Thursday, July 07, 2005

Hmm. I seem to have stuck my foot in it again.

First, I will start with a confession. I have not come out and said this on my blog simply because I didn't feel the timing was appropriate. But I guess now is as good a time as any.

I do not agree with our church doctrine on the interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. The idea that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old cannot be supported by any form of evidence whatsoever. A century before Darwin was born, geologists had already concluded that the earth was ancient and that Bishop Usher's exercise in mathematics was just that: an exercise. I have also been convinced by overwhelming evidence of the truth of the common decent of all life on earth. I am also convinced by overwhelming evidence that there has never been a global flood.

This has all happened fairly recently (over the last six years) as a result of my study of biology, geology, cosmology, creationism, intelligent design, and so on. I have spent every spare minute over the last decade reading. This is not a decision I have come to lightly. For one thing, the consequences are pretty severe. I was hoping to finish out my term as deacon (one reason why I was trying to keep this under wraps), but at this point, I really don't have much choice according to the church constitution: I have to remove myself from church membership. The worst part will be leaving youth ministry. That will hurt. As I said, this hasn't been an easy process, but I have to go where the data leads me, not where my emotions want to go.

But even apart from leaving my church, the impact on my faith has been even more severe. If homo sapiens sapiens is not the result of special creation, what does that do to concepts such as the soul? Also, rejecting a literal reading of the first twelve chapters of Genesis naturally leads to the very serious question of just what parts of the Bible do I read literally? I haven't had the time to really dig into it yet, but from what I have already researched, I suspect Biblical inerrancy won't fair any better than young-earth creationism did.

And then what? Accepting the modern synthesis still leaves me with a lot of options for churches. All the mainline Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox traditions have no problem with an ancient earth and common descent. However, rejecting Biblical literalism starts to really narrow the field, and I have major issues with what I am left with. So what I expect at the end of this road is that for the first time in my entire 40-year life, I will not be a member of or even regularly attend any church.

At that point, I have to fundamentally re-think who and what I am.

Again, this isn't something that I take lightly. In fact, I would have been perfectly happy to never have gone through this process. But I have to. I have no choice. As you say, Lindsey, God is a God of reason and logic. That is actually the foundation of western science. Early European scientists were all Christians, and most were clergy (they were called "natural philosophers" then). They believed they could learn about God by learning the laws of nature. So when natural law and logic crash head-on into evangelical doctrine, what conclusion should I have? Either God is not a God of reason and logic, or evangelical doctrine is wrong. Maybe it is a defect in my brain (and that is certainly a possibility; I'd probably be in a psych ward except that I have learned how to lie to keep the doctors at bay), but I cannot live in a universe ruled by a capricious God. Which only leaves one other option. (And yes, this is a true binary situation; science and evangelical doctrine are incompatible. ;-)

Now to address some specifics. I am perfectly aware that my approach to this may have not been the best. I tried as hard as I could yesterday to not use examples of creation "science" when we talked about logical fallacies. And yes, I intentionally skipped what I was going to teach in order to discuss logical fallacies prior to Scott speaking at our church. I considered doing things in a different order, but decided not to for one primary reason: all the teens already know where I stand. We've talked about it several times when they have been at our house. I'm sure you've heard, "What's happens in the basement, stays in the basement." (Note this does not include incidents arising from high-velocity BopIt's) This is just one of many topics of conversation that I have asked them to not bring up in other contexts. I could have easily been far more specific yesterday and given them examples right from the creationist literature for every one of the logical fallacies we talked about yesterday, but I didn't want to do that.

Science has never attempted to prove or disprove God's existence. Science is based on methodological naturalism; natural phenomenon have natural explanations, and natural phenomenon encompasses anything we can directly or indirectly perceive. This does not mean that there are only natural phenomenon and that everything has a natural explanation (that is philosophical naturalism); only that if something is supernatural, then it isn't something that science can investigate. This principle is exactly what creation "science" and intelligent design are trying to subvert. Worse, the entire movement is based on lies, deception, and logical fallacies. Worse still, the leaders (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, ad nausium) know this. Christians who accept modern science have begged these people privately and publicly to stop damaging the name of Jesus by intentionally spreading falsehoods. Yet they persist.

