Atheist Fundamentalism

[Neo-Scholastic]

Proper instruction from whom? What would be the 'proper' instruction and how could one tell?

That’s a fair question. I think the same rules apply to religious instruction as they do to all other topics. Based on our own judgment and those of people we trust, we study known experts. Generally, we defer to their opinion until we feel sufficiently educated to challenge those opinions. Of course even experts disagree and we generally defer final judgment on an issue we feel is questionable until we have given them a fair reading. For example, Ed Feser has much greater expertise than I do with respect to Neo-Scholastic philosophy. That said I question his conclusion that the God of classical theism is pure act. Nevertheless, I am deferring judgment until I finish reading his book “The Last Superstition.”

I understand the point completely about contextual readings of the bible, but there's no consistency?

I believe having a consistent hermeneutic matters more than a consistent results. The criticism that believers are cherry-picking is valid only to the extent that they do not have an overall methodology for determining how things should be “rightly divided.” This applies to all holy writ and sacred texts regardless of tradition.

Even you few theists that are regulars here often disagree on many points about the bible and it's interpretation.?

Also true. But most are on minor points. I do not know a single Christian that does not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, although there is much ecumenical bickering about the role of baptism and such.

Also there are many different interpretations of secular history as well. Some things are less certain than others. Columbus sailed in 1492, but the exact date of Leif Erikson’s voyage is not so certain. Questions about authorship, the historical backdrop, and linguistic ambiguities play a part in determining the meanings of and doctrines following from certain scriptures.