Should atheists read the Bible for cultural literacy?

[Tammuz]

I have seen the argument being made by some atheists, among them Richard Dawkins, that if you live in a Western country that currently is or historically was, largely Christian (which I think applies to most of us here), then there is a cultural literacy value in reading the Bible. Do you agree with this sentiment or not?

I find myself sympathetic to this sentiment. I think it would also apply to, for example, the Edda and the Iliad.

 

[rousseau]

I'd replace read with study. That is, study the bible as well as Christianity as a unified whole. It's too easy to just read a book and think we know something about it, without gaining more insight about it's wider context. Reading the bible without understanding Christianity more broadly is like reading Shakespeare as a fifteen year old.

 

[Politesse]

Absolutely. Many European and West Asian philosophical, historical, and early scientific works took the Christian Bible in its manifold forms to be the only truly objective source of information about the nature of the universe and its early history; for this reason alone, it often helps to know what's in there.

I'd replace read with study. That is, study the bible as well as Christianity as a unified whole. It's too easy to just read a book and think we know something about it, without gaining more insight about it's wider context. Reading the bible without understanding Christianity more broadly is like reading Shakespeare as a fifteen year old.

Also true of the Edda and Iliad, as mentioned. People often wave around having read a religious text as some sort of badge of honor or insurance against criticism, even though they can't necessarily remember much of what they learned from the experience and may not have had any context for understanding what was going on in and beneath the text. The Bible is a common culprit, as are any books that people are obliged to read during their schooling.

I certainly wouldn't consider Dawkins some sort of Bible expert, unless he's done some serious study since the publication of The God Delusion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I dunno from philosophy, but from a literacy POV, yes. And i'd replace 'study' with 'Jesys H. CHRIST some familiarity with!'
Many of my wife's students cannot follow the assigned reading because the teacher or the author makes a reference to a biblical figure they know fuck-all about.
She might as well be saying, 'this is a retelling of [/i]bibblief forgorbaliester's epistle to the frbrbrbgystanders.'

They don't know who Moses is, or Noah, or what a disciple is, or much of anything if it wasn't on TV in the last four days.
So, yeah, i'd support teaching at least a Cliff Notes version of all the big religious lit examples.

 

[Politesse]

When I first started teaching my Anthro of Magic & Religion class, I made the mistake of using Bible references for comparison when introducing theoretical concepts, imagining that this would be my students' closest reference point for religious ideas. It turns out young folks (even in what used to be California's Bible Belt) do not these days know even very generally what is in the book. References to Noah's flood or the Tower of Babel get confused looks. So I switched tracks and usually reference comic book movies instead. The more socially authentic mythology of our times.

 

[Keith&Co.]

My wife just reminded me of her using the term 'a David and Goliath situation.'
Most of the class was confused. One kid nodded knowingly. "It's a boxing term."

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes, but don't limit it to cultural literacy. Read it for its humor (the same way you'd read stuff uttered by Charles Manson, Harold Camping, or Trump) and read it for the porn.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have seen the argument being made by some atheists, among them Richard Dawkins, that if you live in a Western country that currently is or historically was, largely Christian (which I think applies to most of us here), then there is a cultural literacy value in reading the Bible. Do you agree with this sentiment or not?

I find myself sympathetic to this sentiment. I think it would also apply to, for example, the Edda and the Iliad.

And Shakespeare, Voltaire, Adam Smith, John Locke, Karl Marx, Mark Twain, etc.

Although it is humorous the number of Christians who mistake quotations from Shakespeare for Bible quotes. (they seem to take any quote containing a verb with an -eth ending as a Bible quote.)

People should read.

 

[rousseau]

I have seen the argument being made by some atheists, among them Richard Dawkins, that if you live in a Western country that currently is or historically was, largely Christian (which I think applies to most of us here), then there is a cultural literacy value in reading the Bible. Do you agree with this sentiment or not?

I find myself sympathetic to this sentiment. I think it would also apply to, for example, the Edda and the Iliad.

And Shakespeare, Voltaire, Adam Smith, John Locke, Karl Marx, Mark Twain, etc.

Although it is humorous the number of Christians who mistake quotations from Shakespeare for Bible quotes. (they seem to take any quote containing a verb with an -eth ending as a Bible quote.)

People should read.

It makes things interesting once you bring names like Marx into the mix. If people were able to read and interpret things with an objective, critical eye I'd agree with you, but unfortunately most of us filter incoming information through our pre-existing biases. This has meant that people enlightening themselves via the work of Marx has done more to confuse politics in the past century than actually help it. Not that I want to derail the thread with a discussion on Marx, but it does raise an interesting point.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes. Along with other things. Like it or not the bible is an integral part of western civilization with a lot of influence. It is said to be the best selling book of all time.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It all depends on what one is reading the bible for. For example, those brought up to believe that the bible is a book of prophecies, may read it to look for clues to when the end of the world is scheduled to occur. This is a big past time for many Christians. Plus torturing genesis to support creationism. Not everybody reads the bible for enlightenment or with a critical outlook.

 

[aupmanyav]

I think most atheists (I do not know about American or European atheists) have already read Bible, Quran and a smattering of Bahai literature also, along with their own scriptures. I am aware of views in Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism too. One does not become an atheist without reading these things. I see atheist replying Bible and Quran thumpers effectively. No, I am not a scholar but I cannot be mislead.

 

[steve_bank]

Job is a great timeless story.

Proverbs are as applicable today as then. The wisdom literature of an ancient people.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Just curious -- do you find the final revelation that Jehovah makes to Job to be sensible/wise/inspiring?

 

[skepticalbip]

I have seen the argument being made by some atheists, among them Richard Dawkins, that if you live in a Western country that currently is or historically was, largely Christian (which I think applies to most of us here), then there is a cultural literacy value in reading the Bible. Do you agree with this sentiment or not?

