I've written lots about what I am against, so what am I arguing for?
First, that the natural world is a continuum with revelation. What I mean by this is that the natural world is like a “fossil” of truth – it provides an accurate picture of what has come before.
An example? The world really is 4.5 Billion years old. Why do we know this? Multiple dating methods converge on this date, using independent properties of matter.
The implication? When Genesis describes creation, it is not describing the events in any sort of scientific manner. This would have come to a surprise to the original hearers, to believers during the life of Jesus, even to early scientists like Isaac Newton.
So how can I justify ignoring the plain meaning of the text? Well, because the plain meaning is not suported by any evidence - none. Not just in the timing of creation (6, 24-hour days), but also in the order of creation (light, day and night before the creation of the sun, for example).
One objection is that this is how God decided to do it; it was a miracle, and one of the (unintentional? unavoidable?) fallouts is that the scientific evidence points in a different direction (old earth), but the Bible sets us straight (young earth). This objection is unassailable – this could be the truth. But when I consider the odd situation that puts us in – the truth (young earth) is of no help to us (for example, flood geology is useless in finding oil), and the scientific “lie” (old earth) proves very accurate and useful information (a good way to find oil) - I am not satisfied with this explanation.
Is this kind of dualism really Biblical? For spiritual purposes, we believe in a young earth, but when we want to have an accurate model of the earth and how it works, we have to resort to the lie of an old earth?
I suppose the same can be said of evolution. In spite of all the hype, no evidence actually exists that disproves evolution, and no support for special creation can be found. What is left is personal disbelief that evolution can work. But inability to believe is not compelling, especially when you follow the evidence, and find that all the claims made to have disproven evolution turn out to be mistaken or worse, fraudulent.
So does that mean that science stands in judgment over the Bible? For me at least, not really. I view science as a natural extension of our curiosity about, and knowledge of, the world. We understand the world in a very different way than did the original hearers of the various books of the Bible. We do not believe in geocentrism. We do believe in the germ theory of disease. From Augustine to Galileo, the church taught that no one lived on the opposite side of the world (the antipodes), because Christ’s message could not have reached them. We now know that in fact people did live there, even before the time of Noah.
God, however, would not have been unaware of any of this. A clear implication is that God spoke to people in terms of their local cultural understandings and expectations. It turns out that the Bible is not a science textbook; God uses the language and experience of the people he is dealing with to communicate to them – how could he do otherwise?
It is true that this opens up sections of the Bible to interpretation; what in the Bible is cultural, and what transcends culture? This is a question that we must, and do discuss (consider the issues of multiple wives, slavery and the role of women to name just a few issues where our modern approach differs from the world found in the New Testament). It is naïve to pretend that we do not reinterpret the Bible for our time and culture. Even literalists have to explain away the order of creation in Genesis and the geocentrism of Joshua; so the question is not IF, but HOW to intepret the Bible. I believe that we must let our understanding of the natural world play a role in our approach to Biblical interpretation.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Science Versus the Bible?
When we discover that the natural world is different than the picture we expect from our reading of the Bible (for example, geocentrism) do we suspend our thought processes, or hold both the Biblical narrative and the discoveries of science in tension?
Some try and resolve the conflict with creationism, whereby “science-like” explanations for “literal” readings are used in an attempt to justify a pre-determined attitude toward the text. This approach is the very opposite of science, because a determination of what the text means has been made before any facts are checked. For example, the existence of a global flood in 2,500 bc is inferred from the text, and facts are winnowed for support, no matter how the evidence actually falls out. Even in the face of clear evidence that the case for the flood is full of omissions, distortions and manipulation, this prior commitment to the meaning of the text is maintained IN SPITE of the evidence.
Some reasons why we know the Bible is not to be taken literally:
1. Genesis 1 does not describe creation in anything like a “natural” order. For example, light is made before the sun, and day and night are separate creations, independent of light and the sun. Green plants precede the creation of the sun, and the stars are called by name (though they are virtually infinite in number).
