And yet there's a problem with making this distinction in my humble opinion, because what exactly would be a "real" Christian then? I'm pretty sure Christian fundamentalists think of themselves as real Christians. I'm aware of how this will be different depending on who you'd ask, but at least when it comes to scientists we can simply objectively measure if they are 'real' scientists or not (as in; do they use the scientific method and so on).

It's like the debate on whether or not the Pope has really anything to do with 'Christianity'.



Of course scientists can believe whatever they want about such claimed historical events, however if they are honest they should know it's as much a theory as it is a myth when it comes down to evidence. Perhaps such beliefs are comforting and therefore valuable, but when it comes to truth finding such beliefs are pretty pointless and without any uhhhm "real" value.

I think there are still multiple reasons for believing in God as a possibility regardless of the truth-value of the Bible and these claimed to be historical but largely unproven events though. The combination scientist+religious person is very possible, hence ID-like theories.



In this context it's also interesting to see how the Quran tends to be more consequent with these kind of things than the Bible.