I also had the interesting experience of reading one of Ken Ham’s books for my paper. It was the second book I read (the first being written from an intelligent design perspective, and thus slightly more accepting of some aspects of evolution), and while I wasn’t surprised, I was admittedly shocked at the glaring evidence of such a narrow and judgmental worldview in action.
Much of Ham’s and other creationists’ opposition to evolution logically stems from their belief in the infallibility of God’s word. Their extreme level of self-righteousness and judgment of others flows from their commitment to one sole truth, the so-called “Word of God,” that is consistent from Genesis through the New Testament. Without this biblical foundation, they insist, all other Christian belief is selective, inconsistent, and therefore meaningless.
Camryn already did a good job explaining what a Biblical literalist is, so I will pose a further question. As an agnostic, this is something that has often perplexed me, and a question that kept surfacing as I read into Ham’s comparison of literal biblical truth vs. interpretation. It is helpful to first summarize his argument as follows: a literal interpretation of the Bible from Genesis onward is the only way to know truth; an evolutionary way of thinking is the cause of many current social ills; because many Christians have compromised on evolutionary theory, this has undermined the Church from within, making it increasingly difficult to preach the gospel in modern society.
I’d like to make the point that, although I personally question just about every argument he makes, there is no doubt that some of Ham's premises make logical sense within the confines of religion as a set of strict beliefs. I may be playing devil’s advocate, but I’ve always been interested to know how exactly Christians reconcile interpretations of the Bible. Furthermore, how does evolutionary theory fit this worldview? What does this, as Ham refers to it, “compromise” actually entail?
The reason I am fascinated by this question is the following: Even if we were to define the Biblical account of creation as merely a parable, we would have to admit that it does provide a solid basis for the concept of sin, the Fall of humanity through Adam’s rebellion, and the subsequent curse followed by death, disease and suffering. It wouldn’t be false to claim that this account of creation provides the solid basis upon which major, overarching concepts of Christianity stand. In this sense, Ham is correct—the belief that Jesus died on the cross for humanity’s sins, as well as Jesus’ very authority as savior, all derive their significance from the Genesis account of original sin.
Ham is incredibly critical of those who compromise their religious beliefs with evolutionary theory, as well as those who selectively interpret the Bible. While I believe it’s incredibly important to be progressive in religious belief, and highly respect those who are, I could never escape the tendency to ask myself, what is the worth of any belief system if its adherents are free to cherry-pick particular sections to follow and others to regard as metaphors or parables? This presents a conundrum: my instinct is to find this incredibly hypocritical, although simultaneously I value these people’s open-mindedness to new ideas and embrace of scientific thought. As I have never had to reconcile belief in evolutionary theory with a pre-existing religious foundation, I have absolutely no sense of what this requires, which is why I am hoping to hear from those of you who have maybe grappled with this issue, and have more of a religious background than I do.
This is something I personally have struggled with since my first holy communion as a second grader. It is hard to pick which facts you want to believe and which ones you don’t if you believe that the Bible is unfaultable and if you believe those who lead the church speak the word of God. There is one belief that I hold above all others and after that everything else falls into place. That one belief is that God is all-powerful and extremely complex, so complex that humans are not meant/are incapable of understanding his logic and works. We are not God and therefore cannot know what God is thinking.
ReplyDeleteSince I believe God is all-powerful I believe that God created the world. Do I understand how he did that? No. Do I believe that the current evidence supports Evolution? Yes. Do I believe that God could have formed the Earth through the stages Evolution theory has explained and observed? Yes. Just because it doesn’t make sense to us doesn’t mean it is not true.
We are taught to trust God completely and so I trust him to have presented us with the knowledge and the skill to try and understand him the best that we can. I believe that understanding comes from Evolution theory because that is what the physically earth God gave us is showing us.
I also trust God to have given me a conscience to live the way I see best. All the leaders in the church are human, and as I stated before they are not God, they do not understand all God’s plans or thoughts. They, like me, are only guessing and trying to live correctly. So I trust God to have given me a conscience and a mind that allows me to live correctly, sometimes that goes against what the “church” created and run by non-perfect humans says, but at the end of the day the only person I am required to answer to is God and I believe he has given me the tools both mentally and morally to face him when I die with a clear conscience having lived a good life.
I hope that answers your questions a bit. Feel free to ask any follow-ups.
It would be great if more people approached religion in this way. It’s so much more open-minded, personal, and truly dedicated to a relationship with God. Obviously, you’ve actually thought about your approach to your faith, which involves the necessary process of reasoning and growth. Instead of letting your faith define you, you are in essence making your faith conform to your lifestyle and ideas about God. This kind of outlook on religion is what allows a person to accept modern scientific advances such as evolution, without compromising their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI won’t deny that religion often provides a good foundation for the formation of morality, although I think this is entirely possible without religion as well. Given that there are many people who lead lives in which they reconcile religion and science, while maintaining an independent sense of morality, makes me less and less convinced of the necessity of organized religion. Also, I think one of the most valid points you make is that all those who claim to know and preach the word of God are just human and don’t have any special insights or advantage over the rest of the world. Even those who study and preach religion often have major doubts about the best interpretations, and this is the starting point of my question. I realize how extreme it sounds to say that treating any religious text selectively is hypocrisy, and that people should either believe it or not. If the reality is that most people feel the need to subscribe to some form of religious belief (and this is especially true in our society), then having doubts and attempting to reason through them is a much higher level treatment of faith than simply claiming absolute knowledge.