Actually, I wouldn’t fault them for suggesting the possibility of a human writing a bit of prose, similar in length to some of the NT books, without making any errors. Given sufficient (and sufficiently reliable) quality control and fact checking, errors should be detectable and correctable prior to publication. No guarantees, but it doesn’t sound inconceivable that at least some percentage of published literature manages to get published without significant error.

Where fundamentalists err is in (a) pronouncing the Bible not just inerrant but infallible (as in “we don’t even need to check”) and (b) trying to rationalize away the errors in the Bible instead of acknowledging them and downgrading its presumed reliability accordingly.

Do they give examples of such error-free human-produced books? I dare say there’s not one; not one without error the way Fundamentalists claim the Bible is. And if they were to find one, would they then regard it as ultimately authoritative as the Bible? If not, then what characteristic of the Bible makes it so indubitably authoritative? Seems to me that they’ve accomplished zilch with the silly claim that humans can produce error-free books, even if it could be proved true. It’s just a sidetrack that leads to nowhere.

(I guess I’m definitely a cynic.)

Almost 25 percent of the world’s AIDS patients are cared for in Catholic institutions alone.

And what percentage of the world’s AIDS patients got HIV in the first place due to the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception?

Why don’t you compile your response to the book into a counter book and publish it? I’d buy a copy.

“We’re rubber and you’re glue, criticism bounces off us, but it sticks to you.”

On the other hand, it would leave Adam with a really spectacular tan for a few 100ths of a second.

“When Critics Ask” irks me. It’s like we’re the ones on the attack. These people forget that they’re the ones wagging their fingers in our faces and insisting we’re in league with transcendent evil, destined for eternal fire. And this is the best evidence they can come up with? Sheesh!

I’ve heard this described as “self-projection as God”. You take what you already believe, find something that the Bible says that resembles your belief and what do you know – God believes the same things you do! Isn’t that amazing?

Which is why a hateful man like Fred Phelps can find so much hate in the Bible while a man like John Shelby Spong can find a Biblical faith that is almost Humanist in its approach. All from the same book!

It’s true, the warming trend we’ve experienced since 1995 is not statistically significant.

On the other hand, the warming trend we’ve experienced since 1994 is statistically significant.

If Jones had just pointed that out, it would have been much harder for the denialists to pounce on.

whereas Jemmott’s involved no preaching and no denigrating the effectiveness of contraception…

That’s where the typical abstinence only programs do real harm to both the children and society. Some of the kids are going to have sex regardless of what you do, so it’s simply pragmatic to limit disease, teenage pregnancy, etc. by educating them about contraception.

An edited version of that essay appeared in the journal Synthese in 2009.

Because of that, Luskin can always point to something and say “This is not CSI” – just like I can always point to something and say “This is not a catdog”.

So yeah, he’s right. New genes aren’t CSI; nothing is.

Jesus treats the raising of the dead as the most awesome thing in the world. “Anyone who would deny that,” he seems to say, “would deny anything.” But if God really cared about us, then the most fundamental, obvious, and even trivial consequence would be that He would show up in real life so we could all participate in that relationship He allegedly died to procure for us. And that “trivial” evidence would suffice to convince pretty much everyone—no miracles necessary. Jesus has it exactly backwards.

Look at it this way: two young men are trying to win the affection of your teenaged daughter. One shows his feelings for her by being there when she needs him, lending a hand when he can, spending time with her, and taking her out now and then. The other tries to prove his love by concocting an elaborate scheme to have some hoodlums beat her up, and then, at the last minute, provokes them into beating him up instead, so that she escapes injury and he almost dies. Which of these two convinces you that his love is sincere? Bizarre showmanship is no substitute for consistently showing up.

Have you ever had a Christian bust out the rich man and Lazarus story?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&version=NIV

They’ll say to you, “see, even if a man rises from the grave, you wouldn’t believe!”

To which the proper response is “Well, ok, maybe. But you know what? Every single night of your life – [i]every single night – [/i] you look into the night sky, and shake your head, saying ‘ummm, not convincing.’”

~David D.G.

I do not think they have any desire to convince skeptics with their arguments. The very title of the book gives that away. The claim that atheists believe that their is no God because of faith is immediately off putting to most atheists, in my experience.

What they want to do is to reassure wavering believers, those who have thought about the possibility of being wrong but do not want to believe it.

How on earth do they think they’ll convince a skeptic with such careless arguments? I think in reality this kind of book’s main purpose is just to soothe the insecurities of rank-and-file fundamentalists.

He’s not just saying “He’s God” as though it were a sufficient answer for every problem in the Bible, he’s saying that in the specific case, when God is involved in creating the entire universe, it doesn’t seem (to him) like that big a deal if the sun’s a few days late showing up. And I rather agree that it’s a subtle point, though I think that there are points to ponder, as I’ve indicated above.

PS — There’s no email notification, but if you have a newsreader, you can subscribe to the comments RSS at the bottom of the right-hand column.

Geisler didn’t write Genesis, so his opinion doesn’t matter.

Geisler did, however, write When Critics Ask. I do think the missing sun is an interesting topic of discussion, but that’s not really what I was discussing in my post. My post is talking about how Geisler deals with what he sees as being important Bible “difficulties,” and the inconsistencies between what he presents as being the solutions to these problems. Regardless of whether or not you agree that the problems are really “Bible contradictions,” I should hope that you would agree that there are “Geisler contradictions” in claiming that God was the narrator in Genesis 1, and that He therefore was the observer Who was unable to see the sun for three days after He created it.