The First Day

[Master Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Actually, it kinda is. You're using scientific criticism against mythology. Will you next criticize Homer by pointing out that cyclops do not, and never have, existed?

I can't believe I'm actually hearing this! Homer and the Bible are not even close to the same animal, because Homer experts make no attempts to defend his mythology as scientific fact. However, the Christian apologist does. There is world of difference there. This whole "light=day" argument is an attept to legitimize a mythological text in order to justify one's belief in it. This is what apologists do. It is the apologist who takes his faith to the level of scientific analyisis, not me. I am simply holding him acountable to play by his own rules. So no, my point is STILL NOT FRIVOLOUS.

[Didymos Thomas]

I can't believe I'm actually hearing this! Homer and the Bible are not even close to the same animal, because Homer experts make no attempts to defend his mythology as scientific fact. However, the Christian apologist does.

Do you not recall the religious opposition to Socrates? They didn't just make arguments, they killed the man.

Some Christian apologists do attempt to defend mythology as scientific fact. However, this is not always the case. We cannot level a criticism against an entire faith tradition when the criticism only applies to a portion of the faith tradition's adherents. Many Christian apologists argue against defending myth as scientific fact.

It is the apologist who takes his faith to the level of scientific analyisis, not me. I am simply holding him acountable to play by his own rules. So no, my point is STILL NOT FRIVOLOUS.

Like I said, not all apologists do this, and the one's who do are misguided. Equating mythology with science misses the point - no matter if your an apologist or a critic of religion, the mistake is still a mistake.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

stars are the only luminous objects (that we know of) in the universe. Nothing else produces light.

Ever seen molten lava? It incandesces, i.e. it produces light by virtue of the excitation of valence electrons. This has nothing to do even with solar energy, let alone stars. We may not be able to see volcanos erupting on other planets, but stars are NOT the only luminous objects in the universe.

[iconoclast]

More modern readers, unable to understand the role of myth in knowledge, and worried that their religious tradition is losing credibility in the face of science, which is logos, have attempted to convert the mythos into logos by reinterpreting the myth in a scientific way.

Ah, Didymos, we come back to the old logical flaw. How many times have I said - 'not necessarily'?

and again:

Some Christian apologists do attempt to defend mythology as scientific fact. However, this is not always the case. We cannot level a criticism against an entire faith tradition when the criticism only applies to a portion of the faith tradition's adherents.