So, just what are we talking about?

[kandrathe]

I am influenced by the work of Roger Penrose, and his book Shadows of The Mind. That was my unsubstantiated aside about arithmetic, at which point I was assailed as ignorant of all mathematics.

But, I agree with your characterization. I think we got derailed on some semantics.

Lets take a (biased to my viewpoint) look at a simplified model of Christianity.

Axiom 1) The Bible is the literal truth.

If this axiom is in the system then you have Creationists (is that what they are called there, or am I using a local term?), if it is not, you have every other branch (not true, but just as illustration).

For those Christian systems without axiom one you can follow some (sketchy) rules and imply that (assuming that an axiom exists stating the Bible is the Truth)

I would say this is the axiom used by some fundamentalists. The majority of Catholic and Protestant Christians use the book as a confirmation of their belief, not as an exact literal truth. So, in speaking of Creation; they believe the universe was created, rather than spontaneously popping into existence. Only a very few believe it as it is recounted in Genesis, and have odd explanations when posed questions like "What is a day, when there is no earth to revolve about a sun?", and questions of the order of events. So then, to the metaphorical. Well, I would say that religious scholarship, debate and at times free discussion has influenced the interpretation of biblical texts. In Protestantism, this has led to an extensive fracturing of Christians in to a whole tree of various interpretations (doctrine), and subtle differences. Something as simple as "Is it acceptable to baptize infants, who have no concept of what is happening to them?" Leads to huge schisms in the church. And, a secondary effect is that a plethora of obvious extreme deviations from the core of Christianity have appeared, which further erode its credibility. The Christians that I know and respect are the ones that look to the example of Christ, and his teachings as their personal and primary inspiration -- and then doctrines (interpretation by man) of the church as secondary.

I would say that it is a waste of time to try to apply logic to the bible.