BANG
Well, it’s been a while since I sat at the keyboard to write my over inflated opinion and post it for everyone to see. Well, actually, that’s not entirely accurate, I’ve actually written quite a lot it’s all just seemed a little… empty? This might stir some people up… I hope not in the wrong way.
Lately I’ve been surrounded quite a bit by the whole “creation vs. science” idea, which, from a theists point of view could be described as “literally true bible always vs. sometimes figurative bible”. Sure, that’s a very distilled view of the difference, but I think it is accurately reflected in that statement. That (literal vs. figurative) being the topic for this discussion you atheists really only have one argument, which is “nuh uhhh” to which we would reply with our single argument “yah huhhh!” and I foresee that carrying on for, well… how long has it been already?
Let me lay my cards on the table, I’m naturally a skeptical kind of guy, some might go as far as to say cynical. As such, I lean towards observation of the universe around me revealing some kind of truth. The way I was created (I guess) is such that it baffles me that some might look around at the universe and decide no one made it. But I accede that it could be all part of the whole “grace” thing, an extension of ‘twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fear relieved’ or ‘twas grace that indoctrinated [1]my eyes to see, and grace my indoctrination made complete’. I certainly hope the word indoctrination doesn’t put anyone off this early on in the conversation (that I am having with myself).
So, on to the literal/figurative thing. A literal reading of scripture, with a bit of inference and interpretation thrown in sits us smartly with an earth that is around 6000 years old. There are evidences and arguments that literal creationists will use as final proof of how anyone that does not believe this, must be a fool. Many of these evidences and arguments are based on a rather shaky understanding of some basic physics[2]. This is not to say that literal creationists discard all science as evil, no, they are happy to use scientific principles to discredit OTHER scientific principles. The arguments are often presented in this way.
Because of basic principle A, that states such and such, hypothesis or conclusion Z cannot be true because it would violate basic principle A.
The word ‘law’ is often thrown about, which is ironic, and I hope I have sufficient presence of mind as to further elucidate on why, later. The bizarre thing with that presentation of an argument is that the same individuals that are intelligent enough to come up with basic principle A are often the very individuals that present hypothesis or conclusion Z. The critics of said conclusion (in the context of old creation vs relatively new) often leave out some important pieces of information, like, “for a given inertial reference frame” or “in an isolated system[3]”. The application of broad reaching and general science brush strokes then ensues, committing the same errors that they often accuse others of making.
This is all very well and good, but it begins to become apparent that I am pushing my own agenda here, with regard to science, rather than the topic “literal vs figurative”. So, back to that we must trot. I don’t have a problem with a literal reading of scripture in places, I think that scripture was written in the literal sense quite a lot of the time. Sometimes, however, it was not. Deciding what is literal and what is figurative introduces quite a sticky situation sometimes, but does that mean we just chuck it, because it’s too difficult to deal with? I don’t think that is the kind of faith that God calls us to at all. I know that many will present the whole, Matthew 18 childlike faith thing, but that would be out of context I believe, and an incorrect interpretation. Besides, we are exhorted to think like adults in many places in scripture.
One story that presents a problem, for me, if it were literal, is the temptation of Jesus. Where is this mountain that Jesus was taken up to be shown all the kingdoms of the earth? The earth being round and all presents a bit of a problem with this for one, eyesight for another. If this account is figurative, why not the creation account? Is the creation story not just showing us that God did indeed do it? As soon as it becomes a debate over whether it’s a literal account or not, then as soon as an individual can no longer intellectually defend a young creation for himself (objectively) it immediately invalidates Christianity. Is the purpose of scripture to teach us mathematics, science or geography? I don’t believe it is if it were, we would not have anywhere near the level of technology that we have now. That information is simply not in scripture, it was never intended to be in there. As soon as we begin to use it as a tool to prove or disprove scientific principles, from (possibly) figurative illustrations designed to highlight the work of God in relation to man we are misusing it. We are being naïve at any rate, because, if you are a Christian, you have to believe that any truth is God’s truth. Therefore we should not be afraid of truth, in any form.
