My OperaI'm puzzled why intelligent, educated people believe in make-believe sky-fairies
Friday, January 18, 2008 3:27:26 AM
After sincerely trying throughout my life to believe that there are some basic truths in the Biblical claims for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, I have recently finally cast off my last remnants of credulity: I am now convinced that this entity/being does not exist except in the minds (or more specifically the imaginations) of the believers, and its 'influence' and 'power' to do anything extend only as far as the influence and power of the human believers themselves; without believers to do 'his' will, God is utterly impotent and powerless.
So the title of my blog, "I'm Puzzled" is something of a question. I'm puzzled why intelligent, educated and otherwise rational people still persist as they do in believing in a Judeo-Christian deity. What is more puzzling is why some people, who start out as atheistic rationalists, later abandon their rationalism and take up 'religion' in adult life. (The author of The Dawkins Delusion, Alister McGrath, being a prime example.)
Why do modern religious apologists—for all faiths, not just Christianity—fail to admit or recognise that their religious beliefs are all, ultimately built upon ancient myths and legends, not historical 'reality'? Why, for example, should the legendary characters of Greek mythology, Hercules, Odysseus, or Achilles, be accepted for what they are, yet the equally legendary character, the gospel writers' 'Jesus of Nazareth', is regarded as more than a mere legend: he is regarded, in fact as God? (The gospel accounts of his life are Christian mythology, not history.) It is irrational to accept all but one ancient culture's myths as myths while insisting that the exception is not mythology at all but 'divinely inspired scripture' and therefore 'real' and 'true'.
Another way of looking at this: if some ancient South American tribe were discovered and they related a legend to the anthropologists of a great god-king being born to a virgin mother under some strange stars in the sky, and who grew up to have miraculous powers to amplify food, turn water into wine, heal the sick, even raise the dead, including himself, all the top Christian theologians would, with tyical superior airs, dismiss such a story as 'primitive legend' or 'superstition' . However, their own mythology begins with just such a tale; only the location and names would be different.
So where does one draw the line between 'mythology' and 'religion'? To me, it is a very thick and fuzzy line, if indeed there is one to be drawn.
Where does mythology end and 'religion' begin?
So the title of my blog, "I'm Puzzled" is something of a question. I'm puzzled why intelligent, educated and otherwise rational people still persist as they do in believing in a Judeo-Christian deity. What is more puzzling is why some people, who start out as atheistic rationalists, later abandon their rationalism and take up 'religion' in adult life. (The author of The Dawkins Delusion, Alister McGrath, being a prime example.)
Why do modern religious apologists—for all faiths, not just Christianity—fail to admit or recognise that their religious beliefs are all, ultimately built upon ancient myths and legends, not historical 'reality'? Why, for example, should the legendary characters of Greek mythology, Hercules, Odysseus, or Achilles, be accepted for what they are, yet the equally legendary character, the gospel writers' 'Jesus of Nazareth', is regarded as more than a mere legend: he is regarded, in fact as God? (The gospel accounts of his life are Christian mythology, not history.) It is irrational to accept all but one ancient culture's myths as myths while insisting that the exception is not mythology at all but 'divinely inspired scripture' and therefore 'real' and 'true'.
Another way of looking at this: if some ancient South American tribe were discovered and they related a legend to the anthropologists of a great god-king being born to a virgin mother under some strange stars in the sky, and who grew up to have miraculous powers to amplify food, turn water into wine, heal the sick, even raise the dead, including himself, all the top Christian theologians would, with tyical superior airs, dismiss such a story as 'primitive legend' or 'superstition' . However, their own mythology begins with just such a tale; only the location and names would be different.
So where does one draw the line between 'mythology' and 'religion'? To me, it is a very thick and fuzzy line, if indeed there is one to be drawn.
Where does mythology end and 'religion' begin?
