steve (03/15/83)
Well now, while Mike's writings are interesting and funny there are two things: First off he has a serious point; second he is in danger of losing it by planting his tongue in his cheek. Let's see if I can't clear the air a little. Some fundamentalists have claimed that the Bible is literally true. When I studied logic, it was shown to me that any system (let's not define that for now - use the intuitive meaning) which had contradictory axioms could be used to prove anything whatsoever, regardless. Such a system is therefore pretty useless. I think what Mike was trying to show was that the Bible is self-contradictory. If you look past the sarcasm, the cases he cites do represent proof of that fact. Anyone therefore who believes in the literal truth of the Bible (on a word for word basis) has a problem - If you believe it, would you like to prove to me that you have to believe that pi is exactly 3? (I believe that can be shown from a quotation from the bible itself, but even if it can't, I can prove it given any two contradictory axioms - whether they have to do with mathematics or not.) Let me see if I cannot make the best case for the christians I do not agree with: The Bible is the literal truth of God, but it was originally given to humans a long time ago. Since that time it has gone through successive translations and transliterations and errors have crept into the copying process. As a result there are minor errors that can be viewed as contradictions. However, the purpose of the Bible is not to be viewed as a history but as a philosophy for life and that has survived unmarred. The concept of "Love thy neighbor" is just as valid now as when God originally gave it to us, and it is not affected by who the father of Joseph of Nazareth had. As an atheist (and yes, I know what the word means) I find I cannot argue with a person having this belief - and don't feel I have to. Only when someone insists on literal word-for-word truth do I find myself called into the fray. Christianity is a belief system, as is my atheism. I cannot prove to you scientifically that there his (sigh, that should have been "is") no God but I believe it nonetheless. Likewise, you cannot prove to me scientifically that God exists. The existance of God is therefore outside of the realm of science entirely and should stay there. When a literal-truth Christian finds that the Bible contradicts science, and therefore concludes that the science that is taught must be changed then I get upset. As long as he keeps his religion in the Church (or philosophy class) and his private life then I have no objections. By the way - This is "net.religion" but all that seems to get discussed here is Christianity (and fundamentalist at that - seemingly a phenemon phenomenon unique to the US). I should also mention that I may have made an unwarranted assumption about Mike Cranford: I do not know that he is an atheist. Steve Den Beste Tektronix [decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-a!steve