Comments on: XFiles: “Scientific facts”

By: Tony Hoffman

Tony Hoffman — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:19:27 +0000

I enjoy reading your stuff, which I’ve only discovered recently. You have a talent for exposing bad arguments in fresh and innovative ways; I read here and think, “I wish I’d used that when I heard the same argument before.” I imagine version of many of your insights here will filter out into the little pools of arguments happening everywhere, and apologists everywhere are going to have to devise another, deeper layer of ad hoc arguments.

In particular, I liked this quite a bit:

Imagine if I were to swap those two standards of evidence and insist that evolution must be true because Darwin mentioned the Galapagos Islands, and lo and behold, those islands actually exist! Would that be enough to convince them? Or if I point out that the resurrection story fails to give a complete and detailed explanation of the mechanics of reanimating dead and decaying flesh, you think that would be enough to get them to abandon the Gospel as eagerly as they discarded evolutionary theory?

By: Deacon Duncan

Deacon Duncan — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:27:35 +0000

Fixed, thanks.

By: David D.G.

David D.G. — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:48:13 +0000

One slight quibble, DD: That quote from The Princess Bride is Inigo Montoya, but he is not addressing Fezzig; he is addressing Vizzini the Sicilian (who keeps saying “Inconceivable!”).

Otherwise, GREAT post! I especially liked this gem of a paragraph:

The end result, of course, is that Geisler and Turek turn the phrase “scientific fact” into a synonym for “dogma,” and give it a meaning that is the exact opposite of what a genuine scientific fact would actually be. Instead of verifying whether any objective, real-world evidence actually exists for the events described in Genesis 3, Geisler and Turek want us to take their word for it that we can take the Bible’s word for it that we can take Jesus’ word for it that we can take the Bible’s word for it. That, according to G&T, constitutes “scientific fact.”

You, sir, are a heck of a good writer!

~David D.G.

By: Deacon Duncan

Deacon Duncan — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:08:15 +0000

The passage that Geisler and Turek actually quote in their book says, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" I didn't bother quoting that part because (a) Jesus isn't exactly expressing the idea that Geisler and Turek ascribe to him and (b) Geisler and Turek's point is actually a lot more cogent than the one John attributes to Jesus. The Bible has an obligation to be consistent with the facts we can verify (G&T's point) before the rest of us are under any obligation to believe what it tells us about things that cannot be known (Jesus' point). After all, why should we put our trust in a book with a documented history of inconsistency with the truth?

By: mike

mike — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:46:07 +0000

Jesus taught that if the Bible does not speak truthfully about the physical world that you can see, then it cannot be trusted when it speaks about the spiritual world that you cannot see.

Is there a concise Bible verse of Jesus saying this? Seems like some pretty reasonable words of wisdom from the J-man.