tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post3807917644527204499..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: How Fundamentalists Cope With Unwanted FactsRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-51992005765086453482013-07-18T19:45:57.156+01:002013-07-18T19:45:57.156+01:00Wow! You did all of this drunk? I am truely amazed...Wow! You did all of this drunk? I am truely amazed. I let my inhabitions go when I am drinking but find that the next day, that was probably a mistake. All joking aside, it's a 12 step program that might actually help people free themselves from some very miserable, guilt ridden conflicts. My internal dialogue is very over analytical. A lot of second guessing. I'm even doing that as I write this. I will take your advise and once I have conquered, I will try to help a friend do the same. Great advise. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-74410825433552301412013-05-17T03:50:46.497+01:002013-05-17T03:50:46.497+01:00Maybe this was your intention, or maybe this is an...Maybe this was your intention, or maybe this is an indicator that I do not believe in god after all (Whew!) but by the time I got to the end of this blog, my brain hurt from the all the illogical arguments religious people spew out. Seriously. Thank you.<br />JonBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02932229227995349812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-52571139429128473292013-05-15T19:43:16.234+01:002013-05-15T19:43:16.234+01:00(cont'd)
Step 6: Take those beliefs and reach...(cont'd)<br /><br />Step 6: Take those beliefs and reach in and sort out which specific "truths" you believe in are consequential (i.e. you feel you are required to believe because of other things you believe) and which are not. Set aside for this exercise those beliefs which you are required to believe as a consequence of more fundamental beliefs. <br /><br />Step 7: Using your friend as a sounding board, repeat this process, taking each belief and looking for the honest reason "why" you believe it. Again, remember there's no shame in admitting it if you discover some beliefs which it turns out you only believe for shaky reasons. Set these beliefs aside and keep going.<br /><br />Step 8: Strip away all the superficial beliefs until you get down to the axioms - those things you believe in which are not consequential - you believe in them because they just feel right. Those beliefs which many people have in common, considered "self-evident truths". These might include the belief that reality exists and is not just an illusion, that human life has some undefinable value, or perhaps that there must be some sort of meaning to the universe, or perhaps that you yourself are a good person. These beliefs don't need to be provable, but you'll know you've reached them when you can no longer answer the question "why do you believe this?".<br /><br />Step 9: Look for contradictions in your axioms. The goal here is to eliminate cognitive dissonance and this can be created at the foundation level by having axioms that sometimes are mutually exclusive. For example, discovering that you happen to believe both that human life has value while at the same time that nothing has any inherent value, could be causing some cognitive dissonance. If you discover contradicting axioms, try to figure out which one is more important to you - you may discover one of them is just a consequential (and unnecessary) belief arising from a much deeper and simpler axiom, and can be discarded. Also, you may discover some meaningless axioms which are unnecessary or redundant. Discard these axioms - the fewer the better. For example, you may enjoy eating peanut butter, but it may not be necessary to hold "peanut butter is inherently good" as a fundamental axiom.<br /><br />Step 10: Make sure you're comfortable with your core axioms. If they don't feel right, you may have too many or you may be missing one. If you're not sure, imagine a simple moral or ethical situation in your head - now try to use only your core axioms to resolve it. If you can and there's only one solution, you're set. If you can't, you may have contradicting axioms or simply be missing one (or you came up with a terrible moral situation - ask your friend).<br /><br />Step 11: Slowly begin reconstructing your consequential beliefs, allowing yourself to discard any which no longer have an axiomatic foundation to stand on. Be wary of consequential beliefs acting as new axioms - don't pick up any belief from the pile of beliefs you made earlier if you can't justify it with one of your existing core axioms. Once you finish, you'll discover a wonderful sensation of having a completely internally consistent world view, free from cognitive dissonance. You may find you've lost several superficial beliefs (hey, maybe even religion) but you'll be more embarrassed than agonized (I promise... unless you're clergy). The feeling that your everyday beliefs are now justifiable (to you) in a consistent way, is a very nice feeling.<br /><br />Step 12: Write that stuff down. Nobody's internal dialogue is perfect and there may come a time when you've picked up new beliefs without thinking about it, or picked up old beliefs again without realizing it. Remember that you are not required to believe anything that does not agree with your core axioms - it will only cause you pain. Thank your friend, he's a good sport too.ARockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12038098507495680930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-66859652362846508832013-05-15T19:42:24.238+01:002013-05-15T19:42:24.238+01:00So really, the question is "how do we overcom...So really, the question is "how do we overcome people's cognitive dissonance?"