Is it "good" or "evil" for someone to believe the Bible is literally true?

Isn't it equivalent to worship of a graven image? Wouldn't a literal reading of the Bible lead one to conclude that Biblical literalism is sinful?

You could go through a concordance & check every reference to Word of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the Word of God.

However, the first chapter of the Gospel of John does explain what the Word of God is. It was originally written in Greek, and the word that was translated as Word is the word Logos in Greek. Logos just happens to mean reason, and in this context Divine Reason. It is also the word from which we derive our word, Logic.

If you substitute the word Bible for the word Word in that passage, you end up with gibberish indicating that the Universe is made of tiny little subatomic Bibles. However, if you substitute the word Reason, you get something that is quite profound...

"In the beginning there was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God. Reason was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Reason, and without Reason was not anything made that was made. In Reason was Life, and the Life was the Light of men."

You could argue that "evil" can come from ignorance, I guess. But since I don't believe in independent concepts of "good" and "evil" I'm not going to do so. ;-)

or calamity." I don't think of it as a metaphysical concept. On the contrary, I guess I'm a bit of a utilitarian about it. I think Biblical literalism is an evil because it promotes ignorance and prevents progress.

The best we can hope for is to be happy and be remembered. Maybe not everyone's understanding of life but it works for me.

To that end the question of whether it is evil to believe the bible is literally true one has to examine what effects it has on a person. I have been confronted by people who seem hounded by the need to convert as many people because they so feared what would happen if they didn't. I have argued with people to go see a doctor instead of seeking a faith healer. I have seen parents deny their children an education for fear of modern learning tainting their child's soul. Yes there is plenty of evil that can come from such belief.

But I have also seen people nearly in a state of euphoria due to the particular religion they belonged to. Enthralled by the things they believe to be true and driven to states of exstasy. Yes I believe it to be deluded and nonsense but then I do not have a look of total acceptance on my face. Maybe they have found what they want their life to be. I cannot say that is absolutely evil. I can lament that they are caught in a lie. But I cannot take their life away.

in the way transmitting a virus is an evil. Maybe the belief is a selfish meme that just wants to thrive like any other meme. But it still deadens the mind it infects. I don't see how literal belief in a story, in itself, can cause ecstasy or other positives. Whatever causes ectasy among literalists must be similar to whatever causes ectasy in mystics who have a more fluid reading of sacred texts.

Genes and beliefs do not want to survive. They do or they don't survive. Over time natural selection leads to evolution of more efficient forms that are better at propogating themself.

I agree that fanatical belief is sad to my way of thinking. But literal belief in something means ridding oneself of doubt. Doubt is for many people a scary thing. Even the brain dislikes doubt. When confronted with doubt about things it attempts to resolve the issue causing doubt. Failing to do so may lead to stress depending on how important the matter being doubted is to the intergrated mind.

It is very likely it is a similar mental state they enter into as mystics do. There are other similarities as well. Meditation and prayer can both lead to states of mind where the individual disconnects the sense of self within their mind. The continued flow of ideas within the mind will appear to itself as ideas or voices originating outside the mind. Depending on the learned explanation for such things the person will believe it to be god, connecting to the universe, or some other cause.

You've summed up the actual process well.

I was just looking at photos of the opposed camps of "evolutionists" and creationists at the Grand Canyon in the NY Times today, and I could only think "benighted saps" when looking at the latter. Their approach to the problem of how to read the Grand Canyon is entirely a struggle against the common sense of science and toward forcing it to fit their reading of the Bible. How can this not be evil on some level? Wouldn't it be evil if someone brainwashed a group of people into believing that they had to explain the Grand Canyon strictly by their reading of a Micky Mouse comic book? And this interpretation wouldn't just be a creative exercise but would be intended to stand as these people's permanent understanding of the Grand Canyon and other geological formations. This, it seems to me, would be the equivalent of chaining these people's minds to a radiator, or locking them in a closet, and giving them nothing but bread and water to eat. Isn't forcing Biblical literalism on people similarly cruel and unusual punishment--especially when it's forced on children?

Forcing one's beliefs on others against their will is clearly evil. But an idividual holding to the notion that the bible is literal and true and not trying to force that belief on others is not in and of itself evil.

I think a lot of problems some people are having is equating fundamentalists, literalists, and other forms of zealous religious belief as being monolithic and universally aggressive in fostering their beliefs on others. There are many many reclusive fundamentalists who do not believe it is their right to force their beliefs on others. They may hope others come to their way of seeing things but stop short of actively forcing it.

The trouble is that social forces have causes some factions of fundamentalist beliefs to believe their way of life is so threatened that they must strike back. To this end they have tossed aside the social contract and seek to remake our society in their vision of morality and ethics. This is reprehensible and destructive in a free society.

Of course I'm not arguing that the person who holds the belief is evil. I'm asking, however, whether the **fact** that in 2005 an American with full access to public schools and media, still believes in the literal truth of the Bible--despite all of its blatant contradictions and transparent errors of fact--isn't evidence of some evil in society. Why should one person, by accident of birth, for example, be condemned to slavery to Biblical truth? You might excuse it if a person freely chooses to conform his or her mind to Biblical absolutism, but even then, it seems to me a kind of accident of circumstance that would condemn that person to darkness.

