Fact: 1 something that truly exists or happens; something that has actual existence. a true piece of information
ref: Merriam Webster
Welp, in another short-lived, face-palm inducing discussion between myself and a Christian blogger/apologist, I was eventually admonished to check out a link that they provided after I chimed in and poked a hole or two in what they had written. The provided link took me to a page called "101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible". The article dealt chiefly with how certain Muslims contend that the Bible contains contradictions, and how any document that claims Divine authority by an omniscient being must be consistent with itself and not contain any errors, including contradictions. I agree with that criterion, BTW. Any document claimed to be authored by a perfect, all-knowing entity should be 100% free of error, including contradictions, both internal AND external.
To back up a bit, the link was provided, in part, because said Christian blogger, by their own admission, gave a simplistic example of how two or more people can discern something and formulate completely differing opinions - in this case, it was the temperature outside - but yet, they opined that those opinions can, quote... "support each other in describing the real facts of the matter".
They write.....
Today is a gloriously sunny day, much like last Easter (resurrection) Sunday was, except the day before yesterday it was warm and sunny and today it is quite chilly. It had me thinking about the seeming contradiction in it. One person describing today might talk about the beautiful sunshine, birds singing, etc, and another might describe it as very bone chilling cold, the need for extra warm clothing, etc....and on the surface at a quick glance the descriptions might seem to be opposing and contradictory, and yet they are not, the two depictions actually give added information and support each other in describing the real facts of the matter.
Okay, so if you're thinking....'Huh?!?', well, that was exactly my sentiment when I read this particular attempt at Christian apologia.
For starters, the above analogy ventures into subjective territory. That is, despite there being an objective way with which to measure the temperature outside, two or more people may still have drastically differing feelings on whether or not that temperature is comfortable. Ergo, feelings are subjective. E.g...one person may feel that it's "warm" outside, while another person may feel that it's "bone-chilling". I don't disagree that that is possible.
Another example, maybe one person says that they saw three people standing at a tomb, and maybe another person says they saw twenty-three people standing at a tomb. Me? I frankly don't give a rat's patooty about that at the moment, simply because I was raising a different type of Bible contradiction, specifically, those of the external type. Examples of external Bible contradictions would be when the Bible contradicts knowledge/information that we acquired independently of the Bible. For instance, knowledge acquired via modern scientific discovery.
Here are some examples of external Bible contradictions:
In the Bible it states....
- that smearing bird's blood on someone with leprosy can cure them
- that the earth is geocentric
- that demons cause mental illness
- that bats are birds(fowl)
- that a firmament holds up the sky(which they believed was "water")
- that the earth is stationary
- that the moon emits light
I could go on and on, but the astute among us get the picture. Yes. Those "Bible facts" that the apologist speaks of? Well, those are contradicted by science. And this isn't merely my opinion; this is a hard fact.
The Bible's redactors were not "inspired" by any omniscient entities; they were pulling things out of their hindquarters. Sure, they might've been doing their best with what they had, but that is beside the point: The Bible got those things and gaggles of others, wrong. FACT.
Now, why would someone be so disingenuous as to contend otherwise? The answer is simple: They have a religious conviction that they are not willing to examine, much less change. Sure, they examine that which confirms their beliefs all the day is long, and they would like those of us who were brave enough to examine our own convictions and who now opt for critical thinking over "faith" to examine that which they believe confirms their beliefs. Well, no thanks. As I said, Christian apologetics are not for winning over skeptics. No. Christian apologetics are for quelling the doubts of the already-convinced.
It should be noted that in this particular encounter, part of the discussion was later censored. I know, shocker, right? No, this is nothing new. We come to expect these sorts of tactics from Christian apologists. What happened to... the truth has nothing to hide? 'Odd, because apologists censor, delete, dodge, ignore----basically, whatever it takes to avoid having to face their greatest fear, that being that their lives are based on a lie.
For those who might say, 'Gee, Boomslang, aren't you being a bit crass about it?". Perhaps so. But as long as there are those who use their "faith" as a pseudo-license to second-guess the personal experiences of their fellow human beings---in other words, as long as people use their "faith" to pretend to know things that they cannot possible know, then I have zero qualms about being "crass". I am keenly aware (and thankful) that there are some Christian bloggers who actually refrain from judging nonbelievers, at least attempting to imitate Jesus the times that he wasn't being judgmental. That Jesus never judged? That is debatable.
