Exploring personal discoveries, experiences and decisions
Sunday, October 07, 2007
The dubious origins of holy books
"Adherents of scriptural authority show distressingly little curiosity about the (normally highly dubious) historical origins of their holy books." -- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, page 233.
Do you agree?
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dawkins statement here is, if not dishonest, completely based on his atheistic pre-suppositions often repeated by those who do not research the facts out for themselves. As a matter of fact there is far more evidence for Biblical texts than for all other ancient texts combined. For starters let me direct you to http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm
R Hoeppner: Why should Richard Dawkins' comments be considered dishonest or based completely on his atheistic pre-suppositions if all it takes to make such an observation as his is to meet staunch religionists who are not curious about the origins of holy books? His comment that such origins are "normally highly dubious", being in parenthesis, is secondary. How do you know that even this secondary statement is dishonest or a belief based on his presuppositions? If there is evidence for the falsehood of his belief, why not present that? The reliability of the Bible's transmission through the centuries may well be highly reliable, but how does that prove its actual truth or its validity as a holy book? Who can prove that the right books appeared in the canon, since the Bible makes no claims about itself as a whole?
2 comments:
Dawkins statement here is, if not dishonest, completely based on his atheistic pre-suppositions often repeated by those who do not research the facts out for themselves.
As a matter of fact there is far more evidence for Biblical texts than for all other ancient texts combined.
For starters let me direct you to http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm
R Hoeppner: Why should Richard Dawkins' comments be considered dishonest or based completely on his atheistic pre-suppositions if all it takes to make such an observation as his is to meet staunch religionists who are not curious about the origins of holy books? His comment that such origins are "normally highly dubious", being in parenthesis, is secondary. How do you know that even this secondary statement is dishonest or a belief based on his presuppositions? If there is evidence for the falsehood of his belief, why not present that? The reliability of the Bible's transmission through the centuries may well be highly reliable, but how does that prove its actual truth or its validity as a holy book? Who can prove that the right books appeared in the canon, since the Bible makes no claims about itself as a whole?
Post a Comment