I disagree. If a non-believer argues that he considers the Book of Job to be a sacred text and therefore of a different quality than, say, The Merchant of Venice he does this most certainly on the grounds mentioned by mtavern. The mere fact that a certain thing is considered as sacred or is admired by a lot of people changes our perception of that thing and insofar adds a new quality to it. It does that even if a certain person doesn’t admire it or believe in it. The fact that you (probably) don’t admire Britney Spears does not change the fact that you regard her as a “celebrity” which is nothing else than the consequence of other people admiring her.
Might I also point out that the same irrational reasoning occurs when we pick mates? Our partners will probably share similar characteristics as many other people in the world, but the act of picking a partner immediately makes them more special than any of the thousands who may be just as pretty/intelligent/smart.
[...] but the act of picking a partner immediately makes them more special than any of the thousands who may be just as pretty/intelligent/smart.
That is because the act of picking is what makes them special. If there were two exact clones of a person and I chose to marry one and not the other, my new spouse is more special than the extra clone.
To carry this back to the original comparison between the Bible and LotR, the Bible is sacred because people believe it is the One Way. The act of believing is what makes it sacred. This carries into the celebrity example as well.
The irrationality comes when someone thinks the causality is running the other way. Someone who believes in the Bible because it is sacred has the cause and effect backwards. Likewise, if I married my spouse because she was the most special I am being naive.
But then the reasons you name are not true sources of its special status, and you may as well be silent.
I disagree. If a non-believer argues that he considers the Book of Job to be a sacred text and therefore of a different quality than, say, The Merchant of Venice he does this most certainly on the grounds mentioned by mtavern. The mere fact that a certain thing is considered as sacred or is admired by a lot of people changes our perception of that thing and insofar adds a new quality to it. It does that even if a certain person doesn’t admire it or believe in it. The fact that you (probably) don’t admire Britney Spears does not change the fact that you regard her as a “celebrity” which is nothing else than the consequence of other people admiring her.
Very good...celebreties are the secular gods of our age. And it is notable that phenomenon of “being famous for being famous” is widel acknowledged.
Might I also point out that the same irrational reasoning occurs when we pick mates? Our partners will probably share similar characteristics as many other people in the world, but the act of picking a partner immediately makes them more special than any of the thousands who may be just as pretty/intelligent/smart.
That is because the act of picking is what makes them special. If there were two exact clones of a person and I chose to marry one and not the other, my new spouse is more special than the extra clone.
To carry this back to the original comparison between the Bible and LotR, the Bible is sacred because people believe it is the One Way. The act of believing is what makes it sacred. This carries into the celebrity example as well.
The irrationality comes when someone thinks the causality is running the other way. Someone who believes in the Bible because it is sacred has the cause and effect backwards. Likewise, if I married my spouse because she was the most special I am being naive.