I’ve been told that the Bible has no credibility many times. I’ve heard it on tv over and over. Recently I heard it from a political analyst who was commenting on a Republican debate of presidential hopefuls. The remark was also an underhanded criticism of the folks who associate themselves with the modern Tea Party movement. These groups tend to have faith in common.

The basic point was: 

>These people believe in the Bible, which is clearly filled with myth, so how can we trust them with national policies? If they are willing to base their lives on non-facts, it would be stupid to give them control of our country. 

It was condescending, arrogant, and elitist. As if big, centralized, statist policies are all based in fact? Please.

Back to me essential point.

>Sometimes it seems, with regard to discussions with those without faith, that any source seems to be more valid than the Bible. Even one with only one or two copies citing a particular event holds more weight (so long as it casts doubt on Christianity) than the thousands of manuscripts of the Scripture. If two books record the same event, the Bible is automatically wrong. Why? Well, because it’s the Bible, of course! Aren’t you paying attention? This is something I especially noticed in the atheist book The Christian Delusion which I reviewed.

>So, was the Bible manipulated to spread propaganda for God? That seems unlikely when you consider how the Bible includes so many ugly details about people who claim to follow God. People like King David, the prophet Samuel, and the apostle Peter certainly don’t always come across looking good, and that would seem to reflect poorly on God. If I were trying to persuade people through propaganda, I’d leave out details that tarnish my reputation.

Wouldn’t you?

This is something I explore in The Idiot Genius Contradiction–and it is quite a contradiction. Skeptics like this hold that the Bible is brilliant and stupid all at once. Somehow both are true. Somehow it has zero credibility but controls peoples lives better than anything else has for the last 2,000 years.

>This argument lacks credibility, if you ask me.