Religious Enlightenment

[juliod]

I had a moment of insight. It may not be the most profound thing in history, but I'll share it nonetheless.

A lot of the debate recently has been between YECs and Theo-Evos. As an atheist I always say that if I was a theist I would be a YEC. But I've had a different thought.

A lot of mainstream christians (and at least several major denominatons) seem to reason this way:

"We believe that god created the universe. We do not claim to know how, when, or why he did that. We do not claim to know how, when or why he has chosen to reveal himself to us. We do not claim to know why or how accurately he has chosen to reveal himself in our holy documents."

When these people discover something new about the universe that conflicts with their previous beliefs they say:

"We believe god created the universe, so if this fact is true, then he created the earth that way. If it conflicts with our doctrine, then our doctrine must have been wrong."

OTOH, there are creationists. They reason this way:

"I have a little box. In it I keep my god. My god says what I want him to say, and does what I want him to do. He is not allowed outside his little box. See how he jumps when I shake the box. Isn't he a cute little god?"

When confronted with some fact that conflicts with their doctrine they say this:

"No. That is wrong. God is inside my box. I did not tell him to create the universe that way, so he did not. My god does only what I tell him to. See how he jumps?"

DanZ

[Samurai Tailor]

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." -- George Bernard Shaw

[micatala]

Good quote. Unfortunately, I think it is true that many people use the Bible to justify their beliefs, rather than to inform their beliefs.

Witness the current ongoing controversy over gay marriage. Some tell us gay marriage is not biblical, and so we should make it illegal.

I say, if we are going to make gay marriage illegal on biblical grounds, than we should make adultery and divorce illegal as well. We should also consider making polygamy legal, as it is sanctioned in the Bible and I don't believe you will find any statements that it is against God's will, although there are some passages which suggest it is good for a man to have "but one wife."

[YEC]

Then there are the Theo-Evos who keep their god in a box by filtering Genesis through mans fallible science....all the while insisting that Genesis is a parable.

Perhaps they will soon insist that the resurrection of Jesus was also a parable..after all science says that event was scientifically impossible.

[YEC]

Good quote. Unfortunately, I think it is true that many people use the Bible to justify their beliefs, rather than to inform their beliefs.

Witness the current ongoing controversy over gay marriage. Some tell us gay marriage is not biblical, and so we should make it illegal.

I say, if we are going to make gay marriage illegal on biblical grounds, than we should make adultery and divorce illegal as well. We should also consider making polygamy legal, as it is sanctioned in the Bible and I don't believe you will find any statements that it is against God's will, although there are some passages which suggest it is good for a man to have "but one wife."

Where do you get this strawman like anti-christian rubbish?

[juliod]

Then there are the Theo-Evos who keep their god in a box by filtering Genesis through mans fallible science....all the while insisting that Genesis is a parable.

But it is you that keeps putting your words in god's mouth.

You say "God created the world the way I say he did. The bible means what I say it means".

Other religionists say "I may not understand how or why god created the world. I may not understand what the bible means."

The way you appear to me, as an outsider, and how I think you appear to many of your co-religionists, is that you have your hand inside a sock-puppet that you call "god" and he says only what comes out of your own mouth.

DanZ

[micatala]

YEC:

How is this a strawman? I'm not saying everyone who is against gay marriage bases their arguements on the Bible, but many do. IMHO, to do this is somewhat hypocritical, because they do not apply the same biblical standard to marriage in general. This is not anti-Christian at all.

You seem to be saying that because I disagree with the views of some Christians that I am anti-Christian.

[wgreen]

A lot of mainstream christians (and at least several major denominatons) seem to reason this way:

"We believe that god created the universe. We do not claim to know how, when, or why he did that. We do not claim to know how, when or why he has chosen to reveal himself to us. We do not claim to know why or how accurately he has chosen to reveal himself in our holy documents."

When these people discover something new about the universe that conflicts with their previous beliefs they say:

"We believe god created the universe, so if this fact is true, then he created the earth that way. If it conflicts with our doctrine, then our doctrine must have been wrong."

I like your second way of putting it better:

Other religionists say "I may not understand how or why god created the world. I may not understand what the bible means."

This is how I look at it. I believe the Bible is true. I also believe that the facts of nature ar true, being created by God. When there is an apparent conflict between the two, it is not because ether of them is false, but because my interpretation of one of them is false.

I think the YEC also views it this way (I used to hold dogmatically to this view), but perhaps leans toward faulting the interpretation of the facts by secular scientists.

Bacon spoke of "the book of God's Word" and the "book of Gods works." Psalm 19 teaches the same principle. There can be "no final conflict (in the words of Francis Schaeffer)" between the two, but it may take a while to see how they will be reconciled.

Some things in the Bible are very clear, being supported by many clear passages, like the way to be justified and reconciled with God.

Other things are not so clear, like the method and timing of creation, and caution in interpreting these passages is warranted. The correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is unclear for extrabiblical and Biblical reasons. It is interesting to note what Solomon says in Eccl 3:11: He has made everything appropriate in its time He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end (NASB).

If the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 were more clear, I would be more inclined to be suspicious of the current scientific consensus.

Where the Bible seems clear, I lean toward suspicion of the current scientific theory.

Incidentally, the Bible is very clear on "why" God made the world.

There is always the possibility that current scientific understanding is incorrect. John Polkinghorne notes that James Clerk maxwell once wrote that "the ether was the best confirmed entity in the whole of physical theory (Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction, p. 4)."


