Tonight I happened to come across a blog on myspace written by somebody called "God is Imaginary." You can probably find this blog if you look. Myspace has a top 10 most viewed blogs today list, and this one is at the very top. It's called "10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Should Answer." I looked it over and most of the questions can actually be answered easily, because this person apparently has a pretty narrow take on life. After reading over the blog I dismissed it and moved on to do something else, but I couldn't get it out of my head. It struck a chord with me and there's no Braves game on tonight so I decided I would jump in on the discussion.
God can defend himself. He's God, I have no doubt of that. But I feel like defending him like someone would defend a friend of family member. It's not because I want to argue over lofty and philosophical ideas, but because I love God and I hate to see Jesus attacked like that.
I don't have the time to go after all 10 questions so I'm just going to focus on one right now. It would be number 4 on the list and this is what it says:
"Question 4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? You have a college degree, so you know what I’m talking about. You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: your car, your cell phone, your microwave oven, your TV, your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives."
I don't actually have a degree, but I'm going to at least try to answer this question.
I don't think that the Bible is an anti-scientific book. This person cites a few stories in the Bible, mostly in the book of Genesis: creation of the world and of Adam, the flood, and Jonah and the whale (not in Genesis). These stories do contradict modern scientific knowledge, which suggests the world is billions of years old. I actually agree with that. I mean I'm no expert on science and the methods and techniques they use to come to these conclusions, but it's a widely accepted idea in the scientific community. I'm fine with that because it doesn't destroy my faith to know that the world was not created in 7 days and is only 6,000 years old.
But it does create a problem, because the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. The way that many Christians respond to this question is to either stop believing what the Bible says or try to discredit the scientific knowledge that contradicts it. And so therefore you get the Creation vs. Evolution argument and we say it has to be one or the other. But I ask this: can it not be both? Isn't it possible that the Big Bang theory is a look into how God spoke this world into existence? And even if evolution has taken place, does that necessarily mean that God didn't create the world?
Another thing that Christians have to deal with in interpreting the creation account is this: God didn't separate day from night until the 4th day. So how could the basis for which we determine how much time is in a day not exist until 4 days into time?
I think the reason that we have so much trouble with these questions is because we make the mistake of interpreting Genesis, and the Bible, as a science book. If you disagree with everything I've said so far, I don't think you can disagree with the fact that Bill Nye the Science Guy did not write the Bible. God wrote the Bible. And when you reduce it to simply a science book then you will miss out on a lot of truth and meaning in it that is communicated a different way.
It is commonly believed that Moses, divinely inspired by God, wrote the book of Genesis. In the first chapter, the literary style he uses is actually poetry. Now I don't know about anybody else, but I have never seen anybody try to explain any kind of scientific idea by writing a poem. Poetry is a very artistic, creative, right-brained form of expression. You write poetry to express how you feel, not necessarily to make a logical, rational argument.
Think about it this way. Let's say you're enrolled in a biology class. Your teacher tells you to study a certain chapter in your science book, and this chapter is about cell division. So you go home and open up your book to learn about cell division and when you turn to the right page, all you see is a bunch of poems about cell division and maybe a picture or two. And you read these poems and they just talk about how the cell splits and the one changes into two and whatever else happens during cell division. How odd would that be?
You never see poetry used to communicate scientific ideas. So why did Moses use poetry to express the creation of the entire universe? I think it's because Moses was not communicating how we are here, but why we are here. This is something that science cannot explain. Science cannot tell you why you're here. In fact science says that what people are actually doing in life is trying to survive and produce offspring, that we have all these survival mechanisms that will help ensure our species will continue on through the years. That's it. It doesn't explain why we exist. And if the only things in life that are true are scientific then life has no meaning at all. There is no reason for us to be here.
The Bible does explain why we are here. The account of creation says that this ultimate being, God, created a world and created people to be in a love relationship with Him. In doing this, he also provided a way out. Because it's not love if you don't choose it. It wouldn't be love if God forced us to love him. So he provided a way out, and we took it. We walked away from God. And just like a flower will die without sunlight, we will die without God. That's how we were made. We walked away from the very thing that gave us life. And we died. But like a good and true lover does, God came back for us and he gave us a chance to be redeemed. So instead of dying without God's love, we can return to the relationship we were created for.
