At the beginning of the movie, the protagonist John Preston (a senior Cleric, master of the gun kata) is at first the antagonist. He is in charge of hunting down sense offenders in the region outside the city walls and disposing of sense-materials (things that induce feelings like paintings, music, colorful objects, decorative furnishings, etc...). He raids a warehouse full of rebels, a gun fight ensues, and after the rebels are wiped out (in a fantastic action sequence) Preston locates the sense-materials. In very iconic imagery, a boarded up hiding place under a rug yields the Mona Lisa, smiling smugly at the cleric, moments before Preston has the famous painting and everything else burned into oblivion. Watching through the flames is Preston's partner, a sense-offender unbeknownst to Preston at the moment (but which is made clear early on, so no spoiler here).
There are religious and nonreligious themes that run rampant through the film. But the underlining theme is very apparent; extremes lead to bad things. On the one hand, to be completely taken over by emotions can lead to horrible atrocities. On the other, completely ignoring them can lead to atrocities as well (although, the point of the film is that in giving up our emotions we sacrifice another part of ourselves that goes beyond murder; we sacrifice our individuality, our uniqueness, our culture). In light of James McGrath's few posts on Biblical literalism (and in light of a new book project on it by him), I felt it was time to add the perspective of a metaphysical naturalist on biblical literalism, but also on the opposing perspective--the polar opposite of biblical literalism--of "biblical nihilism."
At first, allow me to define briefly what it is I mean by both Biblical Literalism and Biblical Nihilism, as both can be construed differently depending on one's personal ontological or epistemological perspectives. In my understanding, Biblical Literalism is akin to hermeneutics. In accordance with hermeneutics, the idea of inerrancy is allowed to persevere as a legitimate hypothesis and interpretation. On the other hand, Biblical Nihilism is the opinion that the Bible is worthless, unnecessary (even for study), and irrelevant.
Biblical Literalism has led to, among other things, horrible atrocities to be committed upon mankind. Consider just for a minute the reality of the following statements (taken from here):
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." -- Hon. Leon Bazile, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3 (1967)
"The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley, Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1873)
"The slave-trade is perfectly consonant to ...Christian Law, as delineated to us in the Sacred Writings of the Word of God" -- Rev. Raymund Harris, Scriptural researches on the licitness of the slave-trade, shewing its conformity with the principles of natural and revealed religion, delineated in the sacred writings of the word of God (1788)
Inerrancy and literalism have also spawned violent hate crimes justified by interpretations of the Bible, often by zealots, religious fundamentalists, or maniacs. In current news, with Gaza, Israel's continued dependence on Genesis 13:14-15, 17:8 (as well as the false perspective that they were there "first"; also that they deserve the land because they had a historical kingdom there even though such perspectives run counter to archaeological evidence) led not only to continued support by our government (ignorantly) but has allowed fighting in the Middle East between Jews and others to persist there for millennia. Interpreting Leviticus 21-25 led many slave owners in America to feel justified in mutilating African Americans, breaking up families, beating some near death (and even to death). Readings of Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, Micah 5:11-12, and Galatians 5:20-21 have led to countless innocent women being burned for being falsely accused of as witches (as if one can really preform "witchcraft" successfully anyway). 2 Samuel 13:1-21 has allowed some men to rape women without fear of God's wrath. The list goes on.
In many ways, it is this literalism which has caused many apostates to not only fear interpretations of the Bible, but to flat our demonize the book itself. While some may say that this is justified (perhaps in some way it is), I find that there is an extremism to this that is disgusting and needs to be addressed. There are, after all, some atheists who want to see the Bible taken off book shelves and destroyed. I find this to be akin to the imagery associated above with the destruction of the Mona Lisa. And with this statement I need to clarify a few things.
First and foremost, I do not think the Bible is the inspired word of God. It isn't even "one" book in the sense that it is a collection of books. These books were chosen with intent by men who willfully discarded other religious Christian and Jewish texts. The authors themselves probably did not think of themselves as writing fact, history, the word of God, or otherwise (seeing as they were creating their narratives by modeling off earlier, already available literature). So my reservation about the Bible's importance does not lie in any spiritual, religious reason. I have no interest in trying to prove the Bible so I have no apologetic agenda. As I have made it clear, I am not a Christian (I'm not even a theist). But my reasons are also not purely academic, either.
There are some who say the Bible is not just literature, but poor literature. "It may be fiction," some skeptics will say, "but it is poorly written fiction." But I do not think that, even if this were true (I don't believe it is), this should warrant its destruction or censorship. I personally think that Charles Dickens' literary works are terrible but I would never accept the proposition that because I think it sucks, his entire collected works should be destroyed. One might suggest that Charles Dickens' works never caused anybody to interpret them in a manner that would cause others pain and suffering, but literature (and history) are not short on such examples. Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey caused Greeks (and later Romans) in some extent to view nonGreeks in a particular way allowed for them to treat nonGreeks as uncivilized or illiterate barbarians. Romans, who claimed to be the heirs of Trojans who escaped the Greeks destruction of their homeland, conquered Greece as if they were avenging their ancestors (and liberating Troy from the Greeks in the process). These are just a few of the instances where classical literature, particularly that literature concerned with religious matters of any kind,has caused harm to other individuals. But I don't hear cries from anybody to burn the epic poems of Homer. Nobody is suggested that Virgil's Aeneid be censored and removed from bookshelves.