We are setting up a false argument, a false conflict between science and faith. The rules and regulations of the universe set out by a law giving God cannot be in opposition to that law giver. Science as spoken by the atheist is often expressed (unintentionally?) as if it has THE ANSWER. But true science never makes that claim. I think it’s something along the lines of “we observe these things and conclude something else, we might be wrong… but because of our continued observation of result x, probably not[4]”. That stands until someone comes along and disproves it, and the thinking needs to start again. If the conclusion is that there is no God, then it is either a conclusion taken in faith… a decision to not believe, due to (from their perspective) a lack of evidence OR it is a conclusion based on the inability to reconcile a literal interpretation of the biblical creation account with what they observe to be true (their perspective).
I have steered clear of the whole idea of evolution in this post, because that just gets messy, and I don’t feel like typing my life away today. I’m focusing specifically on a creation based on a literal biblical account, compared to a creation that is old, and is described as being perpetrated by God in a figurative account. If you REALLY want a literal account, I recon genesis would be quite a bit bigger.
I don’t think that martial-ling the troops to defend a literal account of genesis and arguing until we are blue in the face is a good expenditure of resources. I don’t think Jesus called us to do this. The point is to spread the message of our hope in Christ. Again, the bible is not a scientific textbook, we should stop wielding it as such. Spending millions trying to assert the scientific point of view, instead of equipping missionaries to show people the love of Christ, or aiding those in need seems like it might be a bit of bad stewardship. However you choose to believe God created the universe, is your prerogative, but the point should always be “I believe God did it, and I believe that this is the message” which can lead into God’s love for us, and his desire for relationship, and the enabling of this relationship through the work of Christ on the cross.
This is obviously only my opinion, and I would welcome the discussion about young vs old creation. I’ve been watching some more Kent Hovind dvd’s, which prompted the percolation of these thoughts. His science is not quite… well… accurate. Perhaps the correct word I am looking for is ‘complete’. His science is often not complete. I feel that I might revise this post in the future, I am not sure how to do that at this juncture. I don’t want to back pedal, so I’m going to try to add revisions, etc. in either the comments, or as additions in bold, or something in the main body of the topic.
[1] In this context, God has enabled me to see that someone created the universe, and in completion allowed me to recognize Jesus Christ as means of creation.
[2] Conservation of angular momentum is a favourite
[3] Second law of thermodynamics is another favourite
[4] Gravitational Theory
Where’s the thumb’s up button on this junk..
Meh. If u believe the brain you have was granted to you by your deity, then u may conclude that yr deity meant for u to flex it. Your faith is yr prerogative, but don’t forget that when the measurements don’t add up, sometimes it’s the yardstick that’s out. Try it out, doesn’t make it right or wrong, but free’s u of this pointless debate if at least for a little while.
‘you atheists’… U got a fan club? Lol
I don’t get why so many believers see science as an enemy and feel they need to defend God. He’s God! He’s big enough to defend Himself if He feels the need. If He created all things as we claim, then scientific observation (true scientific observation based on fact and not mythical fairyland science which abounds in some more interesting realms) of creation will only result in us eventually finding out that…..He created it….heh…no worries! Either that, or we might find out it’s a very good fake and we’ve wasted our money!
@Edwin you have to send money. That’s the thumbs up.
@Mush I have a few atheist friends that like to present me with complicated and eloquent nuh uhh’s. In hindsight, the phrase “you atheists” might look condescending? It was not meant to be. heh.
@pevans one of the assertions I forgot to make was that as a theist, and more specifically, a christian, I have to concede the point that God COULD have created the universe (or the earth) 6000 years ago. And proceeded to make everything look old… but I have to then ask “why”. So I prefer to believe in a God that doesn’t apparently behave like a cosmic squid, jetting obscuring ink in flight from a threat. That his observable order gives evidence as to how he might have brought all this about.