Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Neo-Scholastic]

Most of the apparent contradictions are the result of:

1) Applying a only a literalist heurmenutic. In other words, they are reading it the same way religious fundamentalists would.
2) Failure to distinguish between historical information, allegories, allusions, metaphors, and figurative language.
3) Divorcing the text from authorial intent. In other words, ignoring what the text would have meant to readers during the time it was written.
4) Giving inordinate significance to trivial differences.

In other word, the writer at infidels had no interest in understanding the text. He was only interested in promoting his agenda and in so doing made an ass of himself. If you take him seriously you are a fool.

You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions. Even if what you claim is true, the Bible would still not be good evidence because it seems impossible to distinguish between what should and should not be interpreted as true in the Bible. Without being able to make this distinction, the Bible is useless in terms of evidence.

What you claim to be impossible can be done with education and discernment. For example, a proper reading of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" requires some background knowledge to know it is satire. A naive reader might mistake it for a genuine plan to eat the babies of the poor. Such a reader's notions about the character of the author would be completely wrong. In the bible Jesus is described as both "the Lamb of God" and "the Lion of Judah", anyone reasonable person can see that both are instances of figurative language. The prophets spoke in allusions. Jesus spoke in parables. Revelation is so deeply symbolic that it is opaque even to most biblically literal people. And really, what difference does it make if pi got rounded to 3 or the man-count of armies are given in round numbers? Judas killed himself, does it really matter how?

I would add that apparent contradictions in the Resurrection account contributed to me becoming an atheist. But that was based on a very superficial reading on my part. Today, I can say with confidence that the 4 accounts of the Resurrection are complimentary and all the apparent contradictions disappear by making a careful reconstruction from comparing the texts side-by-side. I did that personally and without difficulty.

---

[1] It is one thing to say that none of that evidence supports (proves) the Resurrection, [2] it is a completely different thing to say there is no evidence at all.

From my observations, regarding the NT, the [atheist] posters here are saying that it does not provide any evidence for [1] along with claims for the existence of a god; thus, [2] is the conclusion.  Do you see thing differently?

My position is that people are justified in believing that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise, i.e. that some ideas are properly basic and one of those ideas is that some divine agency is operative in the world.

[b]

Out of curiosity, is "the idea that some divine agency is operative in the world" actually properly basic to humanity, or is it a particular way of thinking that certain groups of people have cultivated over the years,...

The science on this one is pretty clear. (I made three citations on another thread) such as this one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...103828.htm