Non-Christians are not necessarily biased. I have observed a few non-religious (but non-atheist) people who had never ever read the Bible trying to read a random passage and collapse on the floor in laughter from the sheer absurdity of it. Same experiment with reading (a good-quality modern English adaptation of) Shakespeare tends to result in at least some interest.
Though, to quote EY,
I’m on record as stating that the second season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is more emotionally moving than Romeo and Juliet.
I suspect that the Bible, like nonreligious literature, was written to have literary merit according to the tastes of its original audience(s), but that the criteria by which literary merit is judged have shifted so dramatically in the intervening millenia that it now requires scholarly explanation.
Shakespeare, strange as it sounds, is essentially modern literature from that standpoint. (Although enough time has passed that vowel shifts have managed to obscure many of the rhymes in Shakespeare.)
I suspect that the Bible, like nonreligious literature, was written to have literary merit according to the tastes of its original audience(s),...
The more accurate way to describe the New Testament is not to say that “it was written”, but that “it was compiled as a selection from multiple works on a similar topic, for a religious purpose”. If anything “was meant” by that selection process, I’d consider literary merit far below religious and political purpose.
Whatever process you use to make your decisions is what determines your effectiveness.
Not necessarily biased, certainly. But the fraction of humans who are, if not unbiased, at least unbiased enough, is a pretty small fraction in any group, religious or not. You can’t pick out a random atheist and expect them to be an objective reasoner.
ETA Not sure why this is downvoted. The observation that not all atheists are rationalists should not be a controversial one.
Non-Christians are not necessarily biased. I have observed a few non-religious (but non-atheist) people who had never ever read the Bible trying to read a random passage and collapse on the floor in laughter from the sheer absurdity of it. Same experiment with reading (a good-quality modern English adaptation of) Shakespeare tends to result in at least some interest.
Though, to quote EY,
I suspect that the Bible, like nonreligious literature, was written to have literary merit according to the tastes of its original audience(s), but that the criteria by which literary merit is judged have shifted so dramatically in the intervening millenia that it now requires scholarly explanation.
Shakespeare, strange as it sounds, is essentially modern literature from that standpoint. (Although enough time has passed that vowel shifts have managed to obscure many of the rhymes in Shakespeare.)
The more accurate way to describe the New Testament is not to say that “it was written”, but that “it was compiled as a selection from multiple works on a similar topic, for a religious purpose”. If anything “was meant” by that selection process, I’d consider literary merit far below religious and political purpose.
And your purpose.
Not necessarily biased, certainly. But the fraction of humans who are, if not unbiased, at least unbiased enough, is a pretty small fraction in any group, religious or not. You can’t pick out a random atheist and expect them to be an objective reasoner.
ETA Not sure why this is downvoted. The observation that not all atheists are rationalists should not be a controversial one.
Of course, but one can follow something like a jury selection process to resolve neutrality issues like this.