Introducing Boris

That’s because you couldn’t care less regarding Christianity; but some of us do care. It’s one thing to reject Christianity, as Bertrand Russell did; it’s another to embrace Christianity, as G. K. Chesterton did; I respect both of those positions. But to claim to adhere to the most doctrine-bound of all forms of Christian faith, while denying or at least publicly casting doubt on several core doctrines of that faith, is to adopt an incoherent position, both intellectually and existentially. So those of us who value theoretical and existential coherence naturally ask questions when we see such a phenomenon. But as Michael has indicated that he has no intention of giving an account of his current religious and theological position vis-a-vis the Roman Church, I will respect his decision and not press him any further. He has the right to discuss or not discuss his faith and his theology, as he pleases.

I quite agree. There may be a few exceptions in some of the more abstruse areas of theoretical physics, but for the most part, I think you are right. But that is not responsive to what I’ve been talking about. Are you going to answer my question about Richard the Lionheart, or not? In case you missed it, I’ll repeat the question:

If you mean, teaches that evolution is true, you’re dead wrong – there are plenty of Christian colleges that teach life sciences yet are bound by their faith statements to say that evolution (beyond trivial levels) did not happen. But then, raised a secular Jew, you’ve probably had very little contact with conservative Christians, so it’s not at all surprising that you don’t have a clue about the educational institutions raised by that culture.

If you mean, teaches about the theory of evolution, i.e., makes its students familiar with what the theory says, you are probably correct. But in the conservative places, that teaching “about” evolution is accompanied by a rejection of evolution. If you leave that point out, you are misleading the readers here.

Why do I keep catching you in factual error after factual error? And not just little slips, but major falsehoods? Don’t you do any research before you write?

We all can read it. I taught Biblical Greek for seven years. (Also Hebrew once, by the way.) And of course, “προσποιειται” is not only harsh, but wrong in my case.

That applies when people choose to be entirely silent about their faith. One should not probe in such cases.

It’s a different matter when someone publicly announces that he is undergoing catechism classes with a view to very soon becoming an official member of the Catholic Church and then, a few months later, makes more public statements which are incompatible with such a decision. Once a person has chosen to break silence and make public statements, pointing out the logical incoherence between the statements is fair game, and not unwarranted probing. But as Michael has indicated that he has no intention of explaining the apparent contradiction, I will respect his decision and let the matter go.