I find myself sympathetic to this sentiment. I think it would also apply to, for example, the Edda and the Iliad.

And Shakespeare, Voltaire, Adam Smith, John Locke, Karl Marx, Mark Twain, etc.

Although it is humorous the number of Christians who mistake quotations from Shakespeare for Bible quotes. (they seem to take any quote containing a verb with an -eth ending as a Bible quote.)

People should read.

It makes things interesting once you bring names like Marx into the mix. If people were able to read and interpret things with an objective, critical eye I'd agree with you, but unfortunately most of us filter incoming information through our pre-existing biases. This has meant that people enlightening themselves via the work of Marx has done more to confuse politics in the past century than actually help it. Not that I want to derail the thread with a discussion on Marx, but it does raise an interesting point.

That was sorta my point. Atheists should read the Bible to understand theists' references, capitalists should read Karl Marx to understand their opponents' references, Marxists should read John Locke to understand their opponents' references. In effect, people should not read only literature that supports their particular biases. Reading of the literature that influences a culture will help someone to understand that culture.

Today, one of the leading Democratic candidates for U.S. presidential nomination is an avowed socialist who has praised Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I think that a reading of Karl Marx would give someone some insight into his mindset. It can give them an understanding that socialism is not just "free stuff".

 

[steve_bank]

Just curious -- do you find the final revelation that Jehovah makes to Job to be sensible/wise/inspiring?

I see the ancient Hebrew god as a t eaching and reference talking point rather than a god actually speaking. I look at it like Aesop's Fables. Talking animals in a story to make a point. The Greek and Roman mythologies are obvious. Different gods representing facets of human culture like love and war.

Some of the books start as teacher to student, father to son. The Oxford Commentary says Job was probably part of a larger set of teaching materials.

When I grew up in common culture there wre biblical metaphors

wisdom of Solomon
Patience of Job
somebody who thinks he can 'walk on the water'
someone doing something epic as like 'parting the waters'

And so on.

Those metaphors have been replaced by popular colure. People quote Bob Dylan or a rapper. Drug metaphors are common in everyday life like. 'What have you been smoking?' or 'What a bummer'.

Bad things happen to good people. Job is a righteous guy on whom shit suddenly rains down. His looses everything and friends turn on him.

He finally breaks and laments his troubles. He looses his faith.

Job is restored by forgiving those who turned on him, or so I remember it. Spiritual restoration of course.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm glad I have the literacy with it, but only for the sake that I can explain these things to my child. It has almost no real world value, as so many Christians don't bother to care about what it says. You go to a Catholic mass and its 1% original content 99% dogma. As if singing a hymn imparts Biblical knowledge. Go to other services, and it is about nitpicking a paragraph to say the same damn thing. About the only thing Christians use the bible for is to justify discrimination. I know plenty of great Christians, but in general, they ain't getting it from the good book.

 

[ronburgundy]

Of course. Not only has the Bible had huge influence, but is itself the product of factors and influences that are highly relevant to understanding humans and society. It's important to understand the Bible and also to understand it as a product of the human knowledge, ignorance, prejudices, fears, bigotries, politics, and desires to control that motivated it's authors and are the basis of it's appeal. IOW, it's important to understand the Abrahamic religion as a social phenomenon.

That context of history, politics, psychology, and sociology are of course equally important for theists to understand. Although if they did, they wouldn't likely remain theists or at least their version of it and wouldn't treat the Bible as a particularly special source of valid knowledge or ethics relevant for today, but rather as a product of highly flawed, ethically questionable, biased humans trying to promote a particular set of cultural and political norms and trying to grapple with experiences and events that they lacked the knowledge and methods to understand. That's why atheists tend to have more knowledge of the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general than most theists do.

 

[rousseau]

It makes things interesting once you bring names like Marx into the mix. If people were able to read and interpret things with an objective, critical eye I'd agree with you, but unfortunately most of us filter incoming information through our pre-existing biases. This has meant that people enlightening themselves via the work of Marx has done more to confuse politics in the past century than actually help it. Not that I want to derail the thread with a discussion on Marx, but it does raise an interesting point.

That was sorta my point. Atheists should read the Bible to understand theists' references, capitalists should read Karl Marx to understand their opponents' references, Marxists should read John Locke to understand their opponents' references. In effect, people should not read only literature that supports their particular biases. Reading of the literature that influences a culture will help someone to understand that culture.

Today, one of the leading Democratic candidates for U.S. presidential nomination is an avowed socialist who has praised Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I think that a reading of Karl Marx would give someone some insight into his mindset. It can give them an understanding that socialism is not just "free stuff".

If only it wasn't more advantageous for people to remain in the dark, than to seek out greater understanding. We should, but I won't hold my breath to wait for it happening.

 

[steve_bank]

Of course. Not only has the Bible had huge influence, but is itself the product of factors and influences that are highly relevant to understanding humans and society. It's important to understand the Bible and also to understand it as a product of the human knowledge, ignorance, prejudices, fears, bigotries, politics, and desires to control that motivated it's authors and are the basis of it's appeal. IOW, it's important to understand the Abrahamic religion as a social phenomenon.

That context of history, politics, psychology, and sociology are of course equally important for theists to understand. Although if they did, they wouldn't likely remain theists or at least their version of it and wouldn't treat the Bible as a particularly special source of valid knowledge or ethics relevant for today, but rather as a product of highly flawed, ethically questionable, biased humans trying to promote a particular set of cultural and political norms and trying to grapple with experiences and events that they lacked the knowledge and methods to understand. That's why atheists tend to have more knowledge of the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general than most theists do.

Good post.