Jon J,

>> unless you or someone else can demonstrate how to tell the parts that are simply wrong (like the bit about curing leprosy) from the parts you believe are correct, there is simply no reason for any rational person to believe a single word of it.<<

That is understandable; if you don’t believe in God - whether or not you call yourself rational or something else - why should you see the Bible as anything but a fiction?

The question of biblical exegesis arises only for those who believe in God. And even for those it is not an easy question, the answer to which is best left to specialists, like the question about things theoretical physicists best understand. The difference, of course, is that biblical exegetes have different perspectives, depending on which “denominational orientation”, they start from, whereas theoretical physicists tend to eventually agree on a common perspective. So it is easier to decide which physicist to believe than to decide which exegete to prefer; it usually depends not only on scholarship considerations but also on your denominational background.

Faulty analogy, George. That is observation, not experience.

>>"Whereas both you and I can experience gravity without understanding it, only you can indulge in religious speculation" I am sure you have experienced - positively or negatively - not only the effect of gravity on falling objects but also of religion on human beings.<<

I have certainly observed the effect of religion on other people. But that is not an experience, in the same way that I experience gravity. If gravity were something that affected some people, but not others, the experience of those affected would differ - substantially, I suspect - from those who remained untouched by it.

I am influenced by gravity, as is everyone on the planet, therefore I can say that I experience it. I am not influenced by religion, which affects only some people, therefore I can say that I do not experience it.

So, back to the "impenetrably complex and subtly layered" issue.

>>in the case of the various religions, unlike gravity, their complexity is entirely manufactured by their acolytes and adherents<<

This faux-complexity has indeed kept scholars intrigued for centuries. But it is, nevertheless, entirely manufactured.

Anthropologically speaking, I do accept that there remains the mystery why humans seem to need to believe at all in a deity. But this did not feature in either side of the debate to which you referred us, only a lack of knowledge of "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology".

Which is a totally different ballgame.

..im not KEEN ON GRAVITY/prefering to keep it light
but as its bEEN RAISED/lets bring folks [of science bent/BENT BY THE EVOLUTION/THEORY*]

LEST WE FORGET..SCIENCE..CAN EXPLAIn..how gravity works
cant switch it on/off..isnt causing it..in short/though we can glinly/babble onwards and ever forwards..the truth of gravity is SCIENCE ISNT DOING 'it'...DIDNT CAUSE IT/CANT CONTROL IT/JUST LIKE IT NEVER 'EVOLVED ANY GENUS..INTO OTHER GENUS

JUST LIKE..IT allways was/both shall contINUE AS THEY WERE BEFORE SCIENCE DISCOVERY.

TO SAY ONLY THE RELIGIOUS ARE AFFECTED BY RELIGION
equaly..isNT SUSTAINABLE..as godless children ..presented into its clutches can affirm/religious wars can affect us all.

if you live..on faith..not knowing
YOU GOT FAITH..IN OTHERS KNOWING..thus be deceived..BY SIMPLE HUMANE ERROR..till your cold dead body hits the grave..if someone claims they know..[and cant name names/this reveals they dONT..reveals..ALL THEY got is faith.

why thats so hard to admit..IS SIMPLY BY PRIDE.
pride goeth before a fall/thats all.

Pericles,

There are no faulty analogies, metaphors etc. You either get what they are trying to convey or not. Nobody experiences religion the same way they experience gravity, that is rather obvious. And only some people have what is called religious (or mystical) experience, and you are obviously not one of them (neither am I), this is also obvious. Much less obvious is what is actually “religion” studied by scholars in different disciplines as I noted elsewhere.

Many people think that not only theories of religion, within or without philosophy, but also abstract physical theories or speculations (superstring theory, multiverse etc) are “entirely manufactured”, nevertheless this does not hinder thinkers from trying to understand the nature of human or physical reality respectively.

>> Anthropologically speaking, I do accept that there remains the mystery why humans seem to need to believe at all in a deity. <<

This “why” has a different meaning for an anthropologist, a psychologist, a sociologists a philosopher, and they also attempt to resolve the mystery in different ways. They all see the finger pointing to Something, that cannot be seen directly, whether they believe that this Something is the moon or just a balloon. (Sorry, again a metaphor, however this time not mine.)

You are right that this ping-pong started with my observation that Krauss displayed a naive understanding of "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology”, and instead of asking who derailed the discussion, I think it is better we again just agree to disagree on whether it is worth to pursue these themes seriously or which analogy or metaphor is “faulty” and which insightful.

The Bible is not the articulation of a set of beliefs it is a list of rationalisations for certain religious practices. The Bible did not magically appear and then people began indulging in religious practices because it seemed reasonable to do so. The behaviour came first and when its practioners were asked why they did these things they began to explain them and then write them down. None of them made sense to a reasonable person only to those who wanted to indulge in the same behaviours for the neurotic benefit they perceived in those behaviours.

It is like an alcoholic who rationalises the five hours a night he spends in the pub by saying he is just a very sociable person. It is a denial of the reality of his alcoholism. Everyone but himself can see what he is doing. Religious people deny their problems by rationalising their behaviour and writing it down in ‘bibles’.

It is futile to engage with people who spout these rationalisations. Bringing the rules of logic and reason into a conversation as if the opponent was also using the same rules is a complete waste of time. It shows a lack of self-respect and integrity to even enter into such ‘arguments’. Celebrity atheists who do this are not trying to win an argument but rather they are trying to display what they think is their intellectual power for the sake of stroking their own ego. If they really had such power they would see what is truly going on and refuse to be a participant. Such engagement only serves to validate the rationalisations of religious people into rational arguments in their own mind. If they had no one to engage with on religious questions their doubts would become stronger and their ‘faith’ would dissipate. If religion is everything they claim it to be they would not feel the need to justify it by arguing with anyone. If they were truly secure they would only need to indulge their practices and thereby they would have everything that religion has to offer.

Dear Phanto,

<<If religion is everything they claim it to be they would not feel the need to justify it by arguing with anyone>>

The need to justify and argue only arises from fear that the secular/humanist movement will otherwise use their political powers to outlaw religion in general as well as particular religious practices. This is not imaginary: it has happened (and still happens) in communist countries and several commentators have expressed such desires on this very forum.

It would be so much more convenient if religious people could be left alone as you suggest, but learning that:
1. The state already limits the ability of alcoholics to spend their night drinking in pubs.
2. A significant number of others consider of your own lifestyle to be in the same category as alcoholics.

Wouldn't you become agitated and be pushed, even against your nature, into justifications and arguments to prove that your lifestyle is NOT similar to that of alcoholics?