To get overprotective about particular readings of the Bible is always in danger of idolatry.

Whatever I see, I trust my eyes, trust my reads, trust the guys running routes and kind of just let it go.

Distinctions drawn by the mind are not necessarily equivalent to distinctions in reality.

Believe me, than in half the creeds.

Facing issues of this magnitude, it's unreasonable to think that anyone comes to the investigation with no personal hopes or preexisting beliefs.

Among this pool are these: (a) explanatory power, (b) explanatory scope, (c) plausibility, (d) degree of ad hoc-ness and (e) conformity with other beliefs. The more explanatory power and scope and the more plausibility and conformity with other beliefs an explanation has, the better it is. The less ad hoc (adjusted, contrived, artificial) the explanation, the better as well. The trick is to subject all explanation options to these criteria.

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.

An asylum for the sane would be empty in America.

The word morality, if we met it in the Bible, would surprise us as much as the word telephone or motor car.

We must be conventional, Jack, or we are so cruelly, so vilely misunderstood. Even you, who are a man, cannot say what you think without being misunderstood and vilified

It may be asked how so imbecile and dangerous a creed ever came to be accepted by intelligent beings. I will answer that question more fully in my next volume of plays, which will be entirely devoted to the subject. For