Do You Have the Right to Critique a Book You've Never Read?

[Sola'lor]

That's actually insanely common around here. Everybody's Catholic, no one's actually cracked a bible.

In the Iglesia Ni Cristo average members aren't allowed to read the Bible. You have to be in a leadership position to read the Bible.

 

[Starfish]

I'm sure there are people who have read the entire Bible and still believed it to be inerrant, but I can't imagine how they accomplished that trick. When it comes to the Bible, familiarity breeds, if not contempt, then at least a certain cynicism.

Which is exactly why I'm grateful for the Book of Mormon.

 

[cardero]

The Bible and Book of Mormon are sometimes criticized by non-readers in these forums. But this question could apply to any book, religious or non-religious.

...or author.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would say one cannot critique something that they've never reviewed. Otherwise, their "critique" are actually just unfounded prejudice.

 

[Wandered Off]

I agree that it's unwise to critique a book you haven't read. We can, however, critique assumptions about some texts such as divine inspiration, appeal to authority, and the like. For example, I don't have to read a holy text to question someone's assertion that a proposition must be true because it appears in a particular book, or that a book speaks for God.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible and Book of Mormon are sometimes criticized by non-readers in these forums. But this question could apply to any book, religious or non-religious.

Of course. At the same time, the more you know about something, the more authoritative your opinion will be.

My experience is that the average American Atheist is much more familiar with the Bible than most American Christians, and I have repeatedly seen atheists on these boards tell Christians things they don't know about the Bible.

My experience is that few non-Mormons can force themselves to slog through the BoM, because it's so badly written, wordy, and just plain silly. I count myself in this camp. I don't have to read the whole thing to know it's badly written, unless the writing style suddenly changes partway through? All the passages I've read are the exact same turgid sludge.

 

[Autodidact]

I thought about that before I started this thread. Knowing what we know the evilness of Hitler, you're probably making a reasonable assumption. Has anyone given it a positive review? None that I've heard of.

a few million Germans?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

a few million Germans?

Are you saying that a few million Germans view the Holocaust as a positive thing?

 

[Starfish]

Of course. At the same time, the more you know about something, the more authoritative your opinion will be.

My experience is that the average American Atheist is much more familiar with the Bible than most American Christians, and I have repeatedly seen atheists on these boards tell Christians things they don't know about the Bible.

My experience is that few non-Mormons can force themselves to slog through the BoM, because it's so badly written, wordy, and just plain silly. I count myself in this camp. I don't have to read the whole thing to know it's badly written, unless the writing style suddenly changes partway through? All the passages I've read are the exact same turgid sludge.

The Bible critics most likely focus on the controversial parts of the Old Testament. And parts of it definately are questionable, as to why they're included. But the testamony of Christ, his words, his life, and the testamonies of the apostles and those who knew him--is invaluable.

As far as the Book of Mormon--it will do nothing for you if you don't read it in the proper spirit and attitude. The true messages just won't be there for those unprepared to receive them. So you're intitled to your opinion; however, millions have quite another opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Bible critics most likely focus on the controversial parts of the Old Testament. And parts of it definately are questionable, as to why they're included. But the testamony of Christ, his words, his life, and the testamonies of the apostles and those who knew him--is invaluable.

And stands in stark contrast to the messages in the Old Testament and the Epistles, IMO. I still haven't been able to reconcile all of them into anything coherent.

As far as the Book of Mormon--it will do nothing for you if you don't read it in the proper spirit and attitude. The true messages just won't be there for those unprepared to receive them. So you're intitled to your opinion; however, millions have quite another opinion.

Reminds me of a belief that's prevalent in some Quaker groups: that the Bible was divinely inspired, and similarily requires divine inspiration when reading it to derive the proper meaning from it.

 

[Starfish]

And stands in stark contrast to the messages in the Old Testament and the Epistles, IMO. I still haven't been able to reconcile all of them into anything coherent.


Reminds me of a belief that's prevalent in some Quaker groups: that the Bible was divinely inspired, and similarily requires divine inspiration when reading it to derive the proper meaning from it.

Then I agree with the Quakers. The books of Isaiah and Revelations definately require the help of the Holy Ghost to understand them. But the messages are there, if you seek them.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you saying that a few million Germans view the Holocaust as a positive thing?

I was really thinking of Germans of the 30's and 40's. Obviously, Mein Kampf got some rather favorable reviews at the time.

 

[Escéptico]

It's comical how many believers offer their opinions of recent books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, et. al., without having read them. Obviously they assume that since these books take a less-than-fully-approving approach to the religion issue, they're well within their rights to dismiss them without knowing what they actually say.

I consider Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon the best of these recent books. Dennett takes great care not to alienate believers: the 'spell' to which the title refers isn't religious belief itself, just the unspoken social prohibition against taking an objective look at religion. Throughout the book, he makes it plain that people's actual beliefs are irrelevant to the religion debate. What he's discussing is the development of the current dynamic of religion in society, and the self-perpetuating social construct that modern religion has become.

And for his efforts, Dennett has been dismissed as a cynical killjoy. Believers routinely denigrate his fascinating work as an "attack on religion," without having even the least familiarity with his actual thesis.