There may well be some good ideas in the Bible. But to get to them, we have to sift through a lot of nonsense (and worse). And even if some teachings of the Bible and the church have been useful or beneficial, that doesn’t make them true. Just as ideas that are satisfying or comforting aren’t necessarily true.

In any case, it’s interesting to me that the idea of an eternal Creator has for the vast majority of humans throughout seemed more satisfying than an idea of an eternal Universe. I can’t really wrap my head & heart around the idea of eternal matter, but for some reason the idea of an eternal creator (while no less hard to grasp) seems less impossibly weird. Not a convincing argument, I know. But then, neither is an argument based on the claim that because scientific explanations have displaced religious explanations in the past, it will always continue to do so in the future.

Then too, we could question the validity of the scientific way of knowing. We say its “better” because it tends to be more predictive and that tends to give us some control. I like it for these reasons. But if post-modernism and physical relativism has taught us anything it should surely have taught us that we can privilege what we like and center ourselves wherever we like. The Universe could actually be geocentric, it just means the geometry of the rest of the orbits get a lot more complicated.

2) Has the Bible really been all that wrong about things like “Turn the other cheek” and “Do good to those who hate you"? Genocide in the old testament is a problem. I won’t deny it. But there have been, I think, far more people motivated to do things, both large and small, that most people would recognize as “good” than have been motivated to hurt people. In fact, even though few actions have only one motive, I would posit that the Christian faith is the PRIMARY motivator for doing harm to people in only very few cases. It is more often used as a justification for acting out things one wants to do anyway. And, although I can’t really prove this, I think even more often a motivation for living and acting self-sacrificially. (Granted this is a Christian virtue, but then if you’re assuming genocide is bad I assume you’re accepting some of the general morality of Western society).

3) The point has already been made that we should read different genres in different ways. I don’t think any serious scholar of ancient literature would argue that Revelation was ever meant to be read in the same way as 1 Corinithians. It’s only Fundamentalists that make this error.

4) I think I’ve already addressed this in the above points, and really should end this over-long comment.

Stimulating post. Thanks!
Doug

Ideas change. If I can’t trust 17th century christian thought, how can I trust 21st century christian thought? If I can’t trust 17th century medicine, how can I trust 21st century medicine?

I agree that this is true. But, whereas progress is a crucial part of science, it contradicts the way most people view religion. Science is constantly correcting itself, and discarding ideas that have been proven false. Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to be truth that has been revealed once for all. Religious ideas do change, but only slowly. And they often go kicking and screaming rather than willingly.

Your other points are good.

It’s a given that we’re all bringing presuppositions to this discussion. The question is, which presuppositions make the most sense?

2 is a bit one sided. I think the reason that religious people are considered authorities on morality is because of the good that has been done in the name of god: hospitals, orphanages, shelters, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, visiting prisoners. I know you could show me how some king or president or nut used/uses religion in awful ways, but I don’t think you can deny the good that has been done by real religious people.

3 doesn’t seem like much of an argument. We read different literature differently. Myths, letters, poetry, history, law, prophesy, novels, and letters to the editor (literature?) all do different things and should be approached differently.

Also, I don’t think god has stopped inspiring people. Christians continue to think and write about what all these things mean from a “christian” perspective now. (I know you know this.) Ideas change. If I can’t trust 17th century christian thought, how can I trust 21st century christian thought? If I can’t trust 17th century medicine, how can I trust 21st century medicine?

I’m tempted to drop presupposition back into the mix, but it’s late and I don’t think my previous graph made much sense.

The Dude abides.