2. Explanations of events like the lengthening of the day in Joshua are incorrect, representing a cultural understanding of the causes of day (the sun moving across the sky, Jesus rising up into the clouds on his way to heaven, etc.).
3. The Bible itself represents a consensus, based on hundreds of years of conflict over theology (see Arius, Athanasius, Pelagius, etc.). Even now, there is not unanimity about the cannon between the three major branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant), let alone other traditions. This does not mean that the Bible is not inspired, but it does mean we have to appreciate the human process used to assemble, recognize and preserve the Bible. These same human processes are reflected in the content of individual books – which in fact reflect the cultural assumptions of the authors and audience of the various books.
4. We do not have original manuscripts on which to base an inerrant, infallible approach to the Bible. The earliest partial manuscript dates to over a hundred years after the events recorded, and there are irresolvable textual problems that prevent us from recreating an “original” manuscript (for example, we have 4 endings of Mark, and doubt that any of them is the original). This does not mean that the Bible is not reliable – just that it is not inerrant or infallible, at least as concerns the manuscripts we have. The evidence for this is in the public domain (just Google, and skip past all the spin.
As a result, I think it is clear that the Bible cannot be taken as literally true as regards the natural world (6,24 hour days of creation, day and night created before the sun, global flood about 2,500 years bc, the notion that stopping the sun would cause the day to be longer, etc.). The Bible reflects the cultural assumptions of the age in which it was written. We have to keep this in mind when we read and interpret the Bible. As a result, we have to recognize that the Bible does not teach science. Instead, it communicates spiritual truths in the context of the cultural beliefs of the author and original audience.
This does not mean that all historical details are inaccurate – just that the Bible’s authority does not rest on its containing a modern, scientific understanding of the world. Accurate understandings of the world can be used as part of the interpretation process. For example, Genesis 1 should not be viewed as literal history. We only know this because science has demonstrated that the order, timing and cause-and-effect relationships between various elements of the creation story in Genesis is not accurate. When the accuracy of certain historical claims are crucial (for example, Moses’ existence or Jesus resurrection) certainty can be based on other foundations than the claim of an inerrant, infallible Bible.
Some try and resolve the conflict with creationism, whereby “science-like” explanations for “literal” readings are used in an attempt to justify a pre-determined attitude toward the text. This approach is the very opposite of science, because a determination of what the text means has been made before any facts are checked. For example, the existence of a global flood in 2,500 bc is inferred from the text, and facts are winnowed for support, no matter how the evidence actually falls out. Even in the face of clear evidence that the case for the flood is full of omissions, distortions and manipulation, this prior commitment to the meaning of the text is maintained IN SPITE of the evidence.
Some reasons why we know the Bible is not to be taken literally:
1. Genesis 1 does not describe creation in anything like a “natural” order. For example, light is made before the sun, and day and night are separate creations, independent of light and the sun. Green plants precede the creation of the sun, and the stars are called by name (though they are virtually infinite in number).
2. Explanations of events like the lengthening of the day in Joshua are incorrect, representing a cultural understanding of the causes of day (the sun moving across the sky, Jesus rising up into the clouds on his way to heaven, etc.).
3. The Bible itself represents a consensus, based on hundreds of years of conflict over theology (see Arius, Athanasius, Pelagius, etc.). Even now, there is not unanimity about the cannon between the three major branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant), let alone other traditions. This does not mean that the Bible is not inspired, but it does mean we have to appreciate the human process used to assemble, recognize and preserve the Bible. These same human processes are reflected in the content of individual books – which in fact reflect the cultural assumptions of the authors and audience of the various books.
4. We do not have original manuscripts on which to base an inerrant, infallible approach to the Bible. The earliest partial manuscript dates to over a hundred years after the events recorded, and there are irresolvable textual problems that prevent us from recreating an “original” manuscript (for example, we have 4 endings of Mark, and doubt that any of them is the original). This does not mean that the Bible is not reliable – just that it is not inerrant or infallible, at least as concerns the manuscripts we have. The evidence for this is in the public domain (just Google, and skip past all the spin.
As a result, I think it is clear that the Bible cannot be taken as literally true as regards the natural world (6,24 hour days of creation, day and night created before the sun, global flood about 2,500 years bc, the notion that stopping the sun would cause the day to be longer, etc.). The Bible reflects the cultural assumptions of the age in which it was written. We have to keep this in mind when we read and interpret the Bible. As a result, we have to recognize that the Bible does not teach science. Instead, it communicates spiritual truths in the context of the cultural beliefs of the author and original audience.
This does not mean that all historical details are inaccurate – just that the Bible’s authority does not rest on its containing a modern, scientific understanding of the world. Accurate understandings of the world can be used as part of the interpretation process. For example, Genesis 1 should not be viewed as literal history. We only know this because science has demonstrated that the order, timing and cause-and-effect relationships between various elements of the creation story in Genesis is not accurate. When the accuracy of certain historical claims are crucial (for example, Moses’ existence or Jesus resurrection) certainty can be based on other foundations than the claim of an inerrant, infallible Bible.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Long and Short of Biblical Literalism
Some people have been having trouble knowing just what to take literally in the Bible, and what can safely be explained away. For example, the story about the sun standing still in Joshua DOES NOT teach geocentrism. But Genesis 1 DOES teach a literal 6, 24 hour day creation. How can you tell them apart? Well, you can't. That is why you need good Bible teachers (cause you'd never figure it out on your own).
I guess the moral is, take the Bible at its word, except when you need to reinterpret it. If you don't keep its literal meaning (except when you have to change it), then it will lose its authority. Except when Catholics interpret the Bible - good conservatives don't hold with those Popes. Or Protestants who don't reach the same conclusions we do. And don't get me started on Orthodox Christians. Where did all these churches come from, anyway?
You see, we can't have any interpretation going on, except when WE say it is OK. And when it is OK, we'll let you know - because you sure can't tell by looking at the passages. Its tricky - two passages can seem to be historical recitations of facts, but one needs to be interpreted, and the other must be treated as literal truth.
Only we can tell you which is which (and don't ask us how we know, it is a spiritual thing - you just know, if you are us). And those Church Fathers - they don't know what they are doing either, except when they agree with us. In fact, this is how we know the interpretation is right - we agree with it. Those other Christians in the past 1900 years - you just can't trust them. Stick with us, we'll tell you when to interpret, how to interpret, and who you can trust (mostly just us, and if it comes right down to it, me and not them).
I guess the moral is, take the Bible at its word, except when you need to reinterpret it. If you don't keep its literal meaning (except when you have to change it), then it will lose its authority. Except when Catholics interpret the Bible - good conservatives don't hold with those Popes. Or Protestants who don't reach the same conclusions we do. And don't get me started on Orthodox Christians. Where did all these churches come from, anyway?
You see, we can't have any interpretation going on, except when WE say it is OK. And when it is OK, we'll let you know - because you sure can't tell by looking at the passages. Its tricky - two passages can seem to be historical recitations of facts, but one needs to be interpreted, and the other must be treated as literal truth.
Only we can tell you which is which (and don't ask us how we know, it is a spiritual thing - you just know, if you are us). And those Church Fathers - they don't know what they are doing either, except when they agree with us. In fact, this is how we know the interpretation is right - we agree with it. Those other Christians in the past 1900 years - you just can't trust them. Stick with us, we'll tell you when to interpret, how to interpret, and who you can trust (mostly just us, and if it comes right down to it, me and not them).
