[Vision2020] In Defense of Phil Nisbet

[Chasuk]

> The Bible, is meant to strengthen faith. To study it
> in an academic fashion and claim a superior knowledge
> of religion or the intended purpose of the Bible is
> like reading Genesis and claiming a superior knowledge
> of Anatomy and Geology.

I'm a pragmatic person, Donovan.  For me, this means that I only
accept those things on faith that I believe are unknowable.  I then
choose what I consider the best answer based on the scientific method,
which, in my estimation, is the most efficient tool for evaluating and
integrating new knowledge.  There are exceptions, of course, and they
can be quibbled ad nauseum, but I don't intend to engage in any of
those arguments here.

As I don't believe in God, it naturally follows that I consider the
Bible to be an interesting collection of books written by various
hands that hundreds of millions (billions?) of people have spent
thousands of years reading, prayerfully or otherwise.  To me, the
Bible has no intended purpose, but I don't think that a sunset or a
forest fire have an intended purpose, either.  In my worldview, the
only intended purpose that any life has is the purpose selected by the
individual.  For some people, the intended purpose of the Bible might
be as the focus of academic study.

To study the Bible in a prayerful/religious fashion and claim a
superior knowledge of religion or the intended purpose of the Bible is
like, well, what millions of people have been doing for thousands of
years, with the resultant bloodshed testifying to the fruit of such
arrogance.