Creationist Wisdom #878: Inspired Truth

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Belfast Telegraph of Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland. The title is The Bible was not written by philosophers, but by multiple authors inspired by the divine, and we don’t see any comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Donald. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

I refer to Brian McClinton’s letter (Write Back, June 21) regarding the Bible and philosophy.

He’s talking about this: The Bible Is Dogma and not Philosophy, which disagrees with one of Donald’s earlier letters. Donald strongly disagrees and says:

Biblical authors were not writing as philosophers, but were inspired by God. [Ooooooooooooh!] His purpose was to reveal himself and the way of salvation to mankind. However, their work embraces subjects addressed by philosophers.

Donald goes on to vigorously defend his position. He tells us:

Accepting the Bible as God’s truth is not blind faith. [Really?] It was written over a period of 1,600 years by 40 authors, yet the central theme is remarkably consistent: the messiah promised immediately after the fall of man. This was fulfilled in Jesus, who had all He said vindicated by his resurrection. The historical grounds for believing this have been set forth by philosopher Dr William Lane Craig.

There ya go — it’s not blind faith at all! As for Craig, we wrote about his reasoning here: Fox Offers “Five Reasons Why God Exists”. Donald continues with even more arguments why the bible is true:

Contrary to Dr Nick Canning’s claim (Write Back, June 25) that theology is impervious to facts, they are actually complementary. It was through examining the latest scientific discoveries that the late professor of philosophy, Antony Flew, abandoned atheism.

We didn’t search for Canning’s letter, but as for Antony Flew, he was an atheist who did a flip-flop, which thrilled the Discoveroids — see Dembski: The Collapse of Darwin’s Berlin Wall. Somehow, that’s another bit of powerful evidence for Donald.

And that’s not all! As further evidence, Donald cites yet another atheist who changed his mind. Here it is:

During his early studies, Alister McGrath, of Belfast, concluded that science could explain everything and God did not exist. But while reading books on the philosophy of science, he found that his belief was on shaky ground. During his degree course, he explored Christianity and is now a theologian.

Hey — McGrath changed his mind, so why don’t you?

Donald ends his letter with a bible quote, so this is where we’ll leave him — fully convinced that the evidence is on his side. And what about you, dear reader? Why aren’t you convinced?

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #878: Inspired Truth

  1. Just remember that when you are too st00pid for science there is always religion! “that which is stated without evidence can be ignored” Hitch shortened.

  2. Michael Fugate

    Antony Flew’s book was ghost written by an conservative Christian, Alister McGrath was an atheist for 15 seconds when he was 15 – McGrath’s is the stock-in-trade story told by almost every creationist. An atheist and a Darwinist, then studied the “evidence” and became a Christian and a creationist. Most have been Christians all along (maybe “rebelling in their teens by not attending church for a short time) or have found Jesus because they fall in love with a Christian. Scientific evidence is never the reason. Any “scientific” justifications are always post-hoc – and wrong.

    My nomination for the best mis-titled book ever is McGrath’s “A Scientific Theology” in three volumes, no less. There is absolutely nothing resembling a science when it comes to theology – I kept waiting to learn of his method for studying God and it never came. It is a method for studying Christianity – assuming God is revealed in the Bible. Science, not so much.

  3. Nicely done. The countless arguments about why God must exist or about scientific evidence that the Bible is true just seem to me nonsensical on the very face of it. A religious or spiritual belief is, by its very nature, an attitude and emotion that is fulfilling and valid for its own sake. To pull up arguments and evidence to support it seems, in fact, an unintended nod to science itself.

    Brock

  4. @Michael Fugate
    In the early 19th century, the “Princeton Theology” (see the Wikipedia article) was built on the “Scientific Method” of Francis Bacon. The Princeton Theology was a precursor of Fundamentalism. Is there any connection between the Princeton Theology’s Scientific Method and McGrath’s Scientific Theology?

  5. Michael Fugate

    @TomS I don’t know – I understand that theology to most theologians doesn’t mean the study of gods, only the clarification of their preferred religion, but I expected more from someone who is trained in science. I thought there would be a method, but no, never.

  6. McGrath inadvertently staked his claim as one of Dawkin’s “fleas”, when he published his piddling response “The Dawkin’s Delusion”. According to McGrath, not believing in miracles is irrational.

    Philosophy is useful when it comes to things like ethics, for instance, but Bertrand Russell showed up its redundancy as a means of determining empirical reality, when he wrote his overview of Western philosophy.

    As for theology, let’s not even go there.

  7. In addition to ChrisS: Russell wrote in the same book that philosophy can speculate about what’s still beyond scientific reach, like the question if time before the Big Bang is a meaningful concept.
    As for miracles, that’s one of the few philosophical topics that has been settled – since David Hume about 250 years ago. Since then apologists (ie would-be philosophers who argue for a well known predetermined conclusion) have made about zero progress. As a result even quite a few christian philosophers and theologians are skeptical about miracles.
    The God Delusion is quack philosophy; The Dawkin’s Delusion is worse.

  8. Sorry, FrankB, I have to disagree slightly.

    I don’t think miracles come under the purview of philosophy. To reiterate, if miracles are ruled out, it’s because of the limits of physical laws.

  9. When a religious person uses the word “evidence”, I cringe. This is because it means I’m going to have to yet again explain what evidence is. They have no idea.