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Faith in A Scientific World
The past few hundred years has witnessed a sea-change in the way we think about the world. Science, not theology is accepted as the final arbiter on everything from the power of prayer to the age of the earth. This would have been unthinkable to the vast majority of folks even 300 years ago. True, the YEC camp has to fall back on an alternative science to justify their positions - but the point is, they don't just say "it was a miracle" and leave it at that - no, they go to amazing lengths to argue that THEY have the 'true science" and the more accurate view of the world. In other words, they grant the primacy of science when it comes to the natural world.
Most religions record interactions between gods and people. Gods are revealed to change history, perform miracles and dwell in the heavens (or some such place) - which were viewed not as extra-dimensional or outside of space and time, but as PART of the natural order - albeit generally inaccessible. All the same, Orpheus went into Hades, and John had visions of heaven - which are portrayed as actual, physical places.
The point is, we are transitioning from a worldview in which God built the universe, populated it, and physically inhabits it, to a vague notion of God as Spirit, but no longer actually living in the same physical universe with us. Yes, we discuss God as being present in Spirit with us - but the notion that God, who is part of the Universe, extends that presence via his Spirit is quite different than the notion that God is somehow outside space and time, with no natural properties at all, yet somehow interacts with us via spirit, which itself has no natural properties at all - but still has the power to impact us in undetectable (that is, purely subjective) ways via an unknowable mechanism.
Do we need to update our theology (in the classic sense of knowledge about God) to take into account what we now know about the universe?
Most religions record interactions between gods and people. Gods are revealed to change history, perform miracles and dwell in the heavens (or some such place) - which were viewed not as extra-dimensional or outside of space and time, but as PART of the natural order - albeit generally inaccessible. All the same, Orpheus went into Hades, and John had visions of heaven - which are portrayed as actual, physical places.
The point is, we are transitioning from a worldview in which God built the universe, populated it, and physically inhabits it, to a vague notion of God as Spirit, but no longer actually living in the same physical universe with us. Yes, we discuss God as being present in Spirit with us - but the notion that God, who is part of the Universe, extends that presence via his Spirit is quite different than the notion that God is somehow outside space and time, with no natural properties at all, yet somehow interacts with us via spirit, which itself has no natural properties at all - but still has the power to impact us in undetectable (that is, purely subjective) ways via an unknowable mechanism.
Do we need to update our theology (in the classic sense of knowledge about God) to take into account what we now know about the universe?
Monday, April 17, 2006
4 Thoughts About the Faith / Science Dialouge
First, the religious discussions (here, and in the broader cultural context) have been hijacked by a group who, while claiming to represent "authentic" Christianity, actually represent a narrow and narrow-minded subset of Christian faith and practice. As has been noted before, the church (in space and time) has had a variety of approaches to Genesis 1 - and it is neither accurate nor honest to dismiss them in favor of one group's vociferous insistence that they alone know the truth. Geisler's "either/or" logic is an attempt to capture the entire "biblical" faith perspective for literalism. Though it is fine for literalists to think they are right, the plain truth is that folks we will meet in heaven, folks who have defended and helped define what we know as historic Christianity, helped define the very contents of the Bible, the historic creeds (and even the "founding fathers" of fundamentalism) held beliefs that differ from this modern group of literalists.
Second. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is old and that that the we evolved from a common ancestor. These facts have to be taken into account when we interpret scripture, in the same way that we use what we know about the world when we read (for example) Isaiah 55:12:
You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
We recognize that this is poetic, because we know trees do not have hands. Likewise, we know that Genesis 1 does not refer to 6, 24 hour days, because we have learned that the earth is billions of years old, and was not created in the order listed. An alien might think, reading Isaiah, that trees "obviously" had hands, and could clap. Only knowledge about life on earth could set it straight. Likewise, our knowledge about the age of the earth lets us know that Genesis is meant as poetry, not science (not false – Isaiah 55 is true, just not literal, as is Genesis 1).
