We found the following dialogue between Nancy Brown, an Episcopal priest, and the Ethical Atheist to be interesting enough to merit its own page. Not that it is unique because similar discussions are held on a regular basis between believers and non-believers. It is just an exemplary discussion outlining the common disagreement between the two groups.
FROM:
Nancy Brown, an Episcopal priest
revnancy@pacbell.net
Sun May 26 22:13:00 2002.I find it quite disappointing that your site seems to categorize people as either religious literalist/fundamentalists or atheists. There are many, many Christians who understand that the Scriptures are neither scientific nor historical documents. The Scriptures are the people's account of God's revelation to them. As such, they are sacred, but not literally factual. They contain many contradictions concerning details of events, but they also contain the truth of God's love for those whom God created.
The creation stories were never intended to be accurate, factual accounts of the events of creation. For one thing, Chapter 1 of Genesis tells the 6-day creation story. That story depicts the power of the transcendent God who can "speak" creation into being. Chapter 2 of Genesis tells the story of the Garden of Eden in which God walked and talked with Adam and Eve. That story depicts God's love for the creation and how humankind has rejected much of the good within the creation, resulting in much suffering. It is not intended to be a literal account of 2 created people who wore fig leaves.
I am convinced of the reality of evolution. I am also convinced that the evolution that has taken place was neither accidental nor random. A world in which the fittest survive is the kind of world that God created. How did God create this world? Big bang? Very likely, but I don't know. Perhaps someday the scientists will find out for sure.
It seems rather telling that you have two categories for comments: those who agree with you and hate mail. I am interested to see into which of these categories you might put my comments.
Response from Ethical Atheist:
Monday, May 27, 2002 12:09 PMDear Nancy,
Regarding the "Hate Mail" page, it actually says "[** Most of these aren't really Hateful, just Unfavorable]". You said you found the site "quite disappointing". We would regard this as an "unfavorable" comment, so that's where it will be posted. You're right that all emails don't always fit well into these two categories, but we're not sure we want to get into making a bunch of other categories like (a) "Somewhat favorable, but we're not sure", (b) "Mostly unfavorable, but some negative remarks", (c) "Completely Unfavorable", etc. We used to have all comments on one page, but that became rather unmanageable.
Regarding the Bible, are you saying that the Bible is not the "Word of God"? You're right, we tend to focus on groups that believe it's the true word of God. The reason for this is that these are the people we run into on a regular basis. We do realize that there's a broad range of views on the Bible going from (a) "it's a bunch of nonsense and gibberish made up by man" to (z) "it's the absolute word of God and should be taken literally". There are hundreds of variations in between. We find it interesting how many groups apply their own interpretation to the Bible. To us that implies that it is flawed and incorrect and requires people's interpretations to arrive at the truth. Doesn't that dilute the omnipotence of God? Why would he convey the nonsense, violence, adultery and scientific fallacies to be used as His book? Why wouldn't he have conveyed 'what he meant' and ensured it was written down as such? He supposedly wants us to believe in him, worship him and fear him, right? Why would he come across as a fool then? And, then, seeing his mistake, why wouldn't he correct it and make the "Revised and True Word of God Bible"? To believe parts of it, yet derive your own views on evolution, the Garden of Eden, etc seems very contradictory too. We aren't sure how you can stabilize your mind with such a conflict. Do you at times have to recategorize what is in the Bible that is true and what is not? For example, did you at one believe in the Bible's story of creation being a divine act of God, then later see the scientific evidence of evolution and have to move your view of creation into the false section?
You say the Bible is "sacred"? But, you also say it's full of contradictions, not literally factual, not scientific, nor historical. That doesn't sound very "sacred". Any decent library having such a book on its shelves should have it pulled. If an author wrote a book pretending to be a scientific account of the earth and it was later found incorrect, it would likely be replaced by books promoting newer correct findings. We're completely against book burning, but if there ever was a book that should be burned, we believe it should be the Bible.
We strongly believe in the right of all people to hold whatever views they desire. We just find that the view of individuals like you who pick and choose what to hold as true in the Bible are even more confusing to us that the literalists. But, it's your choice and if you can live with it - more
power to you. Good Day. - The Ethical Atheist
FROM:
Rev Nancy Brown (an Episcopal priest)
revnancy@pacbell.net
Monday, May 27, 2002 3:26 PMI absolutely believe that the Bible is the Word of God. It is not, however, the "words" of God. God's revelation to the many people who wrote the Bible is very real. These are people who had powerful, direct, life-changing experiences of God. God revealed God's self to them in ways that humankind had never known before. Further, God inspired them to write down these revelations and experiences so that others would be able to know about them. But they wrote them down using their own words. Reading the Bible is the next best thing we have to sitting down with those people and having them tell us exactly what it was like for them when God broke into their lives in
dramatic ways.Is it sacred? Yes, indeed. To use the definitions of "sacred" found in the dictionary, the Bible is "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of God." It is "worthy of religious veneration, entitled to reverence and respect." It is holy. It contains divinely inspired poetry and drama, among other things. It conveys the truth of God and of God's relationship with creation. It was never intended to give a scientific explanation of the way the world came into being.