<br /><br />Having personally experienced it, I must admit it's one of the worst feelings in the world when you're cornered with no way out. Even worse when you corner yourself with it. The way I managed to get out (and let me tell anyone experiencing it - it's way better on the outside) involved lots of beer and a rationalist friend. As far as I can tell, it's not really possible to break through someone else's cognitive dissonance, or at least, not openly. They have to break through it themselves.<br /><br />If I had to lay it out in procedural steps, they might look something like this:<br /><br />Step 1: Get drunk. You're much more honest with yourself when you're drunk, possibly because you've lost all kinds of fears about what will happen if you admit you've been wrong your whole life.<br /><br />Step 2: Get a friend, preferably a rationalist who you can bounce ideas off of and confide in, someone who has no reason to want you to keep any delusions you might have.<br /><br />Step 3: Get your friend drunk. Otherwise this will be painfully boring for them, and, if all goes well, you'll owe them big time.<br /><br />Step 4: Begin by admitting that it's perfectly okay to be wrong about things. People are wrong all the time. It's not the end of the universe. It doesn't make you a bad person or require uncomfortable changes in your life. We're creating a safe space here where it's not shameful to be wrong or to have been wrong, no matter how strident you've been before. Here, the only values being applied to you are the brownie points you get for admitting you were wrong. Rack up those points.<br /><br />Step 5: Take an honest snapshot of your beliefs as you would describe them to someone else without even thinking about it. The beliefs that you put into practice every day. Use your friend to verify this and ensure you haven't left anything out.<br /><br />(tbc)ARockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12038098507495680930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-30508094722193078162013-05-15T16:18:50.458+01:002013-05-15T16:18:50.458+01:00No there isn't its called logic something all ...No there isn't its called logic something all you religious types are lacking in!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-27136096393070033912013-05-15T16:16:44.623+01:002013-05-15T16:16:44.623+01:00Well done Rosa keep up the good work there are man...Well done Rosa keep up the good work there are many of us who are sick and tired of these religious nutters trying to control our lives with there childish beliefs.We need to free our minds from this nonsense and move on to a more enlightened era without a make believe God!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-10694453933690123502013-05-15T16:12:29.013+01:002013-05-15T16:12:29.013+01:00The Bibles only purpose is to control the minds of...The Bibles only purpose is to control the minds of man for power and control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-8289741494408037352013-05-15T15:38:00.709+01:002013-05-15T15:38:00.709+01:00Your article is interesting, but flawed.
Where y...Your article is interesting, but flawed. <br /><br />Where you're correct is that Creationists and theists have to deal with facts that are highly inconvenient. What I believe your article misses is the role of childhood indoctrination. The vast majority of Christians have been programmed with a bad set of logical rules for evaluating evidence of their religion. This bad programming usually comes at an early age of development and is often instilled with the best of intentions. It's not unlike a virus passed on from parent to offspring. <br /><br />What does a virus do? It corrupts the body's normal functionality to produce additional virus cells. Religions like Christianity function in much the same way. Parents use guilt (and guilt avoidance) to take a child's healthy rationality and turn it inside out. Children are taught that it's a badge of great honor to believe certain phenomenon are evidence, but ONLY where their religion is concerned. They're likewise taught that normal healthy rationality applied to their religious beliefs is guilt-worthy & shameful. It's no accident that the vast majority of Christians feel deeply insulted whenever rational arguments are made against their faith. Because there is no motivating emotion stronger than guilt/guilt avoidance. It has the potential to be stronger than our survival instinct. Human beings will sometimes end their own lives rather than suffer guilt. <br /><br />So Creationists are not people who lack evidence. They're people who have been emotionally blackmailed into thinking that certain piece of non-evidence are evidence... and that regular rational evidence that counters their worldview is to be avoided for fear of feeling guilty. This is a subtle, but important difference from what' proposed in the article and by most non-theists. <br /><br />The line of reasoning that leads theists to atheism isn't, "The evidence proves you wrong" nor is it "How you deal with real world facts is wrong". The line of reasoning has to start with, "What can be done to help theists realize that they've been given a bad set of logical rules?" This is the cause of the problem. Truly, it's the heart of what religion is. The set of guilt-induced rules that cause people to think that god is rational and non-belief is irrational. Attacking anything else is treating a symptom and usually destined to fail. <br /><br />I've done my share of arguing with Christians. My favorite debate was with a Catholic where we were discussing the resurrection myth. To this Catholic, the idea that Jesus could magically vanish from a tomb was perfectly rational... but Roman guards being distracted from their work of was (somehow) "impossible". This is the cognitive dissonance you're talking about in your article and no amount of information about guards, guard duty, trickery, etc. could convince this Catholic the guards were in any way duped or distracted. The story said they kept watch and believing the story is a sign of character / doubting the story is guilt-worthy and thus to be avoided. So challenging an element of the story is useless. <br /><br />The only way to get through to people like that is to get them to examine WHY they believe and HOW they came to believe it. This is very hard to do, but it's the only thing that stands a chance. But any discussion of this nature that doesn't examine the role of guilt is missing the root cause. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-36860912910755242252013-05-15T14:34:42.469+01:002013-05-15T14:34:42.469+01:00Nice article. Unfortunately you'll find religi...Nice article. Unfortunately you'll find religitards will always offer excuses, and whimsical evidence to refute anything you write. I've given up on them all. <br /><br />I empathise with your religitroll problem and hope it clears up soon! <br /><br />Much love,<br /><br />Dr Chris Welch DSc MSc<br />http://qookumba.wordpress.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-75412945153987776342013-02-02T09:17:42.708+00:002013-02-02T09:17:42.708+00:00Spam removed.Spam removed.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-15807014072383479232012-08-16T02:06:16.856+01:002012-08-16T02:06:16.856+01:00Muhammad Dubaddisar (born 731AD-died 794AD) never ...Muhammad Dubaddisar (born 731AD-died 794AD) never had the opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ throughout the span of his life. Having found this out, Bobbi Juhaddywaddy, a Christian Fundamentalist has become convinced that God therefore has the almighty right to judge and therefore send Muhammad to the everlasting fires of a burning Hell, since Muhammad did not choose to accept Jesus Christ as his own personal Savior. Having allowed the use of cognitive dissonance (the repression of reasonable "common sense") to mar his mind, Bobbi Bobbi Juhaddywaddy will therefore be allowed to travel through life never having realized that his intelectual processes have been dulled to the point that he has become nearly retarded in his ability to think in a logical manner! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-7541288212797874292012-07-03T18:52:57.130+01:002012-07-03T18:52:57.130+01:00> I am not convinced that your story of "t...> I am not convinced that your story of "the best car on the road" is an example of cognitive dissonance.<<br /><br />Well done for showing how you coped with cognitive dissonance by trying to divert the conversation. An example of the 'look the other way' strategy, if I'm nor mistaken.<br /><br />>You talk about the Bible being separable in to the "literal" and the "allegorical" as though it is one text, written by one person.<<br /><br />The number of authors is of course, of total irrelevance here, as was your description of the Bible.<br /><br />>Contrary to your claim, theists generally have much more reason for belief in God than for belief in fairies. <<br /><br />If you have no definitive evidence for your god, the evidence for it is no better than that for fairies, or for any other imaginary supernatural entity.<br /><br />Perhaps, if the cognitive dissonance isn't too painful, you could tell readers why you don't believe in fairies.<br /><br />>Contrary to your claim, theists generally have much more reason for belief in God than for belief in fairies... Usually it is a combination of things, including the historicity of the Bible and the claims made therein, answered prayer - and other "spiritual" experiences - and the fact that the Christian world-view is not at odds with life's experiences.<<br /><br />In other words, retrospective rationalisations and false claims which satisfy your need to believe you have definitive evidence when you have none. You could, of course, attribute all those things to fairies, or any other imaginary natural or supernatural entity you wish and simply challenge people to prove the claim to be false. <br /><br />I'll resist the temptation to ask you to substantiate them to avoid falling for your ploy of diverting the conversation. Readers will no doubt judge the quality of your claimed evidence on its merits.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-82725369712701459692012-07-03T11:14:44.525+01:002012-07-03T11:14:44.525+01:00An interesting read - but there are a few things I...An interesting read - but there are a few things I would like to pick up on.<br /><br />1) I am not convinced that your story of "the best car on the road" is an example of cognitive dissonance. It is merely an example of a difference of opinion, which is perfectly normal.<br /><br />2) "The technique is simple: the parts of the Bible which are clearly at odds with the science are re-classified as 'allegorical' whilst the parts like original sin, Heaven and Hell and a creator god, etc are retained as literal truths. And yet the only way to distinguish between the literal and the allegorical is whether they are overwhelmingly refuted by the science or not, or the logic is absurdly wrong. If not, they must be true. Somehow, the scientific evidence that the Bible is factually wrong about so much is not regarded as a reason to doubt the rest. Basically, if you agree with it, it's true; if you disagree with it, it's allegorical."