4 comments:
Crass?!?
No ... direct, confrontational, combative - maybe ... and I know there is a better word that describes, more precisely, your style, but it escapes my brain at just this moment - go figure. :/ But "crass" just isn't an adjective I'd use to describe your style.
The willful ignorance of the religiously indoctrinated is something you just cannot get someone to look at honestly until they are forced into a situation that has real and tangible consequences should they fail to accept the current scientific fact that their religious text directly contradicts. It's no mistake that the Vatican and the current pope are "reinterpreting" many aspects of their religious texts to try to retain followers who just can't turn a blind eye to the scientific advancements and knowledge modern humans have been able to prove - they know they look like silly fools and one thing people generally don't like, is looking foolish in the eyes of their peers.
Of course that is far from a hard fast rule - there are still believers aplenty that will go all in on their "Flintstones"-like beliefs no matter what anyone thinks - see Ham, Ken ... and his "Ark" and "Creation museum". Of course, he has a financial goal so I'm sure he can tolerate being called "delusional" while transporting wagons full of cash to the bank :/ But you can bet if he faced financial ruin AND public ridicule, there'd be no "ark" or "Creation Museum" at all
But 'crass' just isn't an adjective I'd use to describe your style.
I was thinking more along the lines of lacking sensitivity, and if one is direct, then often times one comes across as lacking sensitivity. But you're right---even though "crass" can mean a lack sensitivity or lack of delicacy, there are better words for it, I suppose.
"But you can bet if he faced financial ruin AND public ridicule, there'd be no 'ark' or 'Creation Museum' at all"
And to my mind, certain ideas deserve ridicule..e.g...a "Creation Museum". More like a side show.
In any case, it drives me batty when I hear other non-theists talk about how you can attract more flies with honey, yadda, yadda. Look, I'm not here to attract "flies", as in, those with religious convictions. If such people end up here, okay, fine. If not, whatever. If this blog is to attract any type of person at all, it's those who may be experiencing honest doubt and who currently may be too fearful to explore that doubt because of what their "faith" taught them. That was me a long time ago. Sure, just sitting here and ridiculing other people and their beliefs won't accomplish much. However, there's something to be said about ridiculing the ridiculous in conjunction with using reason to shed light on bad, and sometimes even harmful, ideas. Seriously, anyone who is thinking that ridicule never works must have been absent from kindergarten to 12th grade. Peer pressure? Hello?
Couldn't agree more - and I'm with you on the Flies/Honey BS ... to me (now), it seems clear, either you value evidence, or not - either you accept facts, or not. And if one does not value and/or accept these, then they are of little value to me. That said, I'm not going to go out of my way to directly ridicule or even debate someone who isn't actively looking for a debate or trying to proselytize.
"to me (now), it seems clear, either you value evidence, or not - either you accept facts, or not."
Yes, pretty much. But I think it's worth pointing out that what constitutes "evidence" varies from person to person, even though the scientific method has one standard of evidence. IOW, what a Christian apologist might consider good evidence could be very lacking, flimsy evidence to you and me. For instance, the Xian blogger with whom I attempted conversation presupposes that her Bible is an inerrant document, a document that was authored, or at least inspired, by a perfect being. You, me, or anyone else can sit here and point out contradiction after contradiction; we can point them to facts that fly in the face of their beliefs, but the chances of breaking through to them are little-to-none. What anchors them to their position? Most of the time it's personal experience, which as we both know, is subjective validation and confirmation bias at play. E.g..the former druggie couldn't get off drugs and they sank to an all time low. God saved them, and it couldn't possibly be anything else.
"I'm not going to go out of my way to directly ridicule or even debate someone who isn't actively looking for a debate or trying to proselytize."
Gotcha. To my mind, no idea is above criticism, especially ideas that are demonstrably harmful; especially ideas that make the planet we leave behind for our children more dangerous than it has to be. If I encounter people using their religious faith as a license to do precisely that, then, well, I have no qualms challenging their views. If there's ridicule involved, I'm a firm believer that this can be done without necessarily attacking the person. And always, without exception, any ridicule is used in conjunction with reason and common sense. Well, unless we're talking Donald Trump. Yeah, I'll ridicule that guy without providing reasons for why he deserves it = )
Post a Comment