Apparently I’m closed-minded and blindly enamoured with science. Maybe that’s why I’ve been missing the “mountains of scholarship that confirms the Bible as being historically accurate”…

A reader, Bill, writes: “Ron, you have made it abundantly obvious that you are as closed-minded and blindly enamoured with ’science’ and attached to your beliefs as any christian that you attack on this blog. It’s pathetic. You ignore the strongest arguments against your view, criticize the stupidest possible reading of the Bible and ignore the mountains of scholarship that confirms it as being historically accurate. Its like you read the Bible as if you just learned English yesterday. You have this blind faith in science that is evidenced by how you kiss the proverbial arses of scientists who could ‘never’ be biased. You take exception with Sandy’s comment about scientist-priests…how about Carl Sagan and his “The Cosmos (notice the proper noun) is all that is, all that was, and all that ever will be”; sounds pretty religious to me. I’ve seen more critical thinking coming out of the south end of a north-bound bull than I have on this blog.”

A few comments.

First, don’t you just love it when religious dogmatists try to insult rationalists by comparing them to religions?! It’s like they have an implicit understanding of how full of dogmatic anti-intellectual crap they are.

Next, I apologize to Bill that I am so closed-minded against believing things without evidence. I’m sorry that I value science. It’s just that science is a rational and honest approach to figuring things out. Yes, some science can be skewed by political interests (e.g., based on who funds it, etc.) and so there is always room for skeptical questioning such as “who funded this?”. However, it is nevertheless true that evolution is the only evidentially-backed approach to addressing the biological basis of life. And this is not due to any lack of funding to study the contrary. The Christian right in America is by no means poor. And there is no lack of motivation in this community to prove evolution wrong. And there has been no lack of effort to do so. The fact that the best that they have come up with in their antievolutionism is Intelligent Design Creationism, a joke of a theory that depends on arguments from ignorance and willful ignorance of evolutionary biology, is a pretty damning fact.

He claims that I only look at the stupid parts of the Bible. Where are the “smart” parts, when it comes to historicity? I know that there are a few foretellings, but how much bush does one have to brush aside before they get to these sparingly rare cherries? He claims that I ignore the “mountains” of evidence testifying to the Bible’s historical accuracy. Where are these mountains? As far as I’ve seen, the terrain is largely a mid-West Canadian prairie land with the occasional elevation of a house of cards that is toppled by the softest of summer breezes.

As for his comment on another commentor, Sandy’s comments, I addressed them in the comment section of the given post.

To post comments on this discussion, click here to go to the comment section where this conversation is taking place.

Advertisements
Comments
6 Responses to “Apparently I’m closed-minded and blindly enamoured with science. Maybe that’s why I’ve been missing the “mountains of scholarship that confirms the Bible as being historically accurate”…”
  1. G says:

    “First, don’t you just love it when religious dogmatists try to insult rationalists by comparing them to religions?! It’s like they have an implicit understanding of how full of dogmatic anti-intellectual crap they are.”

    That’s going directly into my quote book.

  2. ronbrown says:

    G:

    I’m not going to lie to you: I’m very witty 🙂

  3. Bill Vincent says:

    I’ve been in quite a few discussions where the aforementioned “mountain” has been brought up. When pressed, the Bible is always quoted or referred to. As far as the Bible goes, I even know Christians who place little stock in the Bible, since it was “written by men, not by God, and men are fallible”. (quote from my closest friend of many years)

  4. Bill Vincent says:

    For the record, I’m not the “Bill” in the OP:)

  5. autumnrhythm says:

    here’s a good question
    “Yes, some science can be skewed by political interests (e.g., based on who funds it, etc.) and so there is always room for skeptical questioning such as “who funded this?”

    …christianity…who funded this?

  6. ronbrown says:

    And regarding funding, it’s not like there has been any shortage of people willing to fund research that attempts to find evidence for the Bible, and also to refute evolution. Roughly half of the American population would love few things more than to see evolution fully discredited and the Bible vindicated (note to IDists: even if you were to discredit evolution, that would not justify believing in the Bible, it would only justify complete and total agnosticism). So what’s their excuse?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: