Which is only Heinlein's opinion.
That's more than a little condescending, don't you think? All I care about (in this context) is facts. It's "believers" whose worldview is based on faith rather than facts...by definition.
Our worldview is based on belief that the resurrection happened in fact, that it is true. Likewise, anyone else's worldview is based on their faith that what they believe is true and they also act in accordance to that.
Why in the world would you put the word logical in quotes? For that matter, what's wrong with a logical explanation?
Because it's not inherently logical. Non-believers like to hold up logic as opposed to faith, as if faith is by nature illogical, but it's not. If what God says is true, then the logical thing to do is believe it. What's "logical" depends on what premise you start from.
You can assert that, but there's a wealth of evidence showing that the mythological events in the Bible are just that.
Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
Also, your premise that the Bible is mythology is based on a preference and assumption that it IS myths but with no basis.
Please provide a list of those sciences which do not express things using figures, then. Also, bear in mind that he was speaking derisively of the "soft" sciences.
Our worldview is based on belief that the resurrection happened in fact, that it is true. Likewise, anyone else's worldview is based on their faith that what they believe is true and they also act in accordance to that.
Incorrect. My worldview is based on what is verifiable (directly and indirectly). While I observe that there is overwhelming evidence for all sorts of things (evolution, a universe billions of year old, etc.) I would have no choice but to conclude otherwise were sufficient evidence presented to me.
Because it's not inherently logical. Non-believers like to hold up logic as opposed to faith, as if faith is by nature illogical, but it's not. If what God says is true, then the logical thing to do is believe it. What's "logical" depends on what premise you start from.
There are consistent, logical mathematical models in which 1 plus 1 does not equal two...but if you try to build a bridge with them, it tends to collapse. Premises certainly make a difference. My worldview is based upon observation and the scientific method, and yours is (to all appearances) not.
Archaeology supports the Bible. If you do a google search of the topic, you will find more sources than you have time to read.
This is the internet we're speaking of...if you do a google search of ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and ESP, you'll find more sources about each than you have time to read.
I will freely admit that Archaeology supports some things in the Bible, just as it supports many ancient texts to varying degrees. What it doesn't support are the miraculous aspects; the Flood, Adam and Eve, Christ walking on water, Moses and the Exodus, etc.
Also, your premise that the Bible is mythology is based on a preference and assumption that it IS myths but with no basis.
Not a preference or an assumption. The evidence has led me to the conclusion that the Bible is a mix of legends, oral history, and myths, just as I've concluded the same about other religious texts such as the Qur'an.
Speaking of the Qur'an and other religious texts...I think I can safely assume that your premise is that the more fantastic elements contained therein are mythical. Surely you don't believe (for instance) that Muhammad rode a winged horse. If this is the case, is your premise that the Qur'an is mythology based on a preference and assumption that it IS myths but with no basis?
Then there's the matter of Athena springing from the head of Zeus, and Odin riding his 8-legged horse Sleipnir...do you simply assume that these are mythical as well?