Fairy tales for adults (long)
steveb at creek-and-cowley.com
Fri Feb 14 06:40:45 PST 2003
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 16:27, Björn Lindberg wrote:
> The point as I see it is not that there are a lot of things to doubt
> about science, as you are trying to point out -- the point is that
> compared to science, the Genesis simply (i) don't have any evidence
> for it, and (ii) is much more unlikely. Someone believeing in the
> Genesis as a literal account cannot be well-educated, intelligent and
> /acting rationally/ (I'm adding this extra qualifier, since a
> person can still be well-educated and intelligent and make an
> irrational choice of beliefs, eg based on faith), IMO.
But then we come back in a circle to one of the first points I made. It
is only reasonable to compare science with Genesis if you consider the
two to be addressing the same issues. I don't, and I consider it
unreasonable to do so. Genesis is clearly a literary document intended
to impart cultural information, not naturalistic details.
As such it is quite easy for an intelligent and well educated person to
believe it is "true" - meaning that the information it is intended to
impart is correct. Whether the details it tossed in incidentally are
false when analyzed critically is really irrelevant.
It doesn't matter that many people DO choose to calculate weird dates
from Genesis; this says nothing about the original material. Various
people also twist the theory of evolution to come up with notions about
master races and supermen. Do you consider that invalidates evolution?
Creek & Cowley Consulting
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-chat