>It is because of my past 30 years training (in geology, history,
>anthropology, and theology/philosophy) that I believe an attempt to
>harmonize the Bible and science is doomed to failure. We either accept that
>the flood of Genesis (the Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, etc.)
>occurred by faith or we don't, and neither science nor the Bible can be used
>to prove to a skeptic either that it occurred or it didn't. That is the
>nature of these two different forms of knowledge. We live in a dichotomy
>when we live by faith.
I appreciate your position, and agree that the problems with almost all
harmonisations are immense. I also agree that convincing the skeptic is
futile, but apologetics is not for evangelism but for discipleship. It is
to prevent people from leaving the faith.
It is because of my view of truth and falsity that I believe that a
harmonization is essential. I don't believe the creation story in which two
salamanders mated and created the universe because it isn't true. I don't
believe the Mormon account of Jesus being in the New World because there is
no evidence of the events of the Book of Mormon (Indians never invented the
wheel yet chariots are mentioned).
Furthermore, if the God of the universe is unwilling or unable to somehow
convey a simple but true account of the creation via inspiration of the
Biblical writers, then several things follow.
1. He isn't very powerful or
2. He isn't willing to tell us the true story. These follow from:
If God is unwilling but able to convey a true historical account of the
creation then He is not truthful, allowing thousands over the years to
believe the scientifically false Scriptural account.
If God is willing but unable, He is impotent and thus not God.
If God is unable and unwilling, He is evil and impotent
Only if God is willing and able to convey to humanity a true, historical
account, is God a supreme, loving, being.
The third thing which follows from the lack of a historically true account is:
3.Is there any certainty that a God who is unable or unwilling to convey to
us the story of creation suddenly IS ABLE to convey the true story about the
resurrection? (also via inspiration of Biblical writers). The historicity of
the resurrection is critical to Christianity and if God shows himself to be
faithless in other areas, why should I believe this story.
Ask yourself this: If every event in the Bible had been historically
disproved except the resurrection, would you believe the resurrection? Now
ask: How much inaccuracy and false history are you willing to put up with
to remain a believer? Can 90% of the events be historically false? 80%,
60%...??? Historical veracity is important to the claim of divine inspiration.
Before you say that I am requiring every event (even the poetry) to be true,
I am not. There is a certain level of problematical events I am willing to
accept, but my limit is not very high. If I beleive that the historical
inaccuracy of the Bible was as bad as the book of Mormon, I would not be a
Christian.
A dichotomy as you describe (science things which are verifiable and faith
things which aren't) is a dichotomy that I find unacceptable. It leads one
to being able to believe contradictory things. Science can be believed and
religious things can be believed even if they absolutely contradict each
other. If I must simply accept faith things by faith with little evidential
support, why should I not believe that David Kouresh is the Messiah, or that
the Heaven's gate leader really lead his people to the UFO? If all I have
to do is merely believe, then there is no limit to what I am allowed to
believe. The buddhist can say that all we have to do is believe, the moslem
can say that all we have to do is believe. Can we believe all these
contradictory things simultaneously? Having moslems and mormons in my
extended family makes me see that when they tell me I must simply believe in
Allah and his prophet or Joseph Smith's writings (regardless of the
evidence) they are doing the same thing you are advocating above. Belief
does not make things true. Evidence makes things true. Evidence is important.
And for the record, I notice you have been trained in geology, anthropology,
philosophy/theology and history. We have similar backgrounds. I am a
geophysicist in the oil industry and manage a group involved in finding oil
and gas. I am very aware of the geological issues involved in any
harmonization. I did graduate work in philosophy and am very conversant
with the anthropological issues (Anthro is my hobby). (I am weak in history
and theology)
Speaking of that, I would be interested in what in these fields convinces
you that no harmonization is possible? Proving a negative (e.g., no
harmonization is possible, i.e. "an attempt to harmonize the Bible and
science is doomed to failure") is quite a feat which I recall my logic
professor saying was impossible. One can't prove a negative. You must have
considered absolutely all possiblitities, both those thought of and those
not thought of. Have you considered the suggestions I have made on my web
page? If not, I would recommend them.
In Christ,
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm