I appreciate the time and effort you put into this response. I'm afraid we still don't see eye to eye, but that's ok. My goal isn't to try to influence you, I'm also writing for my own benefit -- in some ways I'm still working through my own worldview.
> The most recent pieces were written two millenia ago, and people had a very different idea of what a history was supposed to do.
Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do.
> Gen 1-11 (Adam and Eve, the flood) should be read in the context of the mythology of the other nations.
Yet Paul treats Adam's existence as a key theological fact in Romans 5:11-21. His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist. Do we know better than Paul? If so, what else is Paul wrong about?
I much prefer C.S. Lewis's brand of Christianity, but I remember being bothered by the fact that he doesn't seem to take the Bible that seriously, and his arguments from aesthetics never carried much weight for me. His view that an individual is either in harmony with God and is set free, or is in stubborn rebellion against God and in slavery, doesn't mirror reality: atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor.
> I think the one of the strongest arguments is that the Bible's description of human nature is pretty accurate.
Have you looked at descriptions of human nature in other religions? Buddhism and Taoism in particular seem to have a lock on the ups and downs of being human. Yet what Christian would take that as evidence for their supernatural truth claims?
> The atheism of the twentieth century
But there isn't a single atheism of the twentieth century. Stalin and Sartre were both atheists, but their values couldn't have been more different. This is where words like "humanism" are helpful. I've certainly met plenty of atheists who are wonderful, genuine, fulfilled people.
> The most recent pieces were written two millenia ago, and people had a very different idea of what a history was supposed to do.
Yet there were contemporary Roman historians who had a rather modern idea of what history was supposed to do.
> Gen 1-11 (Adam and Eve, the flood) should be read in the context of the mythology of the other nations.
Yet Paul treats Adam's existence as a key theological fact in Romans 5:11-21. His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist. Do we know better than Paul? If so, what else is Paul wrong about?
I much prefer C.S. Lewis's brand of Christianity, but I remember being bothered by the fact that he doesn't seem to take the Bible that seriously, and his arguments from aesthetics never carried much weight for me. His view that an individual is either in harmony with God and is set free, or is in stubborn rebellion against God and in slavery, doesn't mirror reality: atheists aren't rebelling against God any more than a Christian is rebelling against Thor.
> I think the one of the strongest arguments is that the Bible's description of human nature is pretty accurate.
Have you looked at descriptions of human nature in other religions? Buddhism and Taoism in particular seem to have a lock on the ups and downs of being human. Yet what Christian would take that as evidence for their supernatural truth claims?
> The atheism of the twentieth century
But there isn't a single atheism of the twentieth century. Stalin and Sartre were both atheists, but their values couldn't have been more different. This is where words like "humanism" are helpful. I've certainly met plenty of atheists who are wonderful, genuine, fulfilled people.