Sellick wrote: “ … fundamental changes that were brought about by Anthony Collins in England in the 1720s…
<SKIP>
This was the beginning of historical criticism and all of the other kind of criticisms of the Bible. Simply to assert that biblical authors had a voice of their own was huge move away from the idea that the text of the Bible was inspired by God.”

Biblical criticism has a long history of which Sellick seems unaware.

Some critical analysis of the Jewish Bible which Christians modified and called the Old Testament is already found in Talmud. Ancient Jews, early Christians and fundamentalists of both faiths believe to this day the Five books of Moses were written by Moses. The Talmud ascribes the last eight verses of Deuteronomy to Joshua.

Jewish and Christian scholars have been studying the sacred literature for many years from these points of view. Christian scholars as early as the second century began the practice of Biblical criticism. In that century St. Jerome placed the writing of Deuteronomy in the seventh century BC. This denied Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.

Rabbis in the eleventh century made critical examinations of the Bible. In the twelfth century Abraham Ibn Ezra suggested that there were additions to the Torah or the Five Books of Moses after Moses died. Moses ibn Gikatilla suggested that the author of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah was not the author of chapters 40-66.

In the fifteenth century Isaac Abravenal attempted the first scientific study of the Bible, continued two hundred years later by Baruch Spinoza. Modern critical study of the Bible did not begin until the Age of Reason. In 1753 Jean Astruc (1684 - 1766), professor at the University of Paris, published "Conjectures as to the Original Memoirs, Which, as it Appears, Moses used in Composing the Book of Genesis."

Astruc was the first to demonstrate—using the techniques of textual analysis that were commonplace in studying the secular classics — the theory that Genesis was composed based on several sources or manuscript traditions, an approach that is called the documentary hypothesis.

"But, as has been argued again and again in these pages, such a scheme means that we lose human “being” itself, which is another way of referring to the death of the soul."

Knowledge contributes to the nourishment of the soul. Surely we as human beings can only be enriched by seeking knowledge and to understand our universe. It is not always necessary to be enriched only through knowledge but through experience.

Experiencing the wonders of our natural world and the way we are connected to the earth and all other living organisms is, for me anyway, much more human than a belief in a supernatural force.

Of course, there are many things we mere humans do not know and maybe never will. Does it mean we are any the lesser or better for knowing as 'beings' - I wouldn't think so.

Questioning the Bible is not a negative thing particularly if one believes the Bible is a creation of man rather than of a supernatural being.

runner
Some of those corrupt scientists you talk about actually deny anthropogenic climate change. Who are you to decide who are the corrupt scientists? I have many religous friends who I don't agree with in terms of their views on creation but I would not stoop to say they are corrupt just because their world view does not agree with mine. Sometimes people are just wrong, and there may be no hidden agenda.

"The logic of natural science dominates our understanding of what is true and what is not and is the reason that some commentators to these pages are indignant that theological statements are not so tested. In this they are thoroughly modern. But, as has been argued again and again in these pages, such a scheme means that we lose human “being” itself, which is another way of referring to the death of the soul."

Sorry, Peter -- you haven't argued this even once, let alone 'over and over again'. Arguing requires the production of reasons and evidence. You have merely asserted it.

Brilliant! In his attempt at rebuttal, Jon J’s three short sentences exemplify the very problem that Peter Sellick has described.

The tyranny of empiricism demands rejection of one’s inner life. The soul lives in metaphor, in symbols, in dreams, in myths, in feelings. The examination of these can employ reasoning at the highest level, but imagination is just as necessary to the task. The evidence needed in such work is not composed of fact so much as inner experience.

pelican,
>>Experiencing the wonders of our natural world and the way we are connected to the earth and all other living organisms is, for me anyway, much more human than a belief in a supernatural force.<<

You can both EXPERIENCE “the wonders of our natural world”etc, as well as have a BELIEF that there is a natural world existing outside your mental world (the essence of which you can try to understand only through modelling it using some sophisticated mathematics). The same as you can have a religious EXPERIENCE as well as a BELIEF into the source of this experience with an existence ALSO outside your mental world (that you can only try to understand through - mythological, biblical, metaphysical etc - models).

I know, there are very much fewer solipsists than there are atheists, but still. [Sorry, I did not mean to shout, but there is no other way to emphasise words on this OLO, no italics, no boldface .]

Hi George
You will get no argument from me. I wasn't putting caveats on the experience ie. asserting that that enjoyment was only available to atheists. Sells was the one make assertions about the essence of the "being" and destruction of the soul.

Of course there is no reason to assume those who hold a belief in God/s are able to experience the same wonder and joy of the natural world no matter how they think it came to be.

I will make one point though, that those who do not hold a belief in the supernatural do not stand at the foot of a mountain or forest and think about mathematics or modelling. It is possilbe to enjoy the 'spirituality' of being in a forest without it emanating from a religious belief.

Spirituality is something that is very personal and lies within, what may move me in terms of our natural world may not move everybody. I would imagine that some may get that same feeling through their religious beliefs.