The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc. These books bear the very unique status of 'absolute truth' to their followers, to the degree that some would even die or kill to promote this ideal. Let's see what the Scientific Method has to say about the credibility of these books.

Hypothesis: I theorize that the core book of religions (Bible, Torah, Koran, etc.) may contain only absolute truth.

Our hypothesis appears to be acceptable in that it doesn't make any unsupported assumptions that do not extend from what is currently supported by the Scientific Method (we're fairly certain these books exist, and that they contain information). So now that we have a qualifying hypothesis, we need to accumulate evidence to determine the validity of it.

Color Table:

Strong counter-evidence	Weak counter-evidence	Not useful	Weak evidence	Good evidence	Strong evidence	Not applicable

First-hand Evidence
Type of Evidence	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Tangibility There are a great many historical references to cities, events, and people in these books, and some of them have been verified by other sources.	..100% convincing that the book is right about everything.	..meaningless. Verifying a subset of information contained in this book does not grant the rest of the information (specifically the 'ethereal' elements) any credibility whatsoever. This is called 'credibility smearing' and is an obvious attempt to extend known credibility to non-verifiable stories. Mixing fantasy with history, does not make fantasy history. If I write a 500-page scientific book about the moon, and put a paragraph at the end that states that unicorns exist, does that mean unicorns exist because the moon exists? Does binding different information together between the covers of a book automatically merge their credibilities?
Influence What about all those prophecies that have come true throughout the centuries?	..indisputable evidence. Every prophecy has come true, and therefore the rest of them will eventually come true.	..extremely misguided. All prophecies that have purportedly come true, are wild agenda-driven interpretations from extremely vague predictions of inevitable or common events. All unfulfilled prophecies obviously can't add any credibility since they haven't happened yet. Also, many prophecies are reworded but ultimately the same prophecy is repeated many times, giving the false appearance of multiplicity and seemingly more credibility. And finally, most prophecies that were specific enough to be considered supportive, were 'purposely' fulfilled by those with the agenda to see that the prophecies 'were' fulfilled, thereby negating the prophetic nature of them.
Interpretation No matter which passage you read from this book, it can be spun or interpreted in a manner that can conveniently usurp contradictory information. (e.g. the Earth was created in seven days, that being 'God' days of course..)	..strong evidence. See, we don't always know exactly what the book is trying to tell us, and sometimes we have to learn to interpret it correctly.	..nonsensical. The looseness of interpretation can be so dynamic that virtually anything can be 'inferred' from any statement, thereby rendering the book to be the answer for everything, and yet nothing at the same time. Impossible to gauge the accuracy of virtually any interpretation because of the lax poetic nature of the writing.
Intuition The book must be true. We've proven so much of it already, it's just a matter of time. And look how authentic all those writings are? How could it be all nonsense?	..good enough for me. Seems pretty obvious that something that has stood the test of time must have some serious credibility.	..nonsensical. There is absolutely no reason to believe that because portions of the book are true, that the rest of it 'must' be true. Also, how would the 'age' of information add credibility? Isn't Greek mythology considerably older? How about ancient Egyptian mythology that is over twice as old as any modern religion?
Desire If the book is entirely the truth, I get to live forever!!!!	..the 'right' path. Why would you want to gamble with your immortality by questioning something so much bigger than yourself?	..the most discrediting evidence imaginable. This is the very foundation for people's unwavering commitment to the validity of their book, but that still doesn't add one iota of meritability to the book being entirely truth.

Second-Hand Information Credibility
Type of Information	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Distinguished Source There have been umpteen respected scientific and literary sources that have compounded their support for the factual nature of these books.	..utterly conclusive. I suppose you're going to tell me even the scientists are wrong?	..seemingly supportive at first glance, but what continues to be missing is justification for the rationale that credibility can be smeared from the factual portions of the book, over to the non-verifiable (ethereal) elements. It is not in doubt that portions of these books are factual, as supported by scientists, but it isn't a question of this being true or not, it's whether the 'rest' of the book can be true by association, which the Scientific Method says it cannot. You must provide evidence for 'everything' if you want 'everything' to be true.
Agenda Source Religious books are published by the churches and distributed to the masses as a book of truth.	..good enough for me. The churches have been around for centuries. They have stood the test of time and if they were a fraud, they would've been exposed by now.	..powerful counter-evidence. These religious publications are the virtual narcotic that imbues false fantasy and fear into the followers, which ultimately coerces these people to purchase their desired affiliation (and eventual immortality) via the collection plate, a massive source of revenue for these establishments.
Mass Support A huge proportion of people believe these books are the truth	..very compelling. You can't argue with all those people, can you?	..self-defeating. True the majority of people subscribe to their book being the truth, but there are many different types of these 'truth' books, and they contradict one another, so hypothetically speaking, even if only one book was the truth, there would only be a minority of people worldwide that believe that particular one to be to be the truth, and everyone else would disagree. There's more people against you, than for you. Ultimately however, the hearsay of even billions, is inconsequential.
Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion I remember the first person ever to tell me about the truthfullness of my book.	..somewhat credible. Ok, one person claiming something might not be gospel truth	..of zero credibility.

It's difficult to imagine more disparate results than this. The instincts have no tolerance for questioning the legitimacy of their precious 'truth' book, and this has a great deal to do with the tremendous 'ego' investment into this entire perspective. Imagine spending a lifetime pursuing the ideals fed to us by the churches, only to have that lifetime of ethereal belief questioned? Imagine considering the notion that you've been wasting your entire life in a dream? Of course the instincts won't allow that to happen. It's too much pain, too much fear, too much confusion. It can't be wrong, it just can't be!! But, it is, as the Scientific Method more than adequately demonstrates. These books, are most likely 'not' absolute truth, citing strong agenda-driven evidence, a complete lack of alternate evidence, and if for no other reason, the Scientific Method doesn't allow for absolutes in the first place; hence, there's no such thing as absolute truth.

Instinctual Conclusion

My book is true, and you can take your fancy proofs somewhere else.

Scientific Method Conclusion

These books are nothing more than history mixed with fantasy.

© BetterHuman.org