be condemned to hell.

Answer 4

The King James Bible and Shakespeare are at the root of Modern English. Most of the atheists here have read it. They just treat Genesis and "Romeo and Juliet" as tales. Don't pretend that your meaningless question is either based on moderation or compromise. Using the argument that the Bible is good literature makes it true is feeble rhetoric.

Answer 5

I think everyone should be well familiar with the literature that has influenced their society.

However, you attempt to ascribe a truthvalue to the concept 'shakespeare'. 'shakespeare' is not a fact. "Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet," is a fact, because it is falsifiable and can hold a logical truthvalue. "Romeo and Juliet is the best love story of all times," is an opinion because it is not falsifiable and subjective. "Shakespeare was a good writer," is likewise an opinion for the same reason. "The Mona Lisa has aesthetic value as observed by its cultural effect," is a fact, as it is falsifiable, but "The Mona Lisa is a beautiful piece of art," is opinion (I've seen it in person... it's actually quite ugly).

Would you be so kind as to clarify your main point a little? I feel somewhat confused by what you're actually asking.

Answer 6

Still...

The Bible remains a (boring) fiction book.

And science is made up of proof, experimentation and evidence that confirms or debunks hypotheses.

Plus, The story of Job and the Lamentations of Jeremiah the Prophet are NOT some of the greatest writing the world has ever produced. Not even by far. They fall lamely to Shakespeare's or Cervantes' work.

Not a single thing in the Bible can be proved, just like the bones of Romeo and Juliet remain totaly unlikely to be found anywhere.}

In a nutshell: The Bible is a compilation of pagan, stolen myths from religions far more ancient than the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

(FFS!!! The Greeks were able to make far more sense THOUSANDS of years before Christ!!!!)

Answer 7

Actually, you're starting from a false premise.

When religious types ask questions of atheists, they tend to involve science. Which makes it only normal for the answers to also focus on science.

It would seem that fundies feel far more threatened by science than Shakespear.

Answer 8

We read from the Bible in my senior English class on the very non-religious literary level. It was great, we found all sorts of biblical allusions in modern literature, and gained a better understanding of these modern writings.

Answer 9

You operate under the assumption that most atheists are not familiar with the Bible. This is a false assumption, as:

1. Most American atheists are converts from Christianity.
2. The Bible is taught as part of English/Western literature in high schools and college.

EDIT: That said, Sinead O'Connor is doing some beautiful things with Old Testament books, including Job, for her upcoming "Theology" CD. I accord her a special status because her voice is so damn gorgeous. :-)

Job:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgzPD1UFBDM

Isaiah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0GiqQgk72Q

Jeremiah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7IOiem_8kc

Answer 10

I find it so much easier 2 believe in shakespeare a man who wrote plays than a almighty being that has been around for all eternity and created an entire universe.
i dont want to insult any1 but i dont know how people could possibly believe in God