My reaction to all the "wikinfo" articles was the same as Yigal Levin's:
they misrepresent everything they claim to define. I read all your
links, and the result was a confirmation of my perception that you and I
occupy different universes of thought and discourse. I will just quote
one sentence from wikinfo on the theory of evolution:
"By definition, we cannot observe this long development which by
definition occurred in the past, therefore, evolution cannot be a
scientific theory."
Ignoring the carelessness of this writing, the statement implies that
there is no possibility of geology, astrophysics or other historical
sciences. Clearly the writer does not understand the realities of
scientific practice. Obsession with a simplistic notion of "observation"
(or "facts", in your parlance) blinds him to the complexities of
theory-formation, in which plausibility and coherence with existing
knowledge play important roles. (I tried and failed to make this clear
to you in private correspondence.)
Therefore when you ask, "Shouldn't this be a learning opportunity, to
try to bridge that gap?" I must answer: the gap is too large. You do not
appreciate how utterly unconvincing your arguments are to a mainstreamer
like me (or how annoying it is to hear a naturalistic approach
characterized as faith or ideology).
The fact is that I have witnessed no supernatural events, nor have I
heard a credible report of such events. There is no comparison between
my lack of belief in them and the faith that such events have occurred.
(And bringing in evolution just muddies the waters further.)
You wrote:
"OK, Gabe, how many times have you read, I mean reading for understanding,
the Tanakh in Hebrew, cover to cover, with the intent of understanding? Even
once? How many of your questions and conclusions are based on that reading?"
The answer is that I have not done this reading, and that my
understanding of Hebrew is very rudimentary. My professional background
is in philosophy. (So I do have some familiarity with the concepts of
truth and evidence.) My remarks in this thread (aside from what I said
about Deuteronomy) are based on my scientific education, not on my
understanding of the Bible. (My previous questions were based on Bible
reading I did by first reading translations and then following along
word by word in Hebrew.)
I reject Rolf Furuli's "third way" which says that we "accept what the
text says until it is proven wrong". This is just the "first way" in
disguise.
I appreciate that you do have extensive knowledge of the Bible and its
language. Surely you can be helpful with certain kinds of questions. And
surely there is a lot to learn about the Bible's literary and moral
dimensions without delving into history.
But in my view the whole truth about the Bible and its language requires
a diachronic approach that is at odds with the traditional accounts of
the origins of Biblical texts.
Therefore my proposal is as follows: when a particular topic seems to us
Naturalists to require a diachronic analysis, you Supernaturalists [my
use of the term "fundamentalist" seemed like name-calling to some; I
hope this is better] should just stay out of the way, rather than
bringing non-linguistic arguments against a diachronic approach. And
when a topic seems to you to require explanations in terms of the
supernatural, I will stay out of your way as well. Fair enough?