Well, I'd hate to disappoint by not being along to disagree.
But first, I'll start on a positive note by saying I do agree with you in thinking that the people who wrote the Bible genuinely believed that the things they wrote happened!
Unfortunately, the rest of your answer I pretty much disagree with. In your response you discount the biblcal record because there are other religious books which say other things. I think by saying this there are two arguements you could be making:
1) You could be making a kind of relativistic arguement by saying that because people disagree about what is true we can't know what is true. But I think you are aware of the problems of relativism, and don't embrace it, so I don't think this is the sort of arguement you would defend.
2) You could be suggesting there is a some sort of religious delusion, common to the authors of the Bible and other religious texts. And this causes them to write things they believe to be true, but are actually false. I think this is probably, the more likely thing you were getting at, but if this is the case, I think you have to make the effort to explain this common religious delusion.
3) Of course, you could be making another point! If so, please explain (more fully!) why you think the existence of other religious texts helps you assess the veracity of the Bible.
Personally, I think you have to look at each religious writing invididually, and identify for each what you think the source of falsehood is. So for example, I think you have to explain how Luke, if he was not lying, could think that he was reporting what he had learned after careful investigation of eyewitness accounts, but could have got it very wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-09-13 11:06 pm (UTC)But first, I'll start on a positive note by saying I do agree with you in thinking that the people who wrote the Bible genuinely believed that the things they wrote happened!
Unfortunately, the rest of your answer I pretty much disagree with. In your response you discount the biblcal record because there are other religious books which say other things. I think by saying this there are two arguements you could be making:
1) You could be making a kind of relativistic arguement by saying that because people disagree about what is true we can't know what is true. But I think you are aware of the problems of relativism, and don't embrace it, so I don't think this is the sort of arguement you would defend.
2) You could be suggesting there is a some sort of religious delusion, common to the authors of the Bible and other religious texts. And this causes them to write things they believe to be true, but are actually false. I think this is probably, the more likely thing you were getting at, but if this is the case, I think you have to make the effort to explain this common religious delusion.
3) Of course, you could be making another point! If so, please explain (more fully!) why you think the existence of other religious texts helps you assess the veracity of the Bible.
Personally, I think you have to look at each religious writing invididually, and identify for each what you think the source of falsehood is. So for example, I think you have to explain how Luke, if he was not lying, could think that he was reporting what he had learned after careful investigation of eyewitness accounts, but could have got it very wrong.