Goodman on Quoting Scripture
It?s not uncommon for an atheist to be very knowledgeable about scriptures - much more knowledgeable than believers tend to assume and often more knowledgeable than believers themselves. As a consequence, atheists will often find themselves quoting and arguing scripture at some length with believers.
Is this, however, an attempt to deceive believers as to what scripture says? No. As Goodman describes of the Devil, the purpose is not to deceive but simply to educate. Such education has a couple of goals. First, atheists would like to educate theists about the fac that atheists are themselves knowledgeable when it comes to religion and scripture - getting them over the idea that atheists are completely ignorant of such things can be a major hurdle.
Second, atheists would like to educate believers about aspects of their own religious traditions which they are often unaware of. These are the sorts of things which atheists may attribute their own skepticism to, at least in its early stages. If a believer can better understand how a person can come to be a nonbeliever, they might not harbor so many misunderstandings and prejudices.
Finally, atheists would like to get believers to think more skeptically and critically about their religious traditions. Even if they don?t ?deconvert? and become atheists themselves, they would surely be better off if they didn?t simply accept received tradition without question or thought.
Critical thinking is often a key to avoid succumbing to fanaticism and extremism - its use really should be more widespread.
Is all of this a prelude to ?seduction,? as Goodman describes it? Seducting someone means to ?lead them away from their duty, their principles, or proper conduct.? Here, then, Goodman seems to portray believers as if they only way they can adhere to duty, principles, and proper conduct is to remain ignorant of their own religious scriptures and traditions - hardly a flattering portrait, but perhaps not entirely off the mark, either.
It?s simply not that uncommon for religious leaders to gloss over problematic passages or even to insist that people not read scriptures in order to keep unpleasant and uncomfortable things from them. Actively reading a text requires that a person engage it on their own, one-one-one, and without the mediation of a cleric who can instruct a person in how exactly the text should be interpreted. This can be dangerous for an ecclesiastical establishment. It?s not surprising that some have worked hard to keep it from occurring.
Knowledge is perhaps necessary for seduction - but no more or less so than ignorance, I suspect. If believers are targets of ?seduction? by atheists, it is a seduction towards skepticism, freethought, and critical thinking about religious matters. I can imagine where some apologists would find this terrible, but speaking for myself I hope that it is a seduction which is consummated more often in the future.
- When the Devil quotes Scriptures, it?s not, really, to deceive, but simply that the masses are so ignorant of theology that somebody has to teach them the elementary texts before he can seduce them.
- Paul Goodman, ?Spring and Summer 1956,? sct. 6, Five Years (1966).
Is this, however, an attempt to deceive believers as to what scripture says? No. As Goodman describes of the Devil, the purpose is not to deceive but simply to educate. Such education has a couple of goals. First, atheists would like to educate theists about the fac that atheists are themselves knowledgeable when it comes to religion and scripture - getting them over the idea that atheists are completely ignorant of such things can be a major hurdle.
Second, atheists would like to educate believers about aspects of their own religious traditions which they are often unaware of. These are the sorts of things which atheists may attribute their own skepticism to, at least in its early stages. If a believer can better understand how a person can come to be a nonbeliever, they might not harbor so many misunderstandings and prejudices.
Finally, atheists would like to get believers to think more skeptically and critically about their religious traditions. Even if they don?t ?deconvert? and become atheists themselves, they would surely be better off if they didn?t simply accept received tradition without question or thought.
Critical thinking is often a key to avoid succumbing to fanaticism and extremism - its use really should be more widespread.
Is all of this a prelude to ?seduction,? as Goodman describes it? Seducting someone means to ?lead them away from their duty, their principles, or proper conduct.? Here, then, Goodman seems to portray believers as if they only way they can adhere to duty, principles, and proper conduct is to remain ignorant of their own religious scriptures and traditions - hardly a flattering portrait, but perhaps not entirely off the mark, either.
It?s simply not that uncommon for religious leaders to gloss over problematic passages or even to insist that people not read scriptures in order to keep unpleasant and uncomfortable things from them. Actively reading a text requires that a person engage it on their own, one-one-one, and without the mediation of a cleric who can instruct a person in how exactly the text should be interpreted. This can be dangerous for an ecclesiastical establishment. It?s not surprising that some have worked hard to keep it from occurring.
Knowledge is perhaps necessary for seduction - but no more or less so than ignorance, I suspect. If believers are targets of ?seduction? by atheists, it is a seduction towards skepticism, freethought, and critical thinking about religious matters. I can imagine where some apologists would find this terrible, but speaking for myself I hope that it is a seduction which is consummated more often in the future.
Source...