RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
The problem is that when people say "The Bible is an important historical document", that's an ambiguous statement. It might mean:
(A) The stories contained therein had an enormous influence on the history that came afterward.
or
(B) The stories contained therein are themselves historical truth.
Those are not even remotely close to being the same claim at all. And once you give the fundies an inch, they'll take a mile. If you give the mild concession that the bible influenced history after being written, they take that to mean that you just called the bible a true history.
The bible is, of course not a historical document. The Jews were not Egyptian slaves, for example. When they pushed out their neighbors and took over more land, they were not doing so on a mandate from the creator of the universe, for another example.
The bible is literature, and influenced the history that came afterward. That's not the same thing at all.
Permalink Sun, 20 May 2012 14:37:58 UTC | #942443