I came across this cool list of questions today... thirty-seven questions from atheists toward theists/Christians... with some excellent answers by Rob Bowman.

I especially like the question "What would convince you that you're wrong?"  I've asked this question before to atheist friends of mine, and they've had a hard time answering it.  One guy said, "If a ten-foot-tall angel were to appear to me right now, with flaming sword, and tell me that I'm wrong, then I'd believe it."  Then I pressed him a bit on it, and he admitted that he could still think of some reasons to disbelieve it (it might be a elaborate special-effects hoax, etc).   Atheism turns out to be rather "unfalsifiable."   On the contrary, as Bowman says, just a few simple things would be enough to "falsify" Christianity.  Such as... a plausible explanation for the origin of the resurrection stories, the New Testament documents, and the origin of the Christian church in Jerusalem around 30 AD.

Here's a roundup on more dust stirred up by Dawkins' crusade/book tour  (cf. also my previous post about Dawkins' new book The God Delusion).

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm - Quinn interacts with Dawkins and pins him on several rhetorical and evidential flaws.  Notice where Quinn correctly points out that Dawkins is using an appeal to mystery/wishful-thinking (i.e. Scientists havn't figured it out yet, but they've shed light on many other things, so they'll eventually figure this out too...).   Uh huh.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1740 - The fascinating controversy between Dawkins and the more "under-the-radar" atheists/agnostics such as the NCSE.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1739 - Dawkins can't explain free will and subsequently has difficulty with the illusion (!) of morality.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html - a seven-page article about "the New Atheists", with interviews with Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, well-known contemporary atheists (hat tip: Snincr).   See Plantinga's review at http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/Dennett.html for an awesome discussion of Dennett's/Darwin's views on atheism/evolution and the reliability of the human mind (from a reformed perspective).

My overall take on Dawkins is that he's sadly mistaken, but commendably attempting to be honest (not in all of his beliefs and rhetoric, but in more areas than is typical for an atheist).

Several fascinating articles I came across today:

1. This post by Al Mohler mentions the growing numbers of schools (and kindergartens!) allowing "transgendered" children in school, and catering to them extensively (essentially imposing their worldview upon the other children). The question that immediately comes to my mind is the age-old "Should we engage or disengage?" ...i.e., how much is enough, before one takes one's children out to homeschool them rather than leaving them in to 'have a godly influence'?

2. Another post by Mohler mentions that married couples are now a minority of couples in the USA. This is a thought-provoking milestone in our national moral decline, to say the least...

3. This article by Richard Fernandez (quoting Dershowitz and Arbour) contains a very insightful analysis of the current moral dilemma faced by the United Nations and by those who look to the UN to solve the world's problems. Most of the post is excerpted below:

"Is National Self Defense a War Crime?" Asks Alan Dershowitz in a op-ed in Canada’s National Post. The answer says Dershowitz is "yes" if you ask Louise Arbour, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and currently the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, for so long as national self defense entails the risk of inflicting collateral damage. Dershowitz rejects her position and goes on to argue that:

"Democracies simply cannot protect their citizens against terrorist attacks of the kind launched by Hezbollah without some foreseeable risk to civilians. There cannot be any absolute prohibition against such self-defensive military actions so long as they are proportional to the dangers and reasonable efforts are made to minimize civilian casualties."

Barbour's thinking has set up a wholly secular equivalent of the Problem of Evil. If we remove the term "God" from the standard proposition and replace it with appropriately secular terms we have this restatement:

Barbour's Dilemma is the problem of reconciling the existence of oppressive regimes, genocide and mass slaughter in a world governed by a wholly benevolent, pacifistic, nonviolent and impotent United Nations.

If the United Nations is benevolent then it cannot tolerate the existence of a Rwanda, Congo, North Korea or a Darfur. But if it attempts to stop these atrocities then inevitably it must inflict some collateral damage which will cause some people to die and that, according to Barbour, is a War Crime. There is no way out of the paradox and the system is in logical self-contradiction. Unlike the real problem of evil, a theodicy is not allowed as a solution to Barbour's Dilemma.because in a secular context, no meta-solutions are allowed by invoking a God who can make amends for everything or whose true nature we cannot completely understand. Those transcendant quantities cannot exist in Barbour's secular universe. They might exist in a religious universe, but not in the United Nations'.

