@
jshm2 That philsophy rejects not only the intellectual barreness of scriptural literalism, but also rejects thje whole ethos of science, which is contunually to ask, to test, to rebise as new evidence and knowledge develops.
The stale "evoluytion v. Bible" argument is meaningless anyway because it is like comparing a lake with a mountain.
Science and religion do totally different things, and not only is there no philosophinal reason against being religious while also the astronomer, geologist ot biologist the literalists despise; but the natural sciences reach over all religions and none.
You can believe in God while also seeking to understand His works; and from any faith.
Further, literalism is very ironical, in two ways.
Firstly, in using media such as the Internet to try to justify its anti-science stance.
Secondly by it demeaning the "personality" and denying vast swathes of the marvellous works, of very God they imagine they are "defending".
So the litweralists' motives? Well, those will be individual, but as well as personal fear of learning, perhaps having been bullied into that by family or institution, I suspect some have dark aims beyond merely pushing a silly, obsolete "God v. Science" spat.
