Re: Reliable Texts?

From: Ted Davis (
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 16:51:52 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "Re: ICR/AIG claims"

    I don't know the second source below. As for the first, it is generally
    *not* reliable when dealing with the history of religion and science. For
    example, I recall that it repeats the standard myth about Columbus and the
    flat earth. (I don't have a copy here at hand, I'm relying on my memory of
    it. I once borrowed our library copy and was so bothered by it, that I put
    a note in the cardholding slot warning readers against it.)

    It's a bad book.

    I note that many people associated with forms of religious scepticism obtain
    their information about religion and science history from internet sources
    that simply reprint the old bad sources, such as AD White's infamous book
    that has been so strongly rejected by professional historians. Indeed, if
    you do an online search it isn't hard to find that book--and it's
    instructive to see where you can find it!

    A year or two ago, I contacted the owner of one of the sites that archives
    White, explaining that White is such a bad book that it really shoudn't be
    made available without reference to the criticisms of it from the
    professional historians. I got no response at all, which I took as an
    implicit rejection of the truth in the name of ideology--don't confuse me
    with the facts, etc.


    >1) The Discoverers by Daniel J. Boorstin, pg. 107 (1983, Random House, New
    York, NY)
    >2) A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., pg. 91
    (1985, American Heritage Press Inc., New York NY)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 17:48:04 EDT