I'm aware that these questions flirt ironically with an absolutism of a different kind--namely that Biblical literalism is "absolutely" negative. But I can't really see the upside of it. In individuals, it seems like a kind of disease or slavery of thought. In aggregate form, it benights the whole country.

You and I look at the world around us and we see systems working by way of natural laws. We have taken the time to find out some of what those laws are. We have had to become patient and aware that sometimes our immediate questions may not have answers. We have become comfortable with doubt and uncertainty.

Thing is we question and probe things. We are not satisfied with the answers always given. But not all people are cut from the same cloth. Some people are content to just live life. Not concerned about the hows and whys of things as much as just getting on with life.

Rules are guidelines. They give structure and focus. For some that do not want to be troubled with the idiosyncracies of the latest debate between M-Theory and Brane theory the settled and concrete doctrine of faith may simply be more satisfying. It may simply make them happier.

Now analogies can be made to drugs and viruses. But the simple fact is that it takes a lifetime to build up these world views. Each person living their life in their path. Removing these views from them would be horribly tramatic even if they were being done out of a desire to rid them of what we percieve as an evil or mistaken world view. Ironically we would become that which we detest. Namely someone trying to force our view on someone else.

All this is not to say that we should not be concerned about others falling prey to things we believe to be false or worse. But we have to be careful and instead of trying to force our view on others try to promote our view. Instead of telling people what fools they are for not listening we have to represent the wisdom that comes from our view. If there is wisdom there then people will get it in time. In their own way. Which is the only way anyone can really change.

Yes I percieve danger for the world if fanatic devotion to ancient beliefs is fostered upon people by an active and aggressive belief system that seeks only to propogate itself. Thats the big picture. The detail is that each dot and mote on that picture is an individual and that is where all of us live alongside each other.

Evil... Its relative.... ya know. To many I am evil. To many I am good. To myself I can only be true.

in the dark. To me it's a question virtually equivalent to, "Why is it okay for any person to starve?"

A man is walking down the street and sees a house on fire. He rushes up to the house and notices the owner sitting inside apparently unaware of the fire. He tries to get his attention to no avail. So he runs up to the door and pounds on it. Nothing. Finally desperate to save the man he bashes down the door and drags the protesting man out. Only to find the house was not really on fire.

It is natural to want to help others. It is our nature. Communicating with each other is how we begin to peace together the truth of the world we see around us. Its how we share the truth we have found with others around us. Because the truth we have has value to us we want to share it.

There is even a further impetus in that some truths we have discovered unveil wrongs in our society. We want to right these wrongs. Thus we try to make others see our truths and hope they accept them as truths.

Societies are simpler when they are monolithic. Everyone reading from the same book. Everyone believing the same thing. But they are also far more draconian. Stand up and speak something different and you are smacked down.

We live in an interesting time. We have developed a social structure that is progressive and continuously challenging itself. But there are always factions that do not or cannot adhere to these truths our society is uncovering. It would be so much simpler to sweep them away. Some of them seem quite determined to do that to us. Thus we find ourselves stuck. We grow frustrated.

Make a difference. Understand the situation we are in. Understand how things work. And then apply your efforts in ways that make a difference. I honestly believe that an honest pursuit of truth through the use of reason is a laudable path in this life. So I strive to represent my views as passionately and honestly as I can. I share it with others without trying to dismantle their beliefs. I hope they can take something from my example and find some of the truth I see. This is how I hope to make a difference.

Which would be fine if their beeswax wasn't constantly mixing with ours.

Why should anyone be indoctrinated into believing some unprovable myth is true? Fairy tales are entertaining, but to stamp true on one seems evil to me, in a certain way. Christian culture approves of playing along with Santa as true and accepting the idea that the child will see that it's BS sooner or later. How do Psychologists view this deliberate falsehood? Should schools be involved with BS on this issue?

Willful ignorance is 'evil', but I'd say just plain ol' ignorance is neither.

to children?

No question.

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.

An interesting, if not ironic, quote, with many interpretations.

Literal belief in the bible belies an ignorance of science, an intolerance to other points of view, a rigid weltanschauung given to condemnation of anything which conflicts with dogma. Evil? Such a rigid perspective tends to force adherents to act in ways which non-adherents would characterize as evil.

Although the RESULTS of believing it literally generally tend towards the "evil" end of the spectrum.

and all sorts of horrific atrocities and crimes against humanity. It also paints him as a bloodthirsty savage, demanding that animals, and ultimate a human, be sacrificed. He specifies how the animals are to be chopped up and their blood splattered on the alter. It is truly sick, depraved, and savage.

If there really is a God, I think he would be grateful to those who make an effort to exonerate him from these heinous accusations.

About the Holy Bible
by Robert G. Ingersoll
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html

What Would You Substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide?
by Robert G. Ingersoll
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/bible_substitute.html

Some Mistakes Of Moses
Robert Green Ingersoll
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html

and ignorant people can be either good or evil.