Thanks,

Bill Green

[micatala]

I would agree with Bill that scientists could be wrong, just like anybody else. The Maxwell quote is certainly relevant. Many, if not most, scientists I think would agree that no scientific theory is final.

I think the proper terminology to use with respect to evolution is that it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life we see, and that the basics of the theory are very, very well-supported by the evidence. In my view, young-earth creationism is not supported at all by the scientific evidence. The global flood is perhaps the weakest of many weak links. One does not have to be "anti-Christian" to hold this view. Evangelical astronomer Hugh Ross has a reasonably good critique and alternative explanation for the global flood. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... shtml?main.

Some day, we may have a better explanation for the diversity of life than the current theory of evolution. Probably this new explanation will be an extension of the current theory and not a repudiation, something like Einstein's Theory of Relativity which, in one sense, showed the Newton's gravitational theory was wrong, but did not diminish its value or negate the results based upon it. Newton's theory is still good enough to get probes to Mars and Saturn.

Acknowledging that scientists may be wrong does not mean, that any two veiwpoints are of equal validity, and that we should give equal time to all views (eg. in the public school curriculum).

One point where I think I would agree with YEC and other anti-evolutionists is that the validity of the scientific enterprise does not necessarily imply the validity of what I think some refer to as "metaphysical materialism." The assumption that all that exists is material is just that, an assumption. I personally believe in God as a spiritual being and humans as possessing a spiritual essence. I could certainly be criticized for holding an irrational belief in this, but I do not think that all that exists can be reduced to rationality, just as I do not believe that all that exists can be reduced to the material.

[Jose]

Then there are the Theo-Evos who keep their god in a box by filtering Genesis through mans fallible science....all the while insisting that Genesis is a parable.

Other religionists say "I may not understand how or why god created the world. I may not understand what the bible means."

This is how I look at it. I believe the Bible is true. I also believe that the facts of nature ar true, being created by God. When there is an apparent conflict between the two, it is not because ether of them is false, but because my interpretation of one of them is false.

I say, if we are going to make gay marriage illegal on biblical grounds, than we should make adultery and divorce illegal as well. We should also consider making polygamy legal, as it is sanctioned in the Bible and I don't believe you will find any statements that it is against God's will, although there are some passages which suggest it is good for a man to have "but one wife."

Where do you get this strawman like anti-christian rubbish?

This series of statements tells an interesting story that, I think, encapsulates the whole creation/evolution controversy. If the facts of nature are true, and the facts of the bible are true, then wherein lies the conflict? It seems to lie less in the infallibility of the bible, and more in the assumed infallibility of the individual. If I assume that I am fallible, being a mere human, then the first place I should look when faced with such a conflict, is my own understanding of both the bible and the science. However, if I assume that I am infallible, then--and only then--will I say that the science must be wrong because it is the work of mere fallible humans. The controversy is not whether the bible is true, but whether My Personal View of God is right, and yours is wrong. Otherwise, how can we come up with ideas like "true Christians" vs pretenders, or reading from the bible and being told it is anti-Christian? The scientific facts of evolution have nothing to do with it; they are just a scapegoat for those of us who Cannot Admit That We Might Be Wrong.

There is always the possibility that current scientific understanding is incorrect. John Polkinghorne notes that James Clerk maxwell once wrote that "the ether was the best confirmed entity in the whole of physical theory (Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction, p. 4)."

I would agree with Bill that scientists could be wrong, just like anybody else. The Maxwell quote is certainly relevant. Many, if not most, scientists I think would agree that no scientific theory is final.

I think the proper terminology to use with respect to evolution is that it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life we see, and that the basics of the theory are very, very well-supported by the evidence.

Thank you, Bill, for that quote. It is a terriffic example of how science works--and a very amusing one as well. The ether? Hee hee hee. It sure seemed like a good explanation of the data at the time, but boy, were we wrong. The key was obtaining more data--much of it (probably) arising from work that assumed the ether existed, and producing completely unexpected results. When you get unexpected results, either you've missed something in the data, you designed the experiment wrong, or the theories and assumptions you were working from were wrong.

Heck--that's what science is, most of the time: being wrong. We do our dangedest to figure things out, then do the critical experiments, and 90% of the time, we find that we were wrong. We're so used to it that we think it's obvious to the entire world that that's how science works. The best we can ever do is interpret the data, and come up with an explanation that hasn't been proved wrong yet. Every now and then, someone comes up with something that is exactly right...but we can't tell because we have to assume that there is always the possibility that someone, somewhere, sometime, may find something new that blows it out of the water. We don't know the answer beforehand, so how can we tell if we've reached it?

Evolution is exactly that way. It's the best explanation we have for the currently available data. Scientists don't usually make a lot of noise saying this to every audience, because the basic assumption in science is that this is the case with everything we know. It's just the best explanation for the data we have at the present.

It seems to me that if anyone believes there is a real conflict between the bible and science (particularly evolution), then you don't get anywhere if you just jump up and down and say (increasingly loudly) that science is wrong and your personal biblical interpretation is Right. If you really are Right, then get the data that shows you are right. People have been saying that evolution must be wrong for 150 years, but they don't do the science to make their case. The best we seem to have done is take Paley's old watch argument and rephrase it as eyeballs and ribosomes.

Creationists--if you're right, you should be able to get the data to show it.