<br /><br />You talk about the Bible being separable in to the "literal" and the "allegorical" as though it is one text, written by one person. You're not the only one to do this - even some Christians give the same impression - but if you want to be taken seriously you must embrace the fact that it is actually a collection of (66) books written by different authors, at different times, and with different purposes. Some books are poetry (Psalms, Song of Songs, for example) - and poetry (any poetry) is rarely taken literally or used to state bald fact. Some books are personal letters, for which an understanding of the context is always helpful (as with any such personal letter). Some books are written for the purpose of conveying historical records (the Gospels, Chronicles etc.). Some books may be allegorical (Jonah, for example) but that doesn't mean that they don't convey a real point or literal truth - in fact, that is often the point of an allegory, and in this case is why such allegories reinforce certain doctrines or theological viewpoints.<br /><br />You refer to an allegory of sorts when you talk about Aesop's fable of the fox and the grapes. I am sure that you don't think that there was a literal fox, but you clearly think that the story has a relevant and useful point to make.<br /><br />3) Contrary to your claim, theists generally have much more reason for belief in God than for belief in fairies. I don't doubt that there are theists who have a blind and unquestioning faith, but in the main people generally have reasons for their belief in God. Usually it is a combination of things, including the historicity of the Bible and the claims made therein, answered prayer - and other "spiritual" experiences - and the fact that the Christian world-view is not at odds with life's experiences.JP...https://www.blogger.com/profile/00951577183105761317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-56334477653204781892012-07-01T22:06:03.582+01:002012-07-01T22:06:03.582+01:00BTW, you might want to rein in your tendency to co...BTW, you might want to rein in your tendency to condescending bigotry and a pretence of moral superiority. It gives the game away and shows the world what you are using 'faith' as an excuse for.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-30116922755808413612012-07-01T11:39:26.304+01:002012-07-01T11:39:26.304+01:00One additional point of interest, from Festinger&#...One additional point of interest, from Festinger's seminal text on the matter, "When Prophecy Fails".<br /><br />Behaviour in a state of cognitive dissonance is not only rationalisation through fabrication of less dissonant mythology, but increased proselytisation.<br /><br />Faced with conclusive evidence of the falsehood of their beliefs, Festinger's subjects sought to bolster their delusion by extending their social group. Believers seem to seek social validation for their counterintuitive belief system, such that the process of convincing others seems to provide comforting "evidence" of the truth of the belief. <br /><br />Through uncertain, we may see this kind of effect in interaction with religionists, when their recruitment-focused activity suddenly increases; they're seeking confirmation because their belief is rattled.<br /><br />(Festinger's book is fascinating, by the way - I highly recommend to anyone seeking insight into the religionist mindset.)G Wilsonhttp://www.voriank.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-69451945219495402872012-07-01T11:06:21.148+01:002012-07-01T11:06:21.148+01:00Thank you.
I think many people will have enjoyed...Thank you. <br /><br />I think many people will have enjoyed your display of coping with the cognitive dissonance caused by believing you have some evidence for your god whilst not actually having any. It reminded me of a child coping with not having a friend by having an imaginary one - which is basically all religion is, really.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-14867803651028054242012-07-01T11:01:30.902+01:002012-07-01T11:01:30.902+01:00BTW, I urge readers to read your comments as examp...BTW, I urge readers to read your comments as examples of coping strategies and the intellectual dishonesty that are an essential parts of religious fundamentalism.<br /><br />They will see how, once again, you fail miserably to deal with the subject of the blog, just as you did with the challenge to produce evidence for your god in <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/do-you-want-to-convert-atheist.html?showComment=1340441425390#c8607884386637440096" rel="nofollow">Do You Want To Convert An Atheist</a> where you did anything but produce some evidence, but instead try a diversionary tactic, and so illustrate exactly what the blog is about - the dishonesty fundamentalist need to employ to cope with the cognitive dissonance they daily encounter. Have you managed to convince yourself that you've refuted this well-established principle of psychology or proved that it doesn't apply to you?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-81039349721850017052012-07-01T10:48:20.365+01:002012-07-01T10:48:20.365+01:00I'm sorry to disappoint you. You must have bee...I'm sorry to disappoint you. You must have been delighted to think I wouldn't be using your comment to illustrate the dishonesty you need to employ to trick vulnerable simpletons and how you cope with the cognitive dissonance caused by neeeding to believe your superstition is evidence-based whilst not having any evidence.<br /><br />But I'm afraid Blogger identified your messages as spam. I have now released them from the prison Blogger put them in.<br /><br />I'm more than happy to supply a screen shot of them in the Spam folder, if you so wish.