To be honest, I wasn’t sure I wanted to respond, because your comments were really more about a certain subset of “Christians” that you find, as I put it in my opening statements, “irrational”, rather than about the case for the reasonableness, or rationality, of orthodox Christianity as a worldview system — i.e., the topic of the post. But, I can’t help but make a couple remarks….

Who do you have in mind when you refer to “fundamentalists”? Within Christianity, that term used to have a specific meaning. Nowadays, though, its mostly used by others as a pejorative for those Christians who actually take the Bible seriously as a historical, God-inspired text. This leads directly to my second question: What do you mean by “a literal interpretation of Scripture”? I believe the Bible gives an accurate account of what “literally” (i.e., actually) happened in history. I also believe that it is to be taken “literally” (i.e., God wants us to take it seriously) when it gives moral instruction and provides metaphysical knowledge and principle. I believe II Timothy 3:16,17 means just what it sounds like: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

But, I also recognize that the books of the Bible entail different literary genres, and there are many places where they use metaphors, parables, hyperbole, and other terms of speech that are not “literal”, even if they do convey actual truths. The trick is to know when something is being told in a non-literal manner, but a good rule-of-thumb is that, if nothing in the text itself indicates that a passage is other than literal, then assume it *is* literal. True, there are some Christians, past & present, who often seem to ignore (or be ignorant of) such things. (I’ve heard them referred to as “hyper-literalist”, “concretist”, or “biblicist”, though I think each term may have a different connotation or shade of meaning.) But, to paint all non-mainline Christians this way would be a gross misrepresentation. Plus, I think mainline treatment of Scripture tends to go too far the other way, which is potentially even more dangerous.

From your comments, I am guessing that you would call anyone of a conservative, evangelical leaning a “literalist” and “fundamentalist”. Well, that would include Ken Samples, the author whom I quoted, and me. So, from this post (or any others I’ve written on similar topics), do you think that either Samples or I am lazy, irrational, and not earnestly attempting to properly integrate faith and reason?

First, biblical “meditation” is not the same as praying — nor is it quite the same as Eastern meditation. Second, I wonder if you actually read through and understood the article. As Dr. Mohler pointed out, “There is nothing wrong with physical exercise, and yoga positions in themselves are not the main issue. But these positions are teaching postures with a spiritual purpose. Consider this — if you have to meditate intensely in order to achieve or to maintain a physical posture, it is no longer merely a physical posture.”

I don’t think god cares which joints are being bent in the process.

Such ignorance.