From an academic perspective, all ancient literature (whether one finds it boring or are simply disinterested) helps scholars develop an understanding, the overall picture, of history. That is not to suggest the Bible represents actual history (it doesn't), nor does it suggest that the intentions of the authors were to write histories (they probably weren't) but what it does suggest is that the Bible represents a part of history. As unfortunate as it is, people will abuse anything (including the Bible) in order to achieve control over others, do harm to others; but the Bible has (albeit indirectly, as many Christians have never read even a page of the Bible) also inspired some to be generous and kind (yet, still, they sometimes do so with ulterior motives like pleasing God to make it into heaven or fear of hell). It must always be remembered that the Bible has no mystical power over man. It cannot conjure up demons or send them away. It cannot inspire peace or incite war. The Bible is only a collection of books, which are collections of pages that contain words made up letters. The Bible is no different than any other piece of literature, ancient or otherwise. That also means the Bible has no sense of morality (it's an inanimate object, after all) and cannot force the reader to do anything. People choose to do what they want and the Bible is a rather convenient excuse to do those things. Just as Aryan Nation advocates and white supremacists use Mein Kampf as an excuse to behave the way they do. While it was written by a genocidal maniac, the book has no power over anybody. 
What is true, and something that should be taken quite seriously, is the influence of the written word. A story, regardless of its intentions or origins, can be persuasive. Persuasive stories can be compelling enough for a person to take them too seriously. This is, it seems, what happens more often than naught. Words do not have power, but it is how we interpret those words that give power to meaning. And meaning is based on our own life experiences. This is why Christian fanaticism and fundamentalism is tied into ideas of biblical inerrancy. It is also why hatred stems from literalists and inerrantists. Life experiences have taught them to fear, hate, demonize, and it has taught them that these attributes reflect love (at the very least, they reflect love in the eyes of God because they are doing what God wills from their readings of the Bible).
What this means is that, as a society, destroying literature or censoring it is not the answer. Instead, parents and communities should constantly be reminded of their responsibility to teach their children the right way to think, not what to think. Instead of indoctrinating your children to be robotic imitations of yourselves, teach them to think for themselves. The ability to think for themselves will free them from being narrow-minded thinkers, allowing them to question their actions, interpretations, and agendas. Those who are most fundamentally-minded are often those who were raised to think in strict, narrow patterns. This is a serious problem and one that instigates literalism in all religions (and even politics) to the point of fanaticism (which spawns wars, violence, genocides, prejudices, etc...).
Another solution that must be taken into consideration is how influential scholarship must be on politics and government. To clarify, this means that scholars need to take more of a stance against fundamentalism in government and politics. Take the current situation in Gaza as an example. The modern day Israelites have no God-given right to that land; there is no archaeological "right" to that land. The Jews of antiquity did not have some grand empire that gave them rights to Gaza, Jordan, etc... It most certainly does not give them rights to commit acts of war against others. Scholars need to be able to stand up and correct public officials, need to stand up and say "wait a minute, if you want to claim that they have a God given right to the land, you need to back up your claims first before we allow you to stand behind what they are doing." Scholars have a moral obligation to demand that our politicians, apologists, and religious leaders back up their claims over this region with evidence that actually contains some high standard of verisimilitude. If Bush wants to make the claim that God gave the Israelites that land thousands of years ago, he'll just have to provide the archaeological and epistemological evidence to back it up. And if he cannot, it is up to us to call him, and others, on their ignorance.
I also think that scholars should let go some of their resignations and soap boxes. Elitism is fine... in moderation. The public is important too. Far too often, there are those scholars who never publish a book through a public press. This is a problem. Aside from the fact that most Americans don't read the Bible (or anything), for those who do decide to read they will only find apologetic material available. Actual scholarly interpretations of religious literature are hard to find, leaving those fanatics to believe that the book they have by Josh McDowell or Luke Timothy Johnson represents actual scholarship (or worse! They may assume NT Wright represents the views of actual critical scholarship)! Having scholarly materials and interpretations, data, and reading resources available to the layman are crucial in stemming Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Biblical nihilism is also made more prevalent when skeptics can only find apologetic interpretations of the Bible--is it any wonder why so many atheists find the Bible irrelevant when they aren't given adequate reasons to think otherwise? If no sound, rational arguments exist outside of scholarship, where books range into the hundreds of dollars, how is the common woman or man able to afford to educate themselves outide of going to college for it (and not everyone has the temperament for such a career)?
In conclusion, literalism and nihilism are both problematic and represent extreme (although not necessarily fundamental) perspectives. Both of these perpsectives can lead to sour consequences. On the one hand, the subjugation of others is justified and in the other the subjugation of history is justified. The good news is that there are ways (and the means) to correct these perspectives, and in doing so create a brighter, more enlightened world. But it is up to those who are reading this to make that difference. Do we go the way of the Tetragrammaton, or the way of the 3rd World War, or do we take the position of the resistance?
