Answer176

	Sign In Sign-Up

Answer176

Question176

Why do some theists insist that we, as atheists, know and thoroughly understand their religious documents? Why do they also insist that we, as atheists, accept them as proof of their arguments without verification?

Surely only the psychologists among us, can answer such a question. But being awfully complacent, I will try and do it anyway.

1. Theist insist we atheist thoroughly understand their religious documents, because only us atheist, can read them sceptically and with an open mind.

2. The insist that we accept them as proof of their arguments, because they want us to reassure them, that they are of sound mind. Unfortunatly many of them are not. (Peter van Velzen #1107)

It makes sense, if you look at it from their perspective. They think they have "The Truth" and cannot fathom anyone not agreeing with them. They believe that if we'd just read their holy book, we'd "get it" and would feel the same as they. They don't realize that many of us have read them and, in some cases, that's *why* we don't believe.

I find it interesting that there are many cases in which not only have non-believers read those holy books...but the believer insisting thatwe read it *hasn't*, and is just going by what their priest/minister/imam/whatever *tells* them it says.

As for the second part of the question, it all goes back to their certainty that they have hold of the One Truth. They don't understand how anyone could question it, and don't see why we don't accept it as proof of their arguments. In most cases,it boils down to unfamiliarity with those of different belief systems. At least, that's what I see as the case in the US. (The Jester #774)

My best guess is because they don't have anything else. That is what *they* were convinced with, so it should be good enough for everybody.

Silly, of course, to expect everyone to have the same standards as them. But nobody here has ever disagreed about xians and other such people being silly, have we? (Frank Wustner #119)

A lot of folks have already answered this question very well; I would say "ditto" to many of the things written here. So, I thought I would instead share the following slightly OT story that's illustrative of the mindset ...

A friend of mine who's a fundy was exasperated with me because, over the course of several conversations, I had very rationally explained why I was an atheist and specifically why I didn't believe in a Christian god. During one conversation, she said she was going to buy me a great book that reasonably and scientifically explained why I should belive in the bible and in Jesus (I'm sure she was thinking McDowell or someone of his ilk, so I wasn't too concerned). I promised I would read the book from cover to cover -- but only under the condition that she would read a book that I gave her to read. (I was thinking "Losing Faith In Faith" by Dan Barker since he charts a course out of fundy-ism.) She hemmed and hawed, said she really didn't want to do that, and never again spoke of getting me the book.

I guess she was hoping I would be open-minded enough to read and cosnider her "prrofs"; yet, she wouldn't read or consider anything that doesn't support her proofs. (Tony Liver*nois #1440)

Because some theists (like my born-again close relative) want to BELIEVE. My relative and his pastor once were at my house trying to convert me (I'd made the horrible mistake of not being sure of my beliefs and expressing my uncertainty out loud.) The whole time his pastor was there, my relative was flipping through my Bible and pointing out passages, in so many words saying, "see!` this is why you should believe!" After just 5 minutes with that pastor, I knew I couldn't possibly go to his church ever again. (In fact, I never want to meet him again.)

My relative has, I believe, a strong desire for "rightness" and "completeness" in the world, and to achieve that requires me, the "black sheep" (really: family nonconformist) to follow along. Most of you have heard the "Family Harmony" plea before, and that's what I think is my situation.

BTW, my relative and his pastor talked afterwards; the pastor explained that he "planted the seed" in me. Maybe so. But it wasn't and isn't the one either of them expected. (David Moisan #1904)

I suspect that the broadest applicable answer to both questions is that such theists view the documents as personally compelling and important. For such theists, their scriptures are, quite lierally, the most important things that have ever been written. They have a difficult time understanding how someone could fail to take the time to read them and, by like measure, fail to be compelled by them.

It is, of course, a rather myopic worldview, but most such people are so overwhelmed by their scriptures that they either fail to appreciate this or fail to care. Their religion circumscribes their world and anything outside the boundaries of their religion is, at best, a distractive irrelevancy.

I do think that most theists are able to understand that not everyone is familiar with their texts, that not everyone *cares* to become familiar, and that those who do familiarize themselves are not necessarily going to be impressed or compelled. (Andrew Lias)

Not all do, but those who do insist because they themselves don't: it serves as an excuse for not succeeding in convincing us of their beliefs. This way, they don't have to admit that their faith is not conviction but a group identification they failed to support with thorough knowledge.

That is, it wasn't "I read the Koran, I understood it, and it says the right things, so I'm a Muslim", rather, "I'm a Muslim, so I have to believe the Koran is right, so I read it and try to understand it as my fellows and mullahs claim to, but I was lazy at it".

This is not to say that there aren't theists who rightfully point out errors in our understanding of their sacred texts or our lack of getting the contrext. But these will point out our errors and quote, not sending us to read and not argue until we do.

Of course, these scriptural experts have a problem, too: if the correct understanding of their holy texts needs such an elaborate knowledge, how could everybody (or even a majority) get it right? Worse: if you want to keep an open mind, and explore all possibilities, you are faced with the impossible job of having to become an expert in the teology of hundreds of religions, reading millions of pages.

> Why do they also insist that we, as atheists, accept
> them as proof of their arguments without verification?

Not all do. For example, several Muslims told me that Mohamed wanted us to reason about things, including his own speeches - but also claimed that critical evaluation will prove that the Suras are true, that they show divine knowledge. (But when pressed to demonstrate that, what I got was along the same line as Xians saying "this prophecy is true, so the rest of the Bible is true".)

Now who *do* insist that their texts must be taken as unquestionable proofs to anyone, do so because their logical faculties are blocked in this matter for whatever reason. For, to insist on that they have to ignore that there are other religions with claimed-to-be divine texts, and they have to fall for the circular logic of "I believe my god wrote my Text, therefore I believe my Text is true, my Text writes my god exists, therefore I believe my god exists". (Daneel #323)

...part of their ethos certainly _is_ spreading the word, but they can't accept that to others it's just something they believe. This has two results: they see this as dismissing reality so they've got to demonstrate that it actually _is_ reality, or they see it as a challenge to be responded to..

They don't just believe this, they *K*N*O*W* it with an absolute certainty and have to justify this to everybody. It's personal for them. They are also puzzled why otherwise intelligent, decent people dismiss reality,

Remember that they see us like folk who say we don't believe in the planet Earth, or believe it doesn't exist - both are so far out in left field they can't understand the difference let alone understand people explaining the difference. In their minds they're dealing with idiots.

Never mind that "Earth" is a label for something they can point to.

While we see them as folk who believe in Santa Claus, tell us all about it and want to know why we don't - and who can't cope with an honest answer. We're dealing with idiots.

I'd say it was a case of the former being their excuse when we fail to do the latter.

Presumably, they believe that if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for everybody.

(Note the way the smarter T's attack logic/reason's validity as a tool for deciding such things.)

A lot of theists (who post here) seem to have trouble distinguishing between themselves and other people. ("The" Owen #1883)

I think it's related to the article at Chick's site on Moslems: they are unable to think that what's moving or compelling to them can be just dull or even laughable to us. They see it for other religions' documents, but aren't willing to apply it to their own. IOW, narrowmindedness. (Angel Arnal #1443)

Click here to return to master question page.