Starspun

Honestly, I'm not sure of the difference's between the two view's of Genesis.

There's not room for misinterpretation:

image-n. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, esp. a sculptured likeness.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

I suppose my view would be the literalist view of religion. After all, if you can't take your religious writing's and teaching's literally, then you are merely being delusional in your beliefs'. Apologists' come to mind.
Anyway, your view point is one that I hadn't considered in the past and I thank you for bringing it here. I still don't see a real-world application, but, someone else may.

beausoleil

I think you have established a straw man (unless you are a believer yourself - aren't you dictating to other people that they have to espouse beliefs it's easy for you to criticise?). Lots of people pick and choose what to believe from their religion's teachings - I don't see the problem. My Mother was explicitly taught that large sections of the bible were to be seen as an allegory, for instance. This seems just as defensible as the position that it is all the literal word of God.

In addition, I pick and choose what to believe in the scientific literature in my field. I'd be uncomfortable if told I had to defend the content of everything that appears in, say, Geochimica.

Starspun

I don't know what a strawman or red herring or any of the other terms used in debate are.
My opinion comes from, what seems to me, common sense. I seem to be wrong.
How someone can take a supposed 'divine book', then pick and choose which parts are divine points to self delusion. But, this is getting off topic. Thanks.

Vinnie

Welcome to liberal Christianity.

"""""How someone can take a supposed 'divine book', then pick and choose which parts are divine points to self delusion."""""

I don't think they can really take a divine book and do that. The option obviously opens up if the Bible is a composition of human works.

And if you don't know logical fallacies too well and are interested in them you can check out these three sites:

<a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/" target="_blank">http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/</a>
<a href="http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm" target="_blank">http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html</a>


Vinnie

not a theist

This link doesn't work.

Edited in:
Here, I fixed it.
<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=7b10a93ba1184e566a5452dc2e9a6a4f& threadid=17736" target="_blank">Christianforums</a>

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Lizard

I haven't read your article. As a writer myself, my only advice is to break up the text into shorter paragraphs. Too much gray discourages readership.

Liz

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Vinnie.

Your ideas echo Gould’s ‘Non-Overlapping Magisteria’, as in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/034545040X/qid=1026146408/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/104-3851802-2388746" target="_blank">Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life</a>. I’ve not read it yet, but it sounds like you might like to.

However, as a hardline rationalist, I can't help but go with Richard Dawkins on this. Wherever and whenever religions make a claim about the world, it is an empirical claim. They are automatically therefore treading on science’s turf -- and if they conflict with science, they are wrong.

Though it focuses on one point in particular, try Dawkins’s article <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html" target="_blank">When Religion Steps on Science's Turf: The Alleged Separation Between the Two Is Not So Tidy</a> to get a feel for where we’re coming from.

See also Dawkins’s <a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.htm" target="_blank">The Emptiness of Theology</a>.

To put it in a nutshell: they aren’t non-overlapping magisteria. There is just the one magisterium (?), plus unverifiable ideas that may as well be (to refrain from saying 'are' ) airy-fairy daydreaming.

Cheers, Oolon

Vinnie

I may pick up the Gould book towards the week end. Is there a book where Dawkins advocates this view in depth: "The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?" I'd like to read that too if there is one.

I'll respond to some of RD's points later.

RufusAtticus

I think people can reconcile Faith with science. I don't think it is possible to reconcile traditional theology with science.

I think that is a distinction that needs to be made.

~~RvFvS~~

Vinnie

If by traditional theology you mean a 6 day creation, a literal and inerrant bible (etc.) then I agree with you.