Probably not. I don't think it follows, though, that I have to think the
Bible is inerrant. As you might suspect, I don't think much of it was
written before 1000BC, and parts written after that, when they speak of
contemporary events, are typically as accurate as one might expect (modulo
some national pride).
> Christianity is a stongly based on historical events. Those events are
> related to us in a series of intertwined documents. In order to believe the
> Resurrection (which we read of in the Scripture) we must believe that those
> documents are telling us something real. Your view, it seems to me, says "It
> doesn't matter that it is not real, I will believe it anyway".
No, I'm all for only believing in what is real, but that's why I don't
think it does us a service to emphasize Christianity's role as an arbiter
of earth science. I don't think earth science is decoupled from
Christianity in some kind of 'two-chamber' approach, but it seems to me
that casting Christianity as one opponent in a fight-to-the-finish with
other theories of earth science is to miscategorize what it is all about.
In my view, Christianity is not a 'flat' assemblage of pseudo-Baconian
factoids all of which have the same value. There are some things that are
central, some things which are important, and some things which are
peripheral. Earth science, in my view, is a peripheral. Since that's
where I class it, it doesn't bother me very much that P got it wrong.
P (I'm quite certain) had different goals in mind anyway. If Jesus never
lived, on the other hand, then that would raise a much more serious red
flag with me :-). My contention is that in placing 'no-rain-before-the-flood'
alongside the resurrection as factoids to be defended at all costs,
Creationists have done a disservice to many people.
> Given that epistemology, how do you tell a Mormon, whose book describes a
> story for which there is absolutely no evidence, that he is wrong and you
> are right? He can claim that history is not the point of the Christian
> faith and he believes his story the same way you believe yours.
>
> Under your view, what separates mainstream Christianity from the Mormon
> version of Christianity?
Mainstream Christianity these days increasingly shies away from the idea
that history is that simple, or, in fact, that spiritual views of history
are reducible to what can be verified by conservative scientific historical
methods. I think this trend is in the right direction. In the case of
the Mormons, I can only repeat myself from above: I find that the best
science tends to undergird (or compose raw material for) the best myth.
I have seen some great stories told as ancient creation stories, but which
have very obviously been adapted to incorporate modern inflationary theory.
The people telling those stories see no problem whatsoever in modifying
the story as handed down to encompass the latest cosmological theorizing.
If inflation goes belly-up, they'll switch to superstrings. The point is,
this story is important. It says things which are spiritually important
to them. The story is certainly enriched by incorporating elements of
modern science (at least in my view it is), but those telling it and
adapting it do *not* see the purpose of the story to codify or compete with
some cosmological theory. Its purpose (if I may be so bold, and doubtless
oversimplify) is to mythologize such theories--to fit them into ancient
patterns of looking at universal history. Are the specifics of the
history of the universe important to the story? Yes and no--they are the
'raw material,' but not all of it, and they are quite malleable as to
what the "real purpose" of the story is.
Applying this to Christianity, is Christian use of earth science to
tell a story about the earth, or to take what we know (or think we know)
about the history of the earth to tell a story about ourselves? For
example, you brought up the issue of the fall (and it has come up here
elsewhere). Is the story of the fall a theory of history alongside other
competing theories ("they were really named Bill and Genevieve", "it was
really a small tribe in Gabor",etc.) on whose fortunes rise and fall all
of Christianity? Or is it to tell a story which is part of the whole
fall-redemption-restoration cycle? I've heard probably dozens of
interpretations of the fall story which do not take Adam and Eve as
literally living ~6000 years ago in Mesopotamia. They point to different
aspects of earth history as "the fall"--the establishment of cities and
the renunciation of hunter-gatherer life ~10-15,000 years ago; the
development of language and complex societies ~200,000 years ago; upright
posture leading to frontal coitus 2-3 million years ago, and on and on.
Whatever is identified as "The Fall Event", the story told intends to
fit this bill--for whatever exact reason, human beings were cast out of
a primeval state of relationship with God and are thus in need of the
re-establishment of that relationship. My point is this: the core of
Christianity is not on whatever details are taken to provide the raw
material of this separation. Those are important to talk about, but the
core is pointing out that it exists, and fitting it into the rest of
the Christian cycle of redemption and restoration.
Sorry for such a long message--I hope I have clarified what I am thinking.
Since you have had this discussion before, though, I may be boring you
to tears. :-)
-Greg