There are also other problems with the UN hegemony...  where does the source of moral legitimacy for any enforcement arise, whether 'collateral damage' is done or not?   What right does any human have to 'impose morality' of any kind whatsoever upon a fellow human?   ...or, from whence does that right come?

There's another discussion I'm participating in at http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/537648500/item.html that is delving into questions of 'secular morality', if you're interested and have some time.

"Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration,” writes Mr Dawkins, enumerating the four targets of his logical firepower. He shows that religion does not provide a satisfactory explanation for anything. Here his arguments are well-rehearsed and finely honed from decades of combating American fundamentalists. This section will appeal to anyone who ever wondered, if God created the universe, who created God? As for exhortation, he argues that in practice, religion is not a legitimate source of morality. If it were, Jews would still be executing those who work on the Sabbath. Where morality actually does come from is less clear. Mr Dawkins suggests the source is a combination of genetic instincts, which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation, and a cultural Zeitgeist. For some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion, as even Mr Dawkins will allow. But these functions can and should be fulfilled by other means, he says. This is the most problematic part of his thesis. In his case contemplation of the natural world does the job; his final chapter is an ode to the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But only a minority will find as much consolation in quantum physics as in the prospect of reuniting with their dearly departed in heaven."

Interesting... (as is also his idea of how religion can be 'removed' from the world...)

While I certainly would not claim to defend "religion" in general, I am extremely interested in the rationality and viability of belief in Jesus Christ as the Creator, Savior, and Lord God (which Dawkins would probably call 'the religion of Christianity').  So here is my reply.

Belief/trust in Jesus Christ is not primarily about "explanation, exhortation, consolation, or inspiration", although it certainly does provide an excellent basis for each of them.   Instead, the primary concern of a follower of Jesus Christ must be truth.  

We must ask not "what would provide me with the best sermon" but "what is the actual state of affairs in the universe and in my life?"  "What is the truth about my soul? (if I have a soul)"  

Is it true that God exists, that He has created me, that I am responsible to Him for my actions?  Is it true that although I have messed up my life beyond any hope of eternal happiness, that God wrapped Himself in flesh and came to the earth for the express purpose of dying in my place?

Dawkins mention of "explanation" is closest to what I'm saying, though I bet I could summarize what he was referring to in a single sentence - "a long time ago people didn't know what caused lightning and rain, so they invented gods to pray to, but now we know that lightning and rain are caused by physical laws, so we don't need gods anymore... we're grown-up now."  Actually, contra Dawkins, some events are still "explained" better under the theistic hypothesis than the naturalistic hypothesis, like Creation and the Resurrection.  And the theistic/possibility-of-miracles hypothesis doesn't impinge upon real operational science at all.

Dawkins, eloquent and educated though he is, not only comes to the wrong conclusions, but even deeper - he is asking the wrong questions.

This post is a continuation of a discussion at AFTR's site http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/458794085/item.html about the resurrection of Jesus.  See the comments section below for more details.

The issues we've been discussing are the possibility of miracles in general, standards of historical reliability in general, and the reliability of the biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection in specific.  Xangans from all viewpoints are welcome to comment, although of course ad-hominems/personal-attacks are never appropriate and risk deletion.  On the other hand, solid arguments from all sides are extremely welcome.  Good background to our discussion would be reading the original thread with all of the comments (the last page, page #4 in xanga, is really worth reading!), and reading Glenn Miller's nice intro article at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html .

The question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is vitally important.  If he did not rise from the dead, Christianity is a monstrous fake and millions of people need to be persuaded of their error, either towards atheism or towards one of the presumably "more accurate" theistic or polytheistic religions.  If He did rise from the dead and if the other facets of the biblical accounts about Him are accurate, then our response as human beings toward Him (belief or unbelief) will decide our eternal life or death.

"Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."
- Jesus of Nazareth - John 8:24

Problems with the "Kissing Hank's Ass"  story making the rounds of atheist websites these days (i.e. http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php , but I don't recommend reading it - it's neither edifying or even solid argumentation for atheism - it's full of straw men - its only force is emotive)

1. In the story, there is no empirical justification given by Hank.  The God described in the Bible has given significant empirical evidence, most notably in Jesus' resurrection.  (Acts 17:22-31)

2. The story implies that all warnings of impending doom are ludicrous.  This is obviously not always the case.  A fireman might legitimately shout warnings to a person inside a burning building to get out.  Another example is the case of Harry Truman, an 83-year old man who refused to leave his cabin in the shadow of Mt. St. Helens, even as the volcano began to rumble and issue smoke for the two months before its eruption.  Scientists and officials repeatedly tried to tell him of the danger, but he obstinately ignored them.  He was buried by volcanic ash and mud on May 18, 1980.

