Aesop’s Fables Proven Infallible

crow2Science has once again proven that Aesop’s stories are all entirely true. Let us first revisit the story of The Crow and the Pitcher.

A Crow, half-dead with thirst, came upon a Pitcher which had once been full of water; but when the Crow put its beak into the mouth of the Pitcher he found that only very little water was left in it, and that he could not reach far enough down to get at it. He tried, and he tried, but at last had to give up in despair. Then a thought came to him, and he took a pebble and dropped it into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped it into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. Then he took another pebble and dropped that into the Pitcher. At last, at last, he saw the water mount up near him, and after casting in a few more pebbles he was able to quench his thirst and save his life.

Little by little does the trick.   [ source ]

The most recent confirmation of Aesop’s infallibility comes in the form of a study conducted by scientists from Cambridge University. These scientists discovered that crows, when enticed by a delicious worm in a beaker of water, used pebbles nearby to raise the water level to where they could reach the worm, just as Aesop had written!

We can now safely conclude that all of Aesop’s stories are indeed true such as the one with the talking snake and the one with the magic staff (wand). Skeptics foolishly delight in pointing these miraculous stories out as evidence of the ridiculousness of taking Aesop seriously. However, those of us who have a personal relationship with Aesop know with all certainty that the Word of Aesop is entirely true.

Another point to consider is, how could humans ever live ethically if we reject the authenticity of the objective moral standard given to us by Almighty Aesop?

Does your “faith” allow you to reach conclusions that extend far beyond the evidence? Here are some headlines and links to consider.

I just had someone respond to this post with the following.

That’s a straw man argument on several levels. The first and most obvious is that Aesop’s Fables were not written as historical narratives. If they had been, and then if large chunks had been discovered to be true, then your argument would be nearer the mark. As it is, it’s a classic ‘straw man’ argument.

This person first claims that I’m arguing that Aesop’s Fables were historical narratives, then thrashes an imaginary argument based on that claim. This person demonstrably has intimate knowledge of classic straw manning, but not on the side he supposes.

The point of my satire is to point out the absurd way some theists reason by arguing from agreement between science and the bible all the way to the inerrancy of the bible. Theists make a habit of concluding with non-sequiturs. This is hardly a matter of debate. A claim of scriptural inerrancy obviously cannot be supported by affirmations to that effect found within the very scriptures in question. Yet thousands of ministers on any given Sunday are invoking 2 Timothy 3:16 to make exactly this claim.

Theists habitually employ logical fallacies. I suggest that they feel that merely positioning the band-aid of “faith” across a mortal logical wound will prevent the smell of decay. Until theists are willing to employ logic rigorously, they are condemned to wallow in the absurdities of faith.


2 thoughts on “Aesop’s Fables Proven Infallible

  1. Andrew says:

    Hi Phil,

    I read this when you first posted it and have been meaning to write a comment. On my initial glance I actually had a similar thought to the “straw man” response you received. After looking at the sites you linked to, though, I think there’s simply been a misunderstanding.

    For someone who only read your post, you seem to be equating belief in a fable to belief in a historical narrative, and then, in pointing out the ridiculousness of believing in a fable, you conclude that it’s ridiculous to believe in the historical narrative. This would indeed be a caricature of the original position and therefore would be a strawman argument.

    However, after looking at those links, I realized that you were indeed reasonably representing the logic provided at those sites, and you were satirizing their application of evidence. It doesn’t matter that Aesop’s fable was a fable; what was being shown fallible was how the scientific evidence was being applied to legitimize the Bible.

    In conclusion, your post does not parody the belief itself, but rather it derides the process of how information is used to support the belief. I hope this clears things up.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s