Chops wrote:


The Bible is neither a scientific nor historical text in the modern sense of the word and is not held to be such by the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, while these things might be very disturbing to those who would try to treat it as a replacement for such texts (such as Evangelical Protestants), it is poses no real problem to Catholics. On the contrary, the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation has been in use by the Church for some time now and is, in point of fact, the prevailing methodology of many senior officers of the Catholic Biblical Association of America (under whom I had the distinct honor of studying). Indeed, much of the work being done on biblical history and archeology has been and is still being done by christians (lay and clergy alike).

Nor are other areas of the sciences neglected by the Church. Are we to forget that Mendel was a monk? Or that Teilhard de Chardin, the discoverer of "Peking Man" was a Jesuit Priest? Or that the Vatican Observatory was founded precisely in order to both better our understanding of astronomy and cosmology and that it continues to employ scientific methods and consult with secular scientific authorities towards that end? The relationship between theology and science (and, indeed, theology and philosophy) has evolved a great deal since the time of Galileo. The Church is now increasingly coming to realize that science offers a unique lense through which to view the grandeur of creation, and that by employing that lense, christians may in fact inform and strengthen their faith in the truths of the Faith.

Catholics believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but not in the same way as Protestants. Mariner can correct me if I am mistating the Church's teaching in this regard, but it is my understanding that Catholics consider scripture to be inerrant with respect to certain sorts of knowledge. The scriptures bring us knowledge of God and of moral truths. That these truths are contained in scriptures that were written by human beings in particular social contexts, that they are at times composed of mytho-historical accounts, that they are heavily metaphorical, these things do not take away from the sorts of truths that the scriptures are meant to convey. On the contrary, coming to understand the formation of scripture, through the use of (among other things) scientific and critical methodologies and tools, we can in fact come to a better understanding of the truths that they contain and the process through which God interacted with their creation.

Dawkins' disagreement with this perspective merely stemns from his decision to treat the religious truths at issue as structurally similar to the scientific truths of which he has so often demonstrated mastery. Christians reject this treatment as unsuited to the matters at issue, and Dawkins asserts that it is the only methodology that is useful in the search for truth. And so the "controversy" remains.

Chops wrote:
[quote=Kwalish Kid] The Bible is neither a scientific nor historical text in the modern sense of the word and is not held to be such by the Roman Catholic Church.

Chops wrote:
I certainly never meant to imply that!

To acknowledge that the Bible is not a historical text in the modern sense of the word (as, indeed, such texts did not exist at the time of the Bible's composition) is one thing.

It is quite another thing to claim that it offers no insight into the historical developments surrounding its formation. On the contrary, the bible offers a great deal of perspective into historical events and the cultural, literary, religious and political trends surrounding them. Likewise, while some of the events, entities and persons it described are likely classifyable as "mytho-historical" other events, trends, persons and so on have proven to be grounded in fact by independent historical and archeological examination.

Furthermore, Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity in particular are very much grounded in history. The historical continuity between the early Church and the Church as it exists today is both scientifically demonstrable and vitally important to Catholic belief.

What you need to understand is that, for Catholics, it is no less necessary to keep from treating religious and historical truths as seperate and unrelated as it is to keep from mistaking religious truths for historical ones (as Evangelical Protestants tend to). Given that perspective, such support for biblical events as can be found does have extensive religious import, as does the insight into historical events and trends that we gain from the biblical accounts that are not rooted in what you would strictly call historical fact. Perspectives on the formation of belief systems and structures of thought are themselves a sort of historical foundation, and to exclude them in favor of the mere acquisition of so-called historical facts is to make no less an error of categorization than the one by which Dawkins and his followers are handicapped.