AlgyTaylor wrote:That said, we can scientifically disprove Genesis.
But there is the rub. How can you "scientifically disprove Genesis?" Genesis is a story. You can disprove the "science" in Genesis. You can disprove scientifically a literal interpertation of the story is not how the world was created. But it's hard to scientifically disprove a story.
Case in point, suppose I take Chapter 1 of Genesis and call it Science Fiction. You see I have this space ship, and suddenly everything in the chapter can be scientifically explained.
But the notion for or against a literal interpertation of the entire Bible (a document shared by several religions) has nothing whatsoever to do with the queston about how good or not good religion is.
Shortly after getting into trouble by writing the Sanatic Verses, Salman Rushdie wrote another book that was eventually turned into an opera, "Haroun and the Sea of Stories." One of the recurring statements (and indeed the central theme of the work) is "What's the use of stories that aren't even true?"
And thus we get back to science and the scientific heresy (as it were) of scientism. Science is a way of looking at the universe, a methodology of looking at the universe. It is not the ture way. It is not the one way. It is a way. As it is a way of looking and observing it cannot solve anything. People solve things, not ways of looking.
There are many ways to look at the universe; the scientist, the artist, the dreamer, the story teller, and they are all important.
"There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"What's the use of stories that aren't even true?"
