More About Smart Guys and the Bible

By Merle Hertzler

Honey,

Interesting. So it is a bit much to ask that you should take seriously anything that I say, since you yourself can see that others are right and I am wrong? But why is it a bit much to ask that you take me seriously, even though you differ with me? Why can’t you understand that I might be making a serious point, even if I disagree with you? And how is it that your ability to “see” the right is more important than all my evidence and logic? Your words imply that you are trusting an inner vision to tell you what is true. Do you trust what you "see" even when facts and logic differ with your inner vision?

It seems to me that inner visions are sometimes wrong.

I did not say these intelligent men were “smart but deluded” I said they might be wrong. All people are sometimes wrong. That is all I was saying.

And of course I think that I might misunderstand some things. That is why I ask questions and listen to what others have to say here.

Now suppose I came here and used arguments similar to the argument you made here. Suppose I had said, “I see that those that agree with me are right, and Honey is wrong so therefore, since I see this to be so, then it is a bit much to ask me to take any other person’s comments seriously that disagrees with me.”  Can you imagine your reaction if I used phrases like you use?

Ah, yes, of course, if I had nothing else with which to make my decision except for the word of a Newton or the word of anonymous, then it might be wise to speculate that Newton is probably right.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that we do not have only the word of Newton and the word of anonymous. We have thousands of facts that we can use when we decide about the nature of religion and science. We can base our decision on facts and reason, and do not need to pick either of your two sources as our final answer. 

Uh, excuse me, but may I remind you that your original statement implied much more than simply that you were in agreement with Newton. You had said, “Now let me see...Newton or anonymous...Newton or anonymous...hmm. Yep I've thought enough. Thanks very much for that.” Your words clearly implied that what Newton said must me right because he is a great man. Now you say that you were merely stating that you happen to be in agreement with Newton, and were not implying that Newton’s word was a reason for believing what Newton believed? Okay, but your wording sure is odd if that was your intention. Do you want to go back and correct what you had said, so that we can all understand that you mean that you happen to agree with Newton, and not that it must be right because Newton says so?

Now let’s look at your quotes of Isaac Newton:

Huh? Where do any of those quotes say that Newton’s “belief in the Bible had an enormous impact on his knowledge and study of the universe”? Telling us that Newton thought God created the world and that he studied the Bible does not prove that his study of the Bible had an enormous impact on his study of the universe. Belief may have been part of his motive, sure, but that does not mean they were his source of scientific information. Could you check out the Principia once more, and show me where any of his arguments come from his belief in the Bible. I seem to have missed that part of Newton’s argument.

Isaac Newton may have written with the intent to promote belief in a deity. But wait! You just moved the goalposts! My statements above were in response to your statement that, “Newton let the Bible shape his view of Science.” Now  I disagree with your point that the Bible significantly shaped Newton’s view of science. It would seem to me that Newton’s principia comes from principles of science and mathematics, not from the Bible. Could you show us please exactly where it is that the Bible shaped Newton’s Principia? Telling us that Newton promoted belief in no way supports your original statement that “Newton let the Bible shape his view of Science.”

Wow! So there are people somewhere who comment that “every Christian who believes in the Bible is an unscientific, unreasoning, illogical slave to ignorance.” Wow, I am glad nobody stated that kind of foolishness on my blog. Can you show at what site you read this craziness?

Yes, Pachet was wrong. As I explained to you once--and you seem to have ignored it--“The fact that one man may have said that [about Pasteur’s ideas] in no way proves that most of science rejected Pasteur. The evidence indicates mainstream science was clearly behind Pasteur once his claims had been validated.” You simply have not proven that mainstream science itself suppressed Pasteur as you claimed. Once more you make a claim, I refute it, and then you move the goalposts. Your original claim was that Pasteur was intensely opposed due to his own opposition to Darwin and that his science was suppressed. Now you change the goalposts, and state that you are showing that it is difficult for people to contend with others that make negative comments about their ideas.

This may seem odd to you, but many people thrive on open debate, and don’t find it difficult to contend with people who think one of their ideas is wrong. I enjoy discussing things with people who think one of my ideas is wrong. That gives far more meaningful conversation to me than the man who just looks at me and says, “Yes, yes.” I don’t mind if people think one of my ideas might be wrong. Really, I don’t. Why in the heck would I be here discussing these things with people that disagree if I found such conversation futile?

Did it ever occur to you that Pasteur may have liked open debate also?

I did not add words. The words I quoted are the actual words that were in the quote in the link I had mentioned. (here is the link again.)   So yes, I was serious. A credible source says that Pasteur said this. If you have proof that my source was wrong, what is your proof?

You may have a quote that is slightly different from the quote I found. Both quotes come form good sources. I don’t know which of these is the correct one. It could be that he wrote or said both things at two different times. I don’t know.

But I don’t go around questioning your seriousness just because your research has found something different from me.

Regardless of which quote is correct, both quotes favor evolution. Pasteur claims that it is unlikely that germs encountered all possible occasions for creating diseases. He is not here questioning the fact of evolution. He speaks of the evolution that occurs when the virulence of a germ increases. He sees that new strains of micro-organisms can evolve as they spread from creature to creature. Yes, he uses the term “species of creation” but that does not mean Pasteur agreed with you on the method of creation. It appears he thought the method of creation was that of evolution, just like he wrote above about how new strains of germs could be created through evolution.

See here for instance, for one place you attacked the integrity of mainstream science.

Science is based on the scientific method, and at its core involves scientists familiar with the science of a particular claim reviewing the research to see if it followed the scientific method or is fatally flawed. You have vigorously opposed the need for such review, and apparently are asking that documents should be considered as science which would never be able to pass such review. When I have asked you if you would put any test in the place of peer review, you have not answered. So your science could include reams of junk science, for you reject the scientific review of documents, and you have given no substitute method to keep out the bad science. Not only does your “science” open the doors wide to junk science,  you have also insisted on a broad definition of science which includes things such as systemized knowledge and skills. So if grandma has knitting down to a science, that falls under your expanded definition of science. In the meantime, you throw out tons of mainstream science, including much of biology and astronomy, apparently simply because they differ with your interpretation of the Bible. So the “science” you defend is a long way off from science as understood from mainstream science.

Okay, so people are fallible? I agree. People are sometimes wrong. (Even smart people are sometimes wrong.) We are all fallible.

And we all admit that science is fallible. So why do you set out to prove what we all already know?

Science is the most reliable means we have of understanding the world. Where it is wrong, it is self-correcting. The reviewing action of the community of science serves to correct the errors. (So let us hope people don’t join in your fight against the peer review of the claims of science.)

I see. Would you tell me that you are demonstrating God’s love in your behavior here? For instance, you have made statements here about others such as, “Clearly you are a man of neither integrity or science...You have no interest in the facts of the matter...You lie...I see you are nothing but a fraud...[your] deceptive intent...this Philistine."  Is this what Christian love is all about? Will I act like you if I seek to emulate God’s love?

With all due respect Honey, if following your beliefs would lead us to the kind of “love” for others that your words express here, then I think most of our readers will not want your beliefs.

You misunderstand what atheists mean by the word “atheist”. They define atheist as a person who has no belief in a god. They do not define it as one who is absolutely certain there is no God. So Dawkins is an atheist as the term is defined by atheists.

Editorial Correction:

The following exchange was included in the original copy of this document. It has been removed, because I had misunderstood what Honey was saying. She had not included Einstein as an example of a Christian. I apologize for my mistake. Honey has corrected me at my blog.