Upon request, I looked up the exact info on that article I mentioned. Here it is for everyone else.

Nature, Volume 394, Number 6691, Page 313, 1998

The most interesting thing, I think, is that response bias would almost assuredly be heavily christian bias.

-Nick

I've never read C.S. Lewis before (although perhaps I should), but I do know that his "Mere Christianity" Christian apologetical book has been widely lauded by believers (and attacked by skeptics) for years.

But in answer to your accusation, no he is certainly not the best Christian thought has to offer--in fact, I imagine because of the book's age now that it's slightly outdated academically. "Mere Christianity" is what I call a beginner-level apologetics book, mostly intended for new believers who need an intellectual basis for their faith, or for honest inquirers who may be interested in Christianity. (I also believe Josh McDowell's and Lee Strobell's works fall into this category as well.)

More detailed, in-depth apologetical arguments (meant for serious apologetic students or for skeptics seeking to debunk the Bible) are made by the likes of J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington, N.T. Wright, Glenn Miller, and J.P. Holding.

Naturally, I assume that you and other skeptics will now proceed to attack the other apologists I mentioned above, but I wanted to state for the record that Lewis is not the best we have.

Good day.

<Remember that Jesus chastised Thomas for requiring proof> (from Physicsguy posting)

Gee, from what I remember of my Lutheran days did Jesus not give Thomas the proof he asked for by letting Thomas touch the wounds?

<Jesus spoke in parables so that the message would not be clear. In the same way, God has allowed there to be confusion in the Bible so that belief will be a greater act of faith.>

How do you know this? Is there some divine--yet unpublished scroll--that tells you God's plan was to create confusion so we'd have faith? Or perhaps Gleason has a telepathic relationship with God? On that line of thought...if God wanted belief to be a greater act of faith why bother with Jesus in the first place? (and don't respond with "we can not know the mind of god" rhetoric)

<the first of which is to "Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it.>

Using this line of thought I could validate the existence of the Easterbunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy!

In short...who's the true fool?

B



[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited February 14, 2001).]

Gleason Archer is a total failure. McKinnsey over at Biblical Errancy simply destroys him.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin2/bepart63.htm#ref6311

contains part of a three-part discussion. Looking at that, you can see that Archer gives the a terrfying, dehumanizing justification for genocide. There is NO justification for genocide. Compared to Glenn Miller, Archer isn't just wrong, he's sick.

Michael
turton@ev1.net

Interesting link and discourse on Archer. I am not really familliar with him though it does not take an intellectual giant to see the fatal flaws in this guys argument or his defense of Archer.

B

Thomas -- your post is not clear to me. Which flaws in whose arguments, Mckinnsey's or Archers?

Michael

Sorry! Please delete this post.

Mike


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited February 14, 2001).]

I was refering to the original post by PhysicsGuy. Sorry if I was not clear. Mckinnsey was great and I think we both agree on Archer!

B

I have a feeling PhysicsGuy was being sarcastic--I've never seen him support arguments like that before.

Again sorry! I jumped in at the end and am not familiar with PhysicsGuy's posting. In any event, the whole Archer thing annoyed me and I had to react.

B