There is a vast difference between hearing the truth in the Bible and taking every word literally. For example, in the book of Ruth, God is described as "the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge." Are we to believe that God has feathers in order for the Bible to have validity? You say that interpreting the Scriptures dilutes the omnipotence of God. Do you not realize that every human being interprets everything they experience? When you see a big yellow disc in the eastern sky, you interpret it to mean that night is changing into day, and your experience tells you that it will continue to be day until the sun sets. Interpretation is, in fact, part of the Scriptures. The prophets interpreted the Torah for the people of Israel and Judah. Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures for the people of his time. The Apostles interpreted the teachings of Jesus for the early church. Knowledge is useless without the interpretation that makes it relevant for a particular time and place.
In my tradition, we express our faith through Scripture, Tradition (as handed down in the church), and Reason. Each of the three is given equal weight. If Scripture is the only thing considered, the danger is very real that such a faith may become the worship of a book, not of God.
There are many, many things I could say in response to your comments. However, your comments indicate to me that your mind is closed on the subject of God. That's too bad.
Grace and peace to you,
Nancy
Response from Ethical Atheist:
Dear Nancy,
Thank you for sharing your views with us. I hope it does not surprise you that we do not share your views as will be discussed below. But, we appreciate your interpretations and see no reason not to live in peace on our small planet and limited lifetimes. I hope you feel the same.
Regarding your statement that the Bible "was never intended to give a scientific explanation of the way the world came into being", I guess we differ on this position. If it wasn't intended to be an account of the world's (and man's) creation, then why is it presented as such in the Bible? Why, too, do many religions hold it as such and consider evolution and the work of paleontologists to be that of the devil?
Regarding your statement, "Are we to believe that God has feathers in order for the Bible to have validity?"; we find no problem in accepting allegorical symbolism in the Bible or any other work. However, this is not our problem with the Bible. It is in the false scientific statements, pure fiction, lies, violence, killing, etc to which we find fault. Are you proposing that these are all allegories too and we should not see them as historical accounts of God's supposed creation; of Noah's saving of all animals worldwide; of raping; and of murders of Moses? Are these horrible stories the same as "God's wings" or "a big yellow disc" to which you refer? We just don't see them that way. We see a distinct difference between these harmless allegories and an outright lie about scientific facts or the horrible violence and sexual abuse found so frequently in the Bible.
Regarding your statement, "Knowledge is useless without the interpretation that makes it relevant for a particular time and place." - again, we're not sure we agree with this statement. It seems to us that most true knowledge stands freely on its own without reference to place or time. If not, it is likely inaccurate and proven false by observation (in other places or times) or, worse, plain fiction or outright lies. In our experience, in areas where there are many different interpretations, whether in religion or science, most interpretations are wrong. But, this is a topic much larger than we can address here.
You stated, "In my tradition, we express our faith through Scripture, Tradition (as handed down in the church), and Reason". Many atheists and agnostics, or pure scientists or philosophers, would find your use of terms "Scripture" and "Tradition" alongside with "Reason" to be misguided and mildly offensive. The application of "Reason" and logic is precisely why so many atheists and agnostics are non-believers. It is with these mental faculties that we arrive at our conclusions; that of resistance to unfounded belief in the truth of the 'Scriptures'. And, the 'Traditions' of which you speak only fuel this errant condition and maintain other illogical and harmful behaviors. We are often confounded to hear of women who hold that the teachings of the Scriptures and the actions continued in the name of church 'tradition' are held in high esteem and deemed 'sacred'. It is as if you haven't read the 'Scriptures' nor hold any knowledge of religious history. Do you actually promote the sexual discrimination and oppression contained in the Bible and carried on through tradition? Are you unaware of the history of the European Middle Ages? Are you blind to the confining traditions against women by the Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc.? Or do you hold that their interpretations of Scripture and traditions have gone awry and that only your views are morally right? And, we need not mention the similar discrimination and oppression of slaves promoted by the Scriptures, tradition and interpretations, do we? Or the slaughtering of innocent Jews by the Third Reich with the condoning silence of the Church?
So, back to "Reason" - might we propose that you use this term with a little more restraint, especially in the context of religion, tradition and the Scriptures? May we recommend an excellent book to you which is a fantastic study in Reason. It was written by someone who lived in Europe and experienced religious persecution first-hand. It is an old book (written in 1794) and the author influenced our Founding Fathers and the governing documents of America greatly. This person sought the religious freedoms and safety of our new nation; being tired of running from religious tradition and imprisonment in France. The book of which I speak is Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" (which he actually wrote while in a French prison). It is an enlightening view into conditions in the 1700's. It is cheap at $10.36 on Amazon (see "Age of Reason"). Or it can be viewed for free online at The Secular Web's site (see this link). Even if you are totally disgusted with it, it should be enlightening as a history of oppression and a documentary of biblical errancy. Plus, the narrative of Paine's plight in Europe and his actions in America are very interesting. I think you owe it to yourself, being a priest, to have an understanding of this period in our history and the actions of Europeans in the not so distant past.
We hope this hasn't offended you. We have the impression that you are interested in our views or you wouldn't have bothered visiting the Ethical Atheist site or bothered corresponding with us. Again, even though we have many opposing views - peace!
Sincerely,
The Ethical Atheist
Thus Goes the Argument Forever More...
- Ethical Atheist
[Created: 05/28/2002]
[Last Update: n/a]