The book, the book, hit 'em with The Book!

The Book in this instance is any holy book (bible, koran, atkins diet, the god delusion etc) but the point is that arguing from a viewpoint which is based on the premise that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is contained in said book, is a poor place to start from. Since the body of knowledge is expanding every day, this newfound knowledge has to be reconciled with the truth contained in a very finite book and if it either isn't there or worse, contradicts it, a crisis ensues while the hapless slave to the book works on the reconciliation. So, for me, while there are a great many truths to be found in all sorts of books, the thought of regarding any one book to be infallible defies logic.
Some might say that this is where faith comes in, one should just suspend logic in the face of the much more important faith. That would be fine up until the point that the contents of The Book are demonstrably internally inconsistent or contradict what has become known to be true. At this point, having forsaken logic, one is left with earnest faith in a falsehood. Not a good place to be. If on the other hand one takes a more pragmatic approach and just ignores the portions of the Holy Book that are inconvenient, prejudiced, pick your own criteria, etc what is one left with? the Holy Book according to the individual which is what I think most people actually do. Maybe unconsciously, but they do.