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. 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. 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

Abortion

Scientism

K-Pg boundary