Third. What is driving the "teach the controversy" movement is an a prior commitment to what is and is not "literal" in the bible. The fear seems to be that if some parts of the bible are not taken literally, then no part will be. This is not true, as demonstrated by the fact that Christians have survived the demise of the divine rights of kings to rule, and the notion that the earth was at the center of the universe. Both were thought to be undoubtedly true, based on a literal reading of the Bible, but somehow Christians have survived the switch in thinking. Likewise, Christians can survive this change in thinking as well.
Fourth. It is of no value to your relationship with God to believe things that are not true. All the time people spend on defending the obvious falsehoods presented by young earth creationism would be much better spent dealing with the world the way it really is, and seeking to address genuine problems that we face (take your pick, justice, morality, human suffering, coming ecological catastrophes).
Second. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is old and that that the we evolved from a common ancestor. These facts have to be taken into account when we interpret scripture, in the same way that we use what we know about the world when we read (for example) Isaiah 55:12:
You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
We recognize that this is poetic, because we know trees do not have hands. Likewise, we know that Genesis 1 does not refer to 6, 24 hour days, because we have learned that the earth is billions of years old, and was not created in the order listed. An alien might think, reading Isaiah, that trees "obviously" had hands, and could clap. Only knowledge about life on earth could set it straight. Likewise, our knowledge about the age of the earth lets us know that Genesis is meant as poetry, not science (not false – Isaiah 55 is true, just not literal, as is Genesis 1).
Third. What is driving the "teach the controversy" movement is an a prior commitment to what is and is not "literal" in the bible. The fear seems to be that if some parts of the bible are not taken literally, then no part will be. This is not true, as demonstrated by the fact that Christians have survived the demise of the divine rights of kings to rule, and the notion that the earth was at the center of the universe. Both were thought to be undoubtedly true, based on a literal reading of the Bible, but somehow Christians have survived the switch in thinking. Likewise, Christians can survive this change in thinking as well.
Fourth. It is of no value to your relationship with God to believe things that are not true. All the time people spend on defending the obvious falsehoods presented by young earth creationism would be much better spent dealing with the world the way it really is, and seeking to address genuine problems that we face (take your pick, justice, morality, human suffering, coming ecological catastrophes).
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Creationism Doesn't Belong in the Science Classroom
There is a measurable, meaningful difference between evolution and creationism. This difference justifies excluding creationism (in any of its wedge or Trojan horse variations) from being inserted into the public school science classroom.
Evolution is a mainstay of scientific thought. 300,000+ articles have been published in science journals keyed to the word evolution in the last 15 years, in comparison to a handful of ID review articles (containing no research). Evolution is a well-established, accepted theory, used every day by scientists all over the world. Contrast folks who graduate with a geology degree from a creationist college, who have to use old earth models of geology to find oil, and who admit that they are not able to use anything they learned at school, as it does not correspond with reality.
Compare the success of evolution in explaining the world with creationism, which offers no coherent theory, no reseach program, no facts - only apologetics, criticism of evolution, and a belief that it must be true because that is the way creationists read the bible. These are not competing ideas that deserve equal time. One explains the world around us, the other confounds our understanding by telling us that the clear facts we observe in nature are wrong.
All the pressure to insert "critical analysis" of evolution into public school classrooms comes from creationism camps, and parents & politicians who have been told by their religious leaders that this is an important issue. Especially telling is that calls for critical analysis in science are limited strictly to those items that contradict YEC claims (with the exception of geocentrism - I guess they have conceded on that one). What about controversies in areas that the Bible does not address? They aren't interested.
As a result, there is no scientific or educational value to teaching a creationism perspective on scientific controversy, since it is strictly an apologetics tool, intended to justify YEC theology.
What is worse, there is no legal or logical reason to limit the discussion to creationist talking points - so we are opening the door to astrology (as ID proponent Behe noted in the Dover trial) and any other form of religious belief being certified as science, as long as there are enough members of the local or state school board to insert it into the curriculum. This will result in children getting the clear message that all truth (even about the natural world) is a mater of personal conviction, based not on evidence, but on what religious leaders say must be true. This is a giant step back in knowledge, and presages a return to superstition, ignorance and fear as we lose our grasp on our understanding of the natural world.
