Any good values that we can even find in Christianity
doesn't come with a rational argument behind
it — it was just lucky that it was good.
The Greek philosophers, when they came up
with values, even the bad ones, at least the
reason why they told people to adopt them
is because of the logic that they had behind
them.
Sometimes they had bad logic.
So I think the process was more important
than the conclusion — because the conclusion,
even if it happens to be good by luck, is
promoting a way of getting to it by revelation,
by faith — [and] that could get you to some
other, many horrible conclusions if you use
them, don't you think?
I think those are all excellent points — being
charitable as to what the contributions were
— and, you know, any religion, especially
when it has a big sprawling book of scriptures,
is going to have a bunch of ideas mutually
contradictory.
So the question of, are there any ideas in
there that you could pick out like cherries
out of a pie, that would then be kind of up-voted,
and some of the other ones down-voted, over
the course of time...
So the picking method becomes more important
than what we're picking, right?
The method becomes more important.
And what the Bible does is suggest that divine
revelation or faith is the method.
So what the screening criteria is — is more
important than what we get at, because even
if we get to something good, it was just an
accident, because the method was flawed.
You said it very well.
I just cannot disagree with that. Yes.