3. The story likens the Christian call to repentance and following God is likened to literally "kissing Hank's ass", and Hank is presented as an arrogant, stupid, and sadistic man.  The analogy is grossly wrong.  More accurate analogies would be:
- Finding a treasure hidden in a field, and selling everything I own to buy the field and possess the treasure.
- Or about to drown in a raging storm after my ship sank in the ocean, and suddenly being thrown a rescue rope by a Coast Guard worker.
- Or as a dirt poor orphan begging in the streets, suddenly being adopted as an heir of the King of the land.
- Or having my debt of one billion dollars being paid by a benevolent rich man, and having a credit of one billion dollars placed into my bank account, and then on top of that, being asked if I would like to take a really good job at the man's company.
This link shares a similar view, more eloquently and thoroughly.

Also, related to my recent post about naturalism, check out this article...

Excerpt:   Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy,...described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a “kind of paganism” because it harked back to the days of “nature gods” who were responsible for natural events.

Again, the controversy is whether the God of the Bible is a deistic, "hands-off" God, or if He ever actually gets physically involved in His universe...

Here's an interesting article about the woman scientist who discovered soft extant dinosaur tissue in "68-million-year-old" dinosaur bones.

Here's an excerpt of the part that especially caught my eye:

"...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”"

First, it's interesting to note her a priori philosophical bias, which is certainly "methodological naturalism" and probably steps over the boundary of "philosophical naturalism" too...  Her view is that God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways... in other words, God could be good, and loving, and kind, and powerful, and whatever else, but He most certainly CANNOT interact with the world He has created in ways that could be detected by humans - God absolutely CANNOT do miracles.   If He could (so reasons the phobia), then people might actually believe in God based on evidence rather than blind faith. (Oh!  Horrors!)

According to Schweitzer, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

Oh, well excuse me.  Forgive me for asking, but who makes up these "rules" again?  Shame on Newton, Kepler, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Stokes, Pasteur, and Kelvin for indulging in such flagrant scientific naughtiness.

Schweitzer is not alone in her complaint, of course.  Michael Ruse writes: "Even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a 'scientific' explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law." (Darwinism Defended, p. 182).

Similarly Richard Lewontin writes: "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit." (Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: Norton, 1983, p. 26)
...and also...
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Unnerving indeed, in all honesty.  It is non-trivial and (potentially life-altering) to find (paraphrasing C.S.Lewis) "a real, live God in our midst".

Now granted, methodological naturalism can be useful, in finding out "the way things usually work" (also called "nomological" investigation - the study of how things generally proceed, based on the "laws" (Greek 'nomos') that govern the universe).   But as soon as it morphs into an 'Absolute Principle', the openminded curiosity which is the chief treasure of the scientific endeavor is discarded.  As soon as I state that "I've never observed a miracle in my laboratory, therefore God has never done (and can never do) a miracle" or even worse, "I refuse to believe in miracles because that might allow [Lewontin's proverbial] Divine foot in the door", I have unjustifiably closed and locked my mind.   In agreement with William James, and contra W.K.Clifford, "unlimited skepticism" can sometimes be a hindrance to finding the truth...

Schweitzer is almost technically correct when she disparages "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena", in the sense of invoking the "miraculous" hand of God in suspending the laws that He has ordained that generally govern the physical world.  But she neglects to mention that the whole controversy is about exactly that point - what phenomena are natural and what are not?  ...and is it possible that some phenomena truly CANNOT be explained naturalistically?  (the origin of matter, the origin of DNA, Christ walking on water, Christ's Resurrection)?

When I throw a basketball up in the air and it falls back to the ground, there is no need to infer a "miracle" - there is not necessarily any suspension of the normal processes of gravity that God has established.   But must we assume that God is bound by these laws that He created?  That He can never suspend them if He so chooses?

In my humble opinion, we ought not to make such "metaphysically gratuitous" assumptions.  As Steven Meyer writes (with my insertion), "Of course intelligent design [and creationism] is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific? What noncircular reason can be given for this assertion? What independent criterion of method demonstrates the inferior scientific status of a nonnaturalistic explanation?" 