<br /><br />I wonder if you'll find the honesty and personal integrity to apologise for this bout of personal abuse and unfounded attacks which you normally use as a smokescreen for your other failures.<br /><br />Past experience tells me this is unlikely as I have never seen evidence of any personal integrity in your posts.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-62414500724002392222012-07-01T08:34:40.793+01:002012-07-01T08:34:40.793+01:00Deleted my comment again? shame shame shame...Deleted my comment again? shame shame shame...Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-15138241200676450162012-07-01T08:33:44.558+01:002012-07-01T08:33:44.558+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-46856085435252403712012-07-01T08:29:49.828+01:002012-07-01T08:29:49.828+01:00The Bible's only purpose is to show the Salvif...The Bible's only purpose is to show the Salvific plan of God. Baptists who rely on Sola Scriptura will see the Bible as the sole infallible source of Truth. This is expected of them.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-63086867181912037172012-07-01T08:24:33.050+01:002012-07-01T08:24:33.050+01:00Rosa, I know you cannot be serious with this comme...Rosa, I know you cannot be serious with this comment. It is angry, childish and comes across as the infamous "I am rubber, you are glue" counter argument said among children. Most of the content on your blog IS Cognitive Dissonance to say the least; and I have demonstrated this time after time - granted if you did not delete my comments.<br /><br />Regarding evidence for God: Have you read my reply to your comment and as well as "No sky friend's" comment on my blog? I wrote:<br /><br />Sacerdotus June 25, 2012 12:35 AM<br />This blog posting is not meant to provide evidence of anything but to comment on Rosa's blog. Evidence for God is in the works and is rather lengthy, stay tuned. :)<br />(http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2012/06/rosa-rubicondior-evidence-gaffe.html)<br /><br />Why are you being dishonest about your own blog posting? The blog I critiqued does not request evidence for God but states what YOU constitute as evidence. Anyone with competent reading comprehension skills would see that is the case. Readers here can see your literacy dilemma publicly. I fail to see why you would want your online persona to appear as delusional and illiterate. These are the opposites of what constitutes being rational. Nevertheless, suum cuique. <br /><br />Your accusations are false and quite frankly ridiculous. Any rational person would see that you are angry. You are angry because I took you to task and was victorious. The deletion of my comments which destroy your arguments demonstrates your attempt to save face.<br /><br />Moreover, I thank you for showing that you prefer relying on ad hominem defense mechanisms instead of attacking my points directly. Calling me names, acting with condescension and falsely accusing me of not providing evidence when your blog has no such request shows lack of integrity and intellectual confidence. The aforementioned does not give validity to your points nor make you correct. This behavior just shows that you do not have the intellectual skills to properly refute any counter arguments in a rational manner. That is indeed unfortunate. <br /><br />If you are going to comment on my comments here or even on my blog, please provide intelligible critiques, not insults or pseudo-psychological analyses. Do you honestly think you can psychoanalyze a person miles away, over the internet and without holding proper psychology credentials? You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop embarrassing yourself.Sacerdotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558048488785769126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-83973314713013646552012-06-30T16:31:45.992+01:002012-06-30T16:31:45.992+01:00I think gods are as real as the evidence their sup...I think gods are as real as the evidence their supporters claim to have but never seem to be able to produce when asked.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-48621849901161323502012-06-30T14:37:21.411+01:002012-06-30T14:37:21.411+01:00However, absence of evidence is evidence (not proo...<i>However, absence of evidence is evidence (not proof but evidence) of absence where evidence is to be expected</i>.<br /><br />Good point and good examples. If anything like the Biblical Jehovah really existed, there's a ton of evidence we'd expect to see, and none of it is there.<br /><br />Similarly, if the "history" in the Old Testament (the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the great kingdom of David and Solomon, etc.) had really happened, there would be plenty of evidence. The Middle East is the most thoroughly-researched area in the world archaeologically, and no such evidence has been found. It didn't happen. I think we can safely dismiss the stuff about the talking snake and the big flood.Infidel753https://www.blogger.com/profile/10965786814334886696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-2496344107399827282012-06-30T11:33:13.930+01:002012-06-30T11:33:13.930+01:00Back when I was in dental college twenty years ago...Back when I was in dental college twenty years ago, I had a Baptist classmate who claimed to believe in the Bible as literally true. I asked him to explain the contradictions between it and the science he'd had to learn in order to qualify for his place in the dental college. His response, which he thought was an argument-killer: "As a Christian I believe in the Bible, and as a scientist I believe in science."<br /><br />I can't better that as an illustration of your point.Bill the Butcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08436195659154078021noreply@blogger.com