Hi Benjamin, perhaps if you would take the time to ponder over what you wrote in your opening comment on, “The Civil War in Christian Theology,” you would come to the conclusion that—a reconciliation of the relevant core ideas taught in the major world religions and in the different Christian denominations is what is definitely required here. To avoid any confusion, I am not advocating a coming together between world religions, but rather… a reconciliation of truth. For that reason, having a solid philosophical foundation of how the world works is the basis of where to begin this reconciliation.
“Philosophy has two important aims. First, it tries to give a person a unified view of the universe in which he lives. Second, it seeks to sharpen a person’s ability to think clearly and precisely” (World Book Encyclopedia - Philosophy).
Of course philosophy gives us this unified view of the universe by virtue of the acquired evidence it has amassed through the systematic and investigative inquiry procedures of the various sciences it has assigned to the task. Furthermore, philosophy’s objective to sharpen a person’s ability to think clearly and precisely is accomplished by way of its critical thinking methodology—the methods, principles, and rules that regulate the discipline.
Therefore, since you recognize (as you clearly pointed out) that, “modern Christian theology…is a jumble of opposing and confusing theories,” and that, “each one holds truth yet each one also harbors views that twist scripture to suit itself,” you should realize that this is the reconciliation of the relevant core ideas that I was referring to. We’ll leave out the views that twist the scriptures.
I agree with your statement that, “There are many ways to interpret the Bible, and yet only one way can be correct.” This is because I believe what you meant to say is that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways that make different truth claims. In certain instances these truth claims contradict modern scientific truth claims. This is why there can be only one truth between these contradictory truth claims. Am I right to suggest that this is what you meant to say here?
You said, referring to Dawkins and Ham, “These people cannot be reasoned with. Nothing positive can be gained from mixing with them.” It’s definitely true that you cannot convince someone of something that goes contrary to what they believe. This is especially true when their worldview is not based on solid facts. It can also be very frustrating and aggravating in trying to convince someone who has his/her mind set in false realities. Sure, those false realities are real enough to them, subjectively—but they are not real in the objective world. Just as there are many patients that roam around within psychiatric hospitals in pajamas and nightgowns that believe in all kinds of false realities, one can imagine how difficult it would be to try and convince them otherwise from their false beliefs. This holds true among the “normal” population as well—It can be just as difficult to convince them otherwise from their false realities. Especially as it becomes personal once we invoke—but… you’re not thinking rationally, or, you’re not reasoning correctly, or still, your logic is faulty. Alternatively, the only positive thing I see that can be gained from any such exchange is a sharpening of one’s own skills in communicating philosophical and theological ideas and confirming to oneself his or her rational integrity as an intellectual person.
As for Dawkins and Ham that, “These people cannot be reasoned with,” it all depends on who the person is, and with whom he is doing the reasoning with. I’ll leave it to you to consider and visualize who might be wearing the metaphorical pajamas.
Tony