A nicely balanced piece, Sells. I was tempted to say "for a change", but that would have been churlish.

>>...to compare these stories with the information about the physical world is ludicrous<<

Absolutely. Problems only occur - and this is by no means restricted to your own religion - when devotees try to insist that the stories are grounded in some form of historical reality, and therefore incontrovertible.

(Although I do have to take issue with your blind swipe at the modern novel being "mere journalism", simply because they do not ground themselves in some form of religious mythology. There is substantial moral examination by writers such as Koestler, Steinbeck, Butler, Nabokov and many others, that meet your requirement that they be more than "mere entertainment and to carry no other function than distraction".)

Having said that, I agree entirely with your view that:

>>... there is not one point of Christian dogma that is challenged by natural science. There are two different epistemologies here that do not compete for the same knowledge.<<

It would be a great step forward, if you could promulgate this message to your fellow-religionists. Who continue to insist that their "knowledge" is somehow superior to that - very different - "knowledge" held by atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers.

But if it is not the responsibility of science to disprove or diminish religion, nor is it the responsibility of religion to contradict science through reference to materials that - to use your own description of the Nicene creed - are nothing more than "obviously metaphysical statements".

I can comfortably side with you on your conclusion that Blakemore's programme overstepped the mark, in positing that science will ultimately cause religion to be redundant. Reliance on the metaphysical for comfort and reassurance is based on emotion, not reason. And in the same way that religion and science function independently, it will be emotional security rather than increased objectivity that lessens the hold of religious belief on humans, over time.

It will be interesting to see what your fan club makes of this article, Sells

Peter, I have read many of your articles on OLO, and you have a profoundly-demonstrated commitment to Christianity and aspects of its Good Book.
It seems to me that there is a need for your thoughts to be compiled, and brought to bear as a twenty-first century edition of the Christian Bible.

As Taslima Nasreen found in Bangladesh, such an exercise can meet with a degree of opposition from those committed to resisting change. However, if the worst were to happen it might elevate your status to that of martyr.
Science can chug along separately, rever-changing its understanding of matter and interactions as new elements of them are revealed by ongoing inquiry.

*sigh*... more guidance for Pericles needed ..a-gain.

//Absolutely. Problems only occur - and this is by no means restricted to your own religion - when devotees try to insist that the stories are grounded in some form of historical reality, and therefore incontrovertible.//

Pericles, your biggest enemy is yourself.

"Grounded in some form of historical reality"

Even the HARSHest critics concede that the Biblical sections which actually claim to deal with "History" are at least connected to real events, though they might offer that the event which happened is now faded and all we have left is the 'myth'.

Let's take just one example.

NAT GEO. Study of the plagues of Egypt.

Nile turns red with blood. Red algal bloom.
Recent studies have shown:

1/ The original course of the Nile passed by a particlar city, the name of which escapes me right now.
2/ Archeology showed that pottery exists 'up to' a particular point which is identified to be around the time claimed for Moses.
3/ There are no pottery examples or evidence from 'later' periods.

The city was abandoned.

The conclusion which is attractive is:

"The historical evidence and Biblical narrative coincide closely."

SODOM. The story about the events there is becoming quite well known..and the archology (after first being dragged kicking and screaming to even 'admit' that there was such a place) now confirms that a 'violent/firestorm' type disaster hit them.

Again.."Biblical narrative and Acheology coincide closely

So.. while we could go on..and on...and on..and on..... with example after example...after example..... let's not.

But it is most unfair to suggest that the 'some kind of historical reality' that Pericles poo poo's is actually quite strong and close to what the bible says.

More 'not so secret' mens business.

Pericles... you again... The Bible is a Book of books...it contains many literature types.

-Historical
-Poetical
-Apocalyptical
-Commands
-Biographical
-Prophetic
-Legal

and I'm sure much more.

The key is in knowing which type of literature you are reading, to whom that particular part was written, why, and when.

(Those are the tests I apply in my statements about the Quran, Muhammad and Hadith by the way)

Your primary problem is that you don't yet know the 'Author'... but we pray on.

Sells has a point, there is no conflict with science as long as the bible is not taken too literally.

The universe is not 10 000 years old, and evolution is generally accepted, so Genesis should be accepted as a parable. Likewise the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Other parables such as "the good Samaritan", "the lost son" and "the virgin birth" are essentially there to provide guidance and not be accepted at face value.

This is the difference between modern Christianity and that of the fundamentalists of the dark ages that, like Islamic states today, flogged and executed heretics.

Now you are simply carping for the sake of it, Boaz.

>>Even the HARSHest critics concede that the Biblical sections which actually claim to deal with "History" are at least connected to real events<<

Connected, yes.

Historically accurate (i.e. "did they really happen as written?") no.

>>Study of the plagues of Egypt... Nile turns red with blood. Red algal bloom... "The historical evidence and Biblical narrative coincide closely."<<

Errr, yes. Except that no mention is made, historical-evidence-wise, of the role played by Moses and Aaron. And Yahweh, of course. Which unless I am mistaken, was the whole point of the story.

The event itself was, as you point out, perfectly explicable as a natural occurrence.

>>SODOM. The story about the events there is becoming quite well known..and the archology... now confirms that a 'violent/firestorm' type disaster hit them...."Biblical narrative and Acheology coincide closely<<

Errr, yes. Except that no mention is made, historical-evidence-wise, of the role played by Abraham, the three angel messengers, Lot, Lot's virgin daughters and Lot's wife. Which unless I am mistaken, was the whole point of the story.

London was ravaged by fire in 1666. It was suggested at the time (by the Dutch) that this was also divine retribution "because their sin is very grievous" - in this case, revenge for the destruction, by fire, three weeks earlier, of the Dutch town of Terschelling.

Events such as this will always be attributed, by some, to supernatural powers. It's what they do, when they want to underline a point, or explain coincidence, or justify a tragedy through the presence of a deity.

>>'some kind of historical reality'... is actually quite strong and close to what the bible says.<<

"Quite strong and close" is fine. I don't think many people have problem, historically speaking, with plagues of locusts in Egypt or the destruction of Sodom by fire.

It's just that I don't accept that either was an example of a divinity at work.

And as Sells points out, there is no need for us to imagine an intersection of scientific reality and biblical narrative, where none exists.