[...continued]

So based on the assumption that one can have only a finite number of thoughts, say 26, suppose you think Z: I ask you why do you consider Z to be so and you say, "because it follows from X and Y". Fine so Z is rational, but I further ask why do you consider X to be so? so you say "because it follows from U, V and W". OK, so X is also rational, but as I persist on asking about U, etc. eventually you would run out of letters, so finally you would have to admit that you accepted 'A' irrationally rather than on the basis of earlier thoughts. I could use mathematical induction to render this proof mathematically-formal, but then I would run out of my 350 words.

3.

"man acts" is true within some systems of axioms, but not in others.
Why you or me or anyone else chooses a particular system of axioms and not another - is irrational.

Having chosen your particular set of axioms, you would indeed have dismantled all objections, for yourself. This may make you happy, but it has no effect on others who chose different sets of axioms.

If you exclaim: "but their systems are irrational!", then you burst into an open door as I fully agree, but then your particular choice of axioms is just as irrational as anyone else's.

«Yes. Just imagine how good it will be.»

This is believable: quite possible, but not rational.

.

Dear Greg,

.

You posit:

« The Bible is a mainstay of Western life »

I think it would be more accurate to say that Christianity is a mainstay of Western life. The bible is simply an instrument of Christianity. It is an anthropology of religious literature that was collated by early Christian leaders as justification for their beliefs and served as a support for their teachings and the propagation of their religion.

The oldest known list of New Testament books, known as the Muratorian Fragment which the American biblical scholar, Bruce M. Metzger, refers to as “the canon of the New Testament”, dates from about 170 AD and was written by an unidentified author.

The majority of the New Testament was written by two people: Saul of Tarsus and his close associate (and probable disciple) Luke the physician, whom Saul had taken along with him as a legal expert on most of his missionary journeys.

The New Testament and Christianity were essentially the creation of one individual : Saul of Tarsus. But if it were not for Constantine, the Roman emperor, who assured its subsequent promotion and widespread adoption, it would probably have remained just another sect before disappearing like most other sects at the time.

Constantine established tolerance for Christianity by the edict of Milan in 313, personally converted to Christianity, elevated the sect to a religion with full powers and privileges and promulgated Christian laws. The state church of the Roman Empire was established on 27 February 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica, when Emperor Theodosius I made Nicene Christianity the Empire's sole authorized religion.

Saul had a long history of religious fanaticism. He participated in the stoning to death of the first Christian martyr, Etienne, then became a rabbi before having an illumination and converting to Christianity. He was a tent maker by profession.

His life was marked by physical violence, pain, illness and self-flagellation – to such an extent that he seemed to have masochistic tendencies, detesting himself and the human condition, while glorifying the virtues of obedience and submission.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

For Saul, religion appears to have been the sublimation of the death impulse which haunted him all his life. It obsessed him and consumed him. Nero put him out of his misery by decapitating him in Rome in the year 64.

His legacy, like all things human, is a mixed bag of good and bad.
That is true of religion generally.
.

And, Greg, you conclude :

« Time may reveal that ignoring, belittling or opposing the Bible is a fruitless exercise for a society that values freedom, individual rights and social care. These things sprang from its very pages, and it is not at all clear that they would have emerged otherwise »

I don’t think one necessarily has to “ignore, belittle or oppose the Bible” in order to observe behavioural patterns throughout the animal kingdom attesting to shared values of “freedom, individual rights and social care”. I see no evidence among our fellow animals that any of these values have been acquired as a result of them “springing from its [the Bible’s] very pages”.

They must have acquired them using some other method.

Perhaps they were just smarter than us.

.