What the Bible is really about

[intaglio]

33. Point by point

I do not "discount entirely" our "sense of wonder and ability to see beauty," I just observe that they are self contained statements (i.e. they refer only to themselves) and do not provide evidence in any sense of the word "evidence". This sense and ability might be considered indicative by people who wish to see them that way; in the same way that the existence of the Grand Canyon is considered indicative of the Flood by certain young earth creationists; but there is nothing inherent in the sense, ability or that canyon that supports the ideas imposed on them. The ideas are only supported by the religious viewpoint of the sense, ability and canyon.

You say "Science is, for me ... , a direct source of faith" but nothing you describe comes directly from "science" any more than the act of discovery of the Grand Canyon directly informed the view of a worldwide flood. For belief to be directly informed by science there has to be direct evidence provided by science and there is none. There is no god needed to fuel the stars, not god throws the dice of the quantum world, a god does not bend space and time. No god is required to guide evolution or to bring the first breath to a new-born babe; a god does not ensure sparrows fall prey to cats nor forces the quorum sensing that converts Vibrio into deadly cholera.

You proceed to draw a false equivalence between science and religion by saying that they share an "evolutionary commonality" because both pursue "explanations and beauty." This is nonsense, religion already has an explanation, God, whilst science actually looks for reasons for what we do not understand. Science and mathematics do not look for beauty, although they may find what we perceive as beauty but that perception has nothing to do with science or math - except as a subject for neurologists. You might as well say that the chess player should see a beautiful chess game as evidence for god.

In respect of theology you are imposing your own, very limited view of what I said. At no point did I say or imply that theology "stopped with the first council of Nicea" but I did say that all Christian theology is based on the Bible in the sense that the Bible is foundational, but it is a foundation of sand. The Bible is a collection of folklore, legend, legal posturing and dubious history; on this Christian theologians have built their shanties, shoring up the structure with thefts from other faiths and philosophies then tacking on a shoddy, incomplete cladding stolen from modern science or math. This is not hyperbole, listen to William Lane Craig expounding the "Kalam Cosmological Hypothesis" and see how many infinities he discounts and how many he then accepts without demur

I have left your most pertinent question to last; you ask "What are we looking for?" to which my response is we are looking for the first step on a new journey, we are exploring because we do not know what we will find; why do there need to be any other reasons?