Everyone knows that I disagree with Dick's approach, but here I might defend him, even if so slightly (he will think it slightly).
Isn't doing what Dick does, better than simply saying that the account tells us stories that didn't happen, but that it is still true anyway?
Your question below is based upon the logic, that reed is not gopher wood. I agree with you on that. Your question is based upon Dick's one story vs the Biblical 3 floors for the ark.
So, why do we give up on logic when the story of creation (a physical event) didn't happen the way it is related, and then proclaim that the account contains great truth?
And why do we give up on logic when it is logical to ask, that whena believer in the great green slug as creator goes to college and learns that his religion is observationally flawed, why he can't do the same thing, regardless of the moral/ethical or religious belief of the Great Green Slug religion?
Why can't a Tibetan? Can't all religions proclaim themselves true even though they are observationally flawed? Is that what they actually do?
On Wed May 31 14:29 , "D. F. Siemens, Jr."