Evolution is a mainstay of scientific thought. 300,000+ articles have been published in science journals keyed to the word evolution in the last 15 years, in comparison to a handful of ID review articles (containing no research). Evolution is a well-established, accepted theory, used every day by scientists all over the world. Contrast folks who graduate with a geology degree from a creationist college, who have to use old earth models of geology to find oil, and who admit that they are not able to use anything they learned at school, as it does not correspond with reality.
Compare the success of evolution in explaining the world with creationism, which offers no coherent theory, no reseach program, no facts - only apologetics, criticism of evolution, and a belief that it must be true because that is the way creationists read the bible. These are not competing ideas that deserve equal time. One explains the world around us, the other confounds our understanding by telling us that the clear facts we observe in nature are wrong.
All the pressure to insert "critical analysis" of evolution into public school classrooms comes from creationism camps, and parents & politicians who have been told by their religious leaders that this is an important issue. Especially telling is that calls for critical analysis in science are limited strictly to those items that contradict YEC claims (with the exception of geocentrism - I guess they have conceded on that one). What about controversies in areas that the Bible does not address? They aren't interested.
As a result, there is no scientific or educational value to teaching a creationism perspective on scientific controversy, since it is strictly an apologetics tool, intended to justify YEC theology.
What is worse, there is no legal or logical reason to limit the discussion to creationist talking points - so we are opening the door to astrology (as ID proponent Behe noted in the Dover trial) and any other form of religious belief being certified as science, as long as there are enough members of the local or state school board to insert it into the curriculum. This will result in children getting the clear message that all truth (even about the natural world) is a mater of personal conviction, based not on evidence, but on what religious leaders say must be true. This is a giant step back in knowledge, and presages a return to superstition, ignorance and fear as we lose our grasp on our understanding of the natural world.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Is Evolution Really The Problem?
From Dr. Kennedy's website:
Dr. Kennedy and The Coral Ridge Hour examine the bitter fruit of Darwin's theory that man evolved from matter. This broad-ranging DVD, Evolution: The Root of the Problem shows that Darwin's idea has unleashed horror—bringing death to millions through movements it fostered, such as Nazism and Communism. In America, Darwinism has displaced moral absolutes with moral anarchy in our courts and schools. Evolution: The Root of the Problem features a powerful message from Dr. Kennedy and five in-depth Coral Ridge Hour report.
There is a perceived link between science and atheism, because science provides natural explanations of the world, and seems to leave God out of the equation.
The argument then goes, if God is not needed to explain the world, he can be safely excluded from other parts of life- like religion.
With religion out of the picture, people no longer follow the moral rules laid out in the Bible.
By not following these rules, the argument goes, society falls apart.
Is this really something that can be laid at the feet of evolution? I seem to recall reading in 1 & 2 Kings that Isreal's society fell apart every other generation or so, and at no time was evolution part of the landscape.
At the same time, there is no doubt that accepting special creation is every bit a huge as the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe (the Copernican revolution). Theologians have always explained where people came from - that is, until scientists started investigating the world around them, and discovered that it was somewhat different from they way the Bible described it. Now there are two voices competing for attention - a religious voice, and a secular voice. And they are asking compelling questions.
On what underlying principle do we set up rules to guide us: the principle that we were created by God and so are answerable to him? Or the principle that we "just happened" and so are answerable to no one? This is a great question, but it is not connected to the truth of evolution.
I happen to think that the dichotomy is a false one - and one that faith is bound to lose, if it insists on asking its followers to believe things that are not true as the basic premise of their argument. We do share a common ancestor with other apes. Evolution does happen, and the earth is billions of years old. These are facts that we have to face, and we ought to be dealing with reality, not fighting it in the name of truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
