I have heard this theory several years ago but at the time I thought it was considered a sort of fringe theory, has that changed? Is this pretty well accepted now?
There is an alternative (non-biological) theory for hydrocarbon production but not sure whether many take it seriously.
Our teacher asked for a show of hands and 5 out of our 25-30 student class agreed with this theory.
Because it suits him? Partner sounds like a better description than rival.
Unless of course, you aren't talking about Trump and Putin?
Perhaps each person is given a choice. You have three. Interpret the Bible literally, interpret the Bible symbolically or not even play the game and realize that no interpretation of the Bible is correct because the book is just as fictive as the Koran or any other holy book from an ancient religion.
How would a human reconcile with their beliefs and how they were raised with reality as it exists around them. Science says that no one can turn water into wine, the Bible says that it can. Logically speaking the Bible is wrong. But when I've spent years reading the Bible and my entire identity is built around religion my only option is to say that the Bible is not to be interpreted literally. I must create a lie that validates reality and validates my identity.
Also how would I know that I'm lying to myself? If I or anyone I knew was doing this form of psychological self manipulation, how would I know?
You can't until you read this.
If you want to use the bible as an excuse to stone gays to death cos god says so then I'll oppose you because in my eyes that's utterly irrational and hateful. If you say it's between then and god, and take happiness in their happiness to be who they are while we share a planet, even if you don't understand it or agree with it, there's no point of friction between us.
I use sexuality merely as an example, there are many others.
Do as you will, just be decent, kind, rational.
The fact that there are parts that are explicitly given as being symbolic. This is actually addressed in the New Testament when Christ explains that he teaches in parables because he's speaking directly to a specific level of understanding.
>> Science says that no one can turn water into wine
No, science does not know how to turn water into wine. There was once a point where science did not know how to turn one element into another element, but it would have been incorrect to say that science had said no one could do it - that's confusing science with what people think. If there's a being that created the universe, I'd imagine that can pretty much do what they want with molecules.
>> If I or anyone I knew was doing this form of psychological self manipulation, how would I know?
How do you ever know that about anything? You trust your senses, but you have no more justification for doing so than people who have had intense spiritual experiences do for following up on those experiences. I view the intense spiritual experiences I've had as being a sense - it's no more rational for people to expect me to ignore what I've felt than it is for me to expect you to do the same things if you haven't felt that.
You missed the symbolism here. What you thought he meant was actually symbolism for an entirely different meaning. There's about 4 layers of indirection here meaning that each symbolic representation is in itself a symbolic representation of something else. This happens on four distinct levels. Reinterpreting this statement the correct way can change the entire interpretation of the bible.
I'm not taking a position here myself although I do find the theory interesting, particularly the theory of a deep microbial biota. I think you're right that it is generally discounted in the mainstream scientific community.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin