(no subject)

This is directed at callistahogan in particular, but everybody else is welcome.

Imagine for a moment that you are not a Christian, that you are not a creationist, that you do not, in fact, have any opinion in any direction on either subject. Because you have no religious opinions, the Bible, being a religious document, may corroborate evidence from other sources, but is not, on its own, a valid source of evidence. Alternately, the Bible may be considered a valid source of evidence in itself, but the Qu'ran, the Vedas, the Pali Canon, the Iliad, etc, must be considered equally valid. (You have no religious opinions, remember; you therefore have no reason to believe that any texts describing the basis and practice of any religion are anything but fiction sprinkled with rules and possibly with history.) "My father says", "my preacher says", "God says", and other appeals to authority are similarly invalid, unless of course "God says" is backed up with sufficient evidence to make it clear that it is indeed "God says" instead of "somebody says God says".

What would it take to convince you of the truth of your flavor of Christianity? What about another flavor of Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Shinto? Atheism? Or would you be unable to be convinced, and thus remain an agnostic? Whatever did convince you, why would it be convincing? Why would an identical argument altered to suit another religious belief be unconvincing?

Similarly, what would convince you of the truth of creationism, or of the theory of evolution?