One of the most common responses I hear when I challenge the idea of God is: “Well, have you read the Bible?” The implication is that unless I have consumed a specific religious text from cover to cover, I am not qualified to question the belief. But this is a false requirement, and here is why.
1. Does reading the book provide scientific proof?
No. A book, no matter how revered, is not evidence. Proof lies in testable, repeatable data, not in scripture. Reading a religious text may provide cultural or historical insights, but it cannot transform supernatural claims into demonstrable facts. The Earth was not made flat in Genesis, and it does not become divine truth in the Bible either.
2. The Encyclopaedia Fairioptica test
Let us imagine I write a thousand-page encyclopaedia on fairies, complete with elaborate origin stories, moral codes, and promises of an afterlife in fairyland. Would my book compel anyone to believe in fairies? Would critics be silenced until they had read every chapter? Of course not. A detailed myth is still a myth. Reading about fairies does not make them real, just as reading scripture does not prove gods exist.
3. The burden of proof
This is the heart of the matter. When someone makes a claim, whether it is about gods, unicorns, or cosmic teapots, the responsibility lies with them to provide the evidence. It is not my obligation to wade through every scripture, commentary, or translation before I am “allowed” to question the claim. That would be like saying I cannot reject astrology until I have studied every horoscope ever printed. The logic collapses under its own weight.
4. Reading versus believing
Yes, reading sacred texts can help you understand what people believe and why they believe it. But understanding belief is not the same as accepting truth. I can read Norse mythology without believing Odin actually dwells in Valhalla. The same principle applies to any religious book. Familiarity does not equal validity.
5. Why this argument persists
The demand, “Have you read the Bible?”, is not really about proof. It is about deflection. It shifts the conversation from evidence, where religion is weakest, to authority and tradition, where religion is strongest. It tries to silence scepticism by creating a false rule that you cannot speak unless you have “done your homework.” Yet no one asks you to read the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, or Dianetics before rejecting them. Why should one scripture be exempt?
Conclusion
Religious texts can be interesting, sometimes poetic, often troubling, and occasionally wise. But they are not proof. Belief demands evidence, and no book can shortcut that demand. Until that evidence is provided, the defence of “you have not read it” remains hollow.