A Note to Apologists

[For those of you who don't know this, "Apologetics" is the attempt to try to explain away biblical errors.]

Before attempting to critique my work, you should know that I have certain standards which I will respect.

ANY old explanation is not an adequate explanation. Christian apologists come up with imaginative rationalizations that don't draw from the text, and they make assuptions that aren't stated. They create the context which will save their scripture.

Is any old explanation reasonable to believe? Coming up with any statement that explains the problem is not enough. You must come up with something that fits ALL the points of the text, and fits within reasonable possibilities. You can't create conditions for the situation that do not exist in the text. Remember, this is the bible we're talking about. The "perfect" word of God. It should not need you to come to its rescue, especially if you are going to do so less than honestly.

Typically, apologists' explanations do not work. My explanations do work. They work with reason; they perfectly fit the biblical texts, and they're honest. I don't make assumptions that aren't specifically stated.

I have encountered plenty of Christians who will accept the most ludicrous rationalizations to biblical problems. This is an interesting situation, from a psychological point of view. One of my correspondents writes: "I do have an explanation that I accept, and that is good enough for me."

What does that really mean? It means that just because he can come up with a thin, imaginative explanation that ignores the facts, he can close his eyes to the problems of the bible. That is like trying to fix a leaky roof with duct tape-- it may keep you dry for a little while, but it is not a real answer.

Such an attitude is not intellectually honest. I could never do that. It is like sweeping all the problems under the carpet-- out of sight, out of mind. This person went on to say: "As long as there are explanations, I will accept the truth of the bible."

WHY? Has he thought about that? I mean, really deeply thought about why he will accept all that nonsense as long as he has any explanation, no matter how weak it is? WHY? Is this the way any intellectually responsible person would behave?

I suggest that the reason is that he WANTS to believe, and is unwilling to give up his set of beliefs, no matter what. That is what is truly disturbing about the religious mindset. The unsettling part is how Christians can be faced with overwhelming amounts of evidence that should at least cast doubt on their holy scriptures and belief system, and yet remain unfazed. The same thing can be seen in cults, and the difficulty in trying to "de-program" ex-members. People believe what the cult has taught them, and nothing in the world will change their minds.

What I would like to see is people honestly examining what religionists are telling them, asking for proof of religious doctrines and claims. Ask your religious leaders to show why their religion is true, and all others are false. Ask them for proof of the bible's authenticity. For once, drop the faith and use reason. You should try it.

What does "taking something out of context" mean? Let me help you to understand this with an example.

When creationists say that Darwin ADMITTED that evolution could not explain the eye, they use this quote to back it up:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - - Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.

This quotation has been lifted out of context. Darwin was NOT admitting that evolution could not explain the eye. The first sentence of a paragraph is given, but not the whole paragraph. Only with the remaining sentences does it become clear that Darwin did not mean what creationist insist that he meant. Here is the entire quotation in context:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals."

Christian creationists STILL use this Out Of Context quote all the time, even though we've told them the truth. They are LYING when they do so.

Now, am I taking things out of context? I quote entire verses, and I don't omit any text details which might change the meaning. In almost all cases, I supply the reader with chapter and verse numbers, so they can be looked up. What theologians mean when they say I take things out of context is that I take verses out of the context of the "overall biblical message". But what does that mean? That is purely subjective framework. Their biblical message is their interpretation. They are really saying that I don't read it like a true believer would. They're right. That's because I'm not a true believer. I read it like any other book.

Don't assume the truth of the bible before you read it. Let the consistency of the text prove its truth. Let the credibility of its claims establish its truth. Apologists need to stick to the text, and stop inserting their own interpretations. They need to stop making things up and let the bible defend itself.