By contrast, the Kansas folks got it right:

Older 2001 Definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world
around us."

Revised 2005 Definition: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument
and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural
phenomena."
"More adequate", "more accurate", "closer to the truth about the way the world works"... This is the true and noble goal of science... the aim of that worthy perennial nomological enterprise... that "glory of kings."

Chew on this quote for a minute -

"There is an important struggle going on for the soul of Christianity, which should be of concern to everyone, Christian or not. The debate is not just at the level of arguments over whether, for example, certain Old Testament passages should be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. The deeper struggle is over whether Christianity is to be understood as a closed set of answers that leads to the intensification of these boundaries, or as an invitation to explore questions that help people transcend boundaries. Such a struggle is going on not only within Christianity, but in all the major world religions."

The quote is from Robert Jensen, a self-professed "Christian Atheist" in Texas.   Fascinating to read his whole article, if you get a chance.

I think his quoted words are correct, in a sense, although he comes to the wrong conclusions and uses bad wording to describe the phenomenon.   Here's how I would put it instead:

"There is an important struggle going on for the soul of Christianity, which should be of concern to true Christians even more than anyone else. The debate is not just at the level of arguments over whether, for example, certain Old Testament passages should be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. The deeper struggle is over whether Jesus Christ is to be understood as The Way, The Truth, and The Life, to whom all people across the globe desperately need to turn in repentance and belief, or whether he is to be regarded as merely a good moral teacher and his religion One Path Among Many, whose only taboo is 'intolerance.' Such a struggle is going on not only within Christianity, but also within Islam, Judaism, and to a lesser extent, Hinduism."

Indeed, the major religions are undergoing liberalizing influences.  Christianity has been experiencing it for centuries.  Postmodernism has only exacerbated this trend.  But it was Jesus Himself who divided the entire world into "he who is for Me" versus "he who is against Me," who spoke of "My sheep" versus those who were "not of My sheep", and who said, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

"Exploration of questions that help people transcend boundaries" is all well and good, unless it causes people to leave the pure Truth given to them by the Creator God, in search of sophistry and philosophy that lets them live their lives whatever way they want - trying to get rid of 'that pesky God' with His 'strict and antiquated rules'.

Exploration of questions is a great thing, but the answers to the questions are most important.  Holding to the wrong answers in this case... will lead to Hell.

Ok, more philosophical/epistemological musings...      Sorry for those of you my esteemed readers who would rather read little tidbits and anecdotes...     But I'll come back to those in a few days, perhaps.

These thoughts were prompted by some discussions from this past week, although they've been percolating for quite a while.  My views on the inspiration/inerrancy of the Scriptures have also been undergoing some modification over the last few months.  I'll have to explain that some time.

For now, enjoy, and although I didn't write it in a very clear way, please feel free to wade in and suggest any of your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions for improvement.

============================

The topic is "science and the Bible", and the question is how to proceed if they seem to contradict.  (It might be helpful to merge these thoughts with Moreland's "four views" from our readings).  Working on the following assumptions:

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God to mankind.

2. Observational/nomological science connects us to the real world that God created, so that by performing experiments and observing the results, we (have the potential ability to) view/interact-with a real physical world, not an "illusion" - i.e. our observations "correspond" with a reality that exists outside of any human observers.

3. All of our interpretations of the Bible are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- between the original autographs and the extant manuscripts and codices
- between the extant codices' symbolic semantic Hebrew/Greek message and our own individual understandings (i.e. "Do I understand the language this manuscript is written in?")
- between the Hebrew/Greek and the English, if we don't know Hebrew/Greek (i.e. the issue of "translations")
- the broad-context questions - e.g. "I know this says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...", but does the word "days" in context refer to literal 24-hour days, or unspecified periods of time?"

