>Thus conceived, it explains the biblical literalist's obsession with
>"proving" the Bible to be true through empirical investigations -- the world
>of the empirical is affirmed as our primary reality into which the Bible is
>"inserted" and, therefore, the realm from which we must seek support for the
>Bible's claims" [p. 280].
So are we supposed to seek support for the Bible via seances, channeling,
warm fuzzy feelings inside our head and other non-empirical realms? Exactly
how do I go about testing a non-empirical proposition which can't be seen
heard tasted, or sensed in any way shape or form? Is this not advocating
the worship of the imaginary?
If I say that the ugabooga god is the real god of the universe and then
demand that you worship him and give me your money. Are you going to do it?
Are you not going to ask for some proof that ugabooga is really GOD? And
if you can't get some type of demonstration that ugabooga is really god
then I doubt you will worship him and I will have to continue working for a
But, if you live according to the view of the article above, if I tell you
that you shouldn't seek support for ugabooga in the empirical realm I fully
expect you to fall on your knees, worship ugabooga and give me your money.
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Lots of information on creation/evolution