I have thought long and hard about what I would do if our church promoted creation "science" (as opposed to creation doctrine). I decided that it wasn't something that I could just grit my teeth and ignore. I had hoped this day would never come, but it has. I feel an obligation to prepare my kids for what they will hear; to give them the tools necessary to deflect the barrage of pseudo-science and propaganda they will be subjected to Sunday morning. I will also respond to Scott personally, and to the church for giving him a forum. I doubt either will like what I have to say, but it has to be said, not because the origins debate is a salvation issue per se, but because evangelicals have made it a salvation issue by requiring the rejection of knowledge and logic in order to be in fellowship with them. Further, the posturing, lawsuits, lobbying school boards, and the rest of the purely political actions by evangelicals creates the perception that all Christians are a bunch of fundamentalist nutjobs. St. Augustine had this to say in the first century AD:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
[ italics referred to 1 Timothy 1:7]

(translation is by J. H. Taylor in "Ancient Christian Writers," Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.)
And I will not presume to have anything to add to that.

Other than to link to several articles where creationists "are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books:"

Teaching the Fake Controversy on CNN.com
Intelligent-Design Creationism on Public Radio
That's another fine mess you've made Jonathan!
News, news, news!

The articles are short, and please take the time to read the comments. Note that all these were posted today. The Panda's Thumb archive is brimming with such things, as is the talk.origins website. "Taken to task" indeed. Repeatedly. Devastatingly.

And I think that is enough for one day.

5 comments:

Tom said...

Ric,
If you are having problems with the Bible in part, then what does it say about your eternal situation? I'm not wanting to start anything. I respect the amount of study you have done and do not feel that I am in a position to argue it itelligently, but I do want to say this. Faith is the key. God's ways are not our ways. We do not need to understand it, and I am not going to argue the science of it. All I know is that if the Bible is not true then my slavation is worthless. I will not believe that. all will be answered one day. for now I will have faith in the God of creation. Please don't feel that I am looking down my nose or anything, I am concerned and want you to know I am keeping you in prayer.

Anonymous said...

Hey Ric, maybe you should consider being a UU (Unitarian Universalist) http://www.uunashua.org/100quest.shtml

What do Unitarian Universalists believe?

1 Every individual should be encouraged to develop a personal philosophy of life.
2 Everyone is capable of reasoning.
3 We do not need any other person, official or organization to tell us what to believe.
4 We should be able to present religious opinions openly, without fear of censure or reprisal.
5 All people should be tolerant of the religious ideas of others.
6 Truth is not absolute; it changes over time.
7 Everyone should continue to search for the truth.
8 Everyone has an equal claim to life, liberty and justice.
9 People should govern themselves by democratic processes.
10 Ideas should be open to criticism.
11 Good works are the natural product of a good faith.

Love, Pauline
PS Hi Nestina :)

Anonymous said...

Of course God created evolution eons ago, and the Bible was written by men. Your wisdom is noted and bravery appreciated! Good luck on your journey for the truth, Ric.

Admin said...

Tom; thanks for the thoughts and the prayers. This hasn't been easy, nor was this something I just woke up one day and decided, "Hey! I'll just throw everything I ever believed in out the window and piss off my family to boot!" I never expected to be here. I understand the theological issues which is why this has been painful, and why I have taken 6 years to consider the question.

But as you can see from their comments, I have the loving support of my family members while I go through the most difficult time of my life. Thanks a lot guys. Maybe try thinking of someone other than yourself for once. What a beautiful demonstration to everyone on the internet of the love of Jesus in action. I'm sure God is so proud of you.

Lindsey; do not think this was the result anything you said. I had wanted to hang in there a little longer, hoping beyond hope that something would change. It hasn't. Something was going to give sooner or later. I realize this is serious stuff, which is why I spent 6 years reading, studying, and thinking. And, not to sound too much like the old Bartles and James commercials, thank you for your support. You and Jon are more than welcome to join us Sunday. I wouldn't want it otherwise.

Pauline; thank you for the link and the information. I probably won't be making any decisions at this point, but more information is always better than less.

Anonymous; thank you for the support and kind words. My e-mail address is in my Blogger profile if you wish to contact me privately.

One last point.
Fact: the Bible was written by men.
Belief: those men were under God's direction when they wrote it.

Second last point:
Science is always tentative. No one working in any field believes science or human knowledge is infallible. All theories are subject to revision when new data comes to light.

Third last point (hey; if Doug Adams can have a five-book trilogy, I can have multiple final points):
If science, which is based on measurable, empirical data is held to be tentative, then shouldn't faith, which is based on, well, faith, also be tentative? Is God that small that he can't handle me asking some hard questions? Or am I just supposed to shut up and believe on threat of burning in hell forever?

Anyway, don't be surprised if it is a little quiet around here for a while.

Admin said...

According to Blogger, my comment has been saved. It's good to see someone is...