Either-or

I've written about this topic on a number of occasions, but this is, hopefully, the clearest post.

There are basically two ways religious people look at the question of "holy" texts and science, and religious people find a way to mentally switch between these two.


  • The first way is very fundy: The "holy" text is true. Period.
  • The second way is more general: There is a god because reasons.


Recently, I wrote a tweet I particularly like because it addresses both these views at the same time.

a) The creator god of the bible is nonexistent.
    Genesis makes claims about creation. Science has debunked those claims centuries ago. 
b) The god of the gaps is not the god of the bible.

 As I have elaborated on these two points in other blog posts, I'll just leave links to these other blog posts here.

Your opinion is always welcome.

Links:
Interpreting the bible

Comments

  1. Unknown9 September 2018 at 01:58

    Don't know if a theist has wiggle room or not since the most conservative will say something like the Scriptures are inerrant in the original texts. So since we don't have the originals logically we should accept errors. We'll go further to say that no archeological discovery has ever controverted any text. We will also say that the texts are the best preserved in the ancient world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elholandesdelacasa9 October 2018 at 01:14

      I don't think this has anything to do with my post, Daniel.

      Anyway, the scriptures cannot be inerrant if they contain errors.
      Archaeological discoveries disprove certain elements of the text. Especially Exodus.
      There are other texts that are equally well preserved, or better. Saying that the bible is the best preserved text in the ancient world is just religious propaganda. It is not an argument for the existence of your favorite deity as Jews and Muslims claim the same.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal logic

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens applies. P1 → C1, ¬C1        ¬
Read more

Abortion

Image
You want your freedom - By Ashvin Harrison with permission In my opinion, the "abortion debate" isn't actually a debate. Some people want to give rights to fetuses that don't have cognitive abilities to exercise those rights while taking away the right of self-determination from women who do have cognitive abilities. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Is a fetus a human being? I really don't care if it is, or isn't. Does a fetus have the right to live? No, it doesn't. Human rights begin at birth according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's imagine we give a fetus the right to live. How can we determine whether a fetus wants to exercise that right? We can't. That is not a right, but an obligation. These people want to force fetuses onto the world whether these fetuses want, or not. Let's imagine we take away women's right of self-determination, a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Hu
Read more

Scientism

Image
" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g
Read more