4. All of our interpretations of scientific experiments are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- if I read about an experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley) in a textbook rather than performing it myself (with direct sensory observation), I have the same difficulties of textual interpretation as above with Scripture:
- "do I understand the language of this scientific report?"
- "am I grasping the meaning of what the author wrote in broad context?"  (e.g. the word "evolution" has many meanings)
- if I perform the experiment myself, am I 'sure' that I am not performing the experiment incorrectly, or that I am not failing to account for all possible confounding factors? (i.e. experimental error, sensor noise, other confounding factors)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, are our assumptions valid?  (e.g. uniformitarian "annual layer" assumptions for varves, ice cores, tree rings, etc)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, is my model valid to the necessary precision? (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics drastically revised the physical models of the 19th century, allowing greater prediction precision than before)

5. Both our scientific and our Scriptural understandings can be supposed to be "asymptotically convergent", meaning that although they can be "wrong" to various precisions, increasing time and study will bring our beliefs closer to "The Truth".
- e.g. for scientific theories, Einstein's theory of gravity "refined" Newton's, rather than "contradicting" Newton's.  Yet even Einstein's may not be the "exact" way that gravity is described.
- e.g. for scriptural interpretations...

6. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as consistent as possible.  If possible, the set of beliefs that I hold should have no contradictions at all, when all qualifiers and caveats are accounted for.

7. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as "livable" as possible.  This should "include" my own innate sense of what is morally desirable (while recognizing that my own innate conscience may possibly need revision from time to time).
- For example, if my conscience prompts me to treat other people with love and respect, even if they hold wrong beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), then a system of beliefs (such as Christianity) which shows the propriety and rationality (with respect to "the real world", both physical and spiritual) of such love and respect would be preferred over a system of beliefs which provided no rationale for such love of others (and certainly over a system which, for example, provided a rationale for destroying others so that my own 'fitter' genes would predominate/propagate).
- Yet, my conscience is not the end-all, since it might be corrupted.  For example, if I as a white Southern slave-owner of 150 years ago was confronted with compelling evidence from a belief system (such as Biblical Christianity) which I had strong reason to believe was true, I should be able to modify my innate sense of what was right and proper (e.g. from "The negro ought to know his place" to "The negro is my brother as a human, he has just as much dignity as an imagebearer-of-God as I do, and he needs to hear about God's salvation and kingdom just as much as I also need to hear").

 
Holding to these principles and assumptions, we might try to come up with a statement that we all agree upon...  (though I am not too optimistic about this...   such as:
"We agree that it is possible for scripture to 'trump' science, in the sense that:
- After all available scientific and scriptural evidence has been duly considered, it is possible for me:
- to experience and hold to a belief that my particular interpretation of a Scripture passage is directly contradictory to my particular interpretation of observational-scientific experiments and historical-reconstructions-supported-by-observational-scientific-experimental-evidence, and further:
- to experience "sufficient confidence" in a belief that my Scripture-based-belief indicates that the Scientific-theory is wrong, and further:
- to be "correct", "right", "legitimate," and "epistemically-justified," in my subsequent repudiation of a scientific theory based on an interpretation of Scripture that I am sufficiently confident is the correct interpretation (to the requisite level of asymptotic accuracy)."
In shorter words:

"We agree that sometimes it is proper to disbelieve in a scientific theory because of what Scripture says."

Or:

"It is possible to be so convinced that one understands what the Scriptures are saying/implying in a certain passage, that one believes in that interpretation in spite of the fact that scientific theories and evidence contradict that interpretation... and it is possible to be epistemically justified in so doing."

The critique might then arise: how does one know, to start out with, that the scriptures are "correct"/"infallible" in this scientific sense?  If it contradicts the scientific evidence we see around us, why shouldn't we throw it out?

In reply I would ask - "how does one know that ANY repository of truth is "correct" (let's temporarily postpone discussion of "infallible") in a scientific sense?"   And, "if a piece of evidence contradicts my current scientific understanding, do I throw out the "new piece of evidence" as "spurious," or do I revise (possibly drastically) my scientific beliefs to conform to the one new piece of "evidence?"

The basic problem is that theories never make quantum/qualitative jumps to the epistemological status of "scientific fact"... they instead gradually/quantitatively increase in the estimation of the scientific community, and sometimes for reasons other than scientific reasons.   (Cf. Popper, Kuhn, Ruse)

Yet the question of empirical corroboration of scripture-texts is important.  If the Bible consistently claimed things that were demonstrably false today (such as that people rise from the dead all the time, or that the earth is flat and is supported on the back of a giant tortise), we would be wise to reconsider our belief in it.

On the other hand, if the Bible claims things that are historically reasonable (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ca. 2000 years ago in Judea) and subsequently provides adequate ("non-circularly-reasoned") grounds for its own inerrancy, then it might conceivably be justifiable to trust its account of historical events which are accessible only in a limited way by modern scientific reconstructions...