Yeah, the world may be a little older than 6,000 years. And no, maybe God didn't create the world in 7 days. Maybe it did take a while for us humans to come along. But does that change the message of the Bible? No. Does that mean that the Bible isn't true? No, because Moses wasn't communicating how the world was made, but why.
So why do we tend to look at the Bible in such a logical and scientific way? Well, people didn't always see it that way. This view has only been around for a thousand years or so. It actually goes back to the enlightenment, which is called "the age of reason." This is the period of time that gave rise to science, and the way that we came to "truth" changed. In this period of time, truth became something that was tested, rational, and logical. So God went out the window. Because you can't use logic and reason to explain the being who created logic and reason. We can't fit Him inside our heads, much less a mathematic formula.
So the church, instead of attacking the meaning of truth, actually conformed to the pattern that culture was taking, and started to present their faith in this sort of way. Spirituality became a formulaic practice, and a lot of the poetic, artistic; and relational emphasis was lost.
Science is definitely an important part of life these days. It's extremely important because it helps us learn more about the world we live in and how we can use it to do things like cure illnesses and improve the quality of life. But science is limited, because it can only explain what fits into our little box of knowledge and understanding. Anything outside of this box will never be explained, and will always be outside of science.
God speaks to our minds but he also speaks to our hearts. And in offering Himself to us, He is not offering an explanation into every aspect of life--a logical and mathematical formula into making life work. Rather, God offers us love. Love like how a husband loves his wife and a father loves his children. To reduce all of His acts and all of His love to scientific explanation would be to narrow it all down. And life is a lot larger and more complicated than we can explain. We can't fit it all into our heads, but we can feel it with our hearts.
So don't assume that just because God doesn't fit into science that He doesn't exist. We don't have to constantly be at war with this subject because it seems to contradict us. There are a lot of things in science that help me believe in God. I think that "God is Imaginary" assumes that the Bible is anti-scientific because a lot of Christians are that way. I respectfully believe "God is Imaginary" is wrong about that.
Some recommended reading on this subject:
Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
...oh yeah, and the Bible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
So now that I've disagreed with one of your blogs, its time to agree. :)
I think your right, the Bible isn't always meant to be taken literally. Like poetry, it's meant to be read metaphorically and in taken in its context. I think that the Bible was purposely not written as a science book. If it was, then where would faith come in? If everything was proven to us by facts, then we would have no reason to live.
anyway, nice blog!
~*ELizabeth
Hi Matt,
This is Elizabeth’s Dad. I happened onto your blog while looking at hers. I hope you don’t mind my commenting.
I have to take issue with a few of the things you say or imply here. I actually agree wholeheartedly with you that the Bible is not to be read as a science book, or, for that matter as a newspaper, or as any standard modern western non-fiction work would be read. The Bible is the God-breathed infallible word.
One problem we have is that in our time, we are used to reading and writing things in a very straightforward, ‘wooden’ literalistic fashion. The Bible is not written this way, nor is it intended to be read this way. We don’t simply get a recitation of scientific facts. We get a heavily literary interpretation of God, man, sin, redemption, love, anger, history, judgement, reward, etc. The literary devices (not simply poetry, but many others) employed by the biblical writers (inspired by God) are too numerous and too complex to even touch on here, so I won’t. But we agree that the Bible is not a modern prose handbook for science or anything else.
HOWEVER, the Bible is, or at least should be, our standard, our one and only infallible standard, for all areas of life, including scientific knowledge. Therefore, the Bible can and does provide us with knowledge that is actually scientific. And scripture provides the only basis for any scientific knowledge.
What it seems to me that you are saying here is this: “The Bible tells us ‘A’. Science Tells us ‘B’ How do we handle this? Well, obviously since all of the scientist agree with ‘B’ it must be right. Therefore, the Bible must be rejected. But, wait, we can’t reject the Bible because it is God’s word. Therefore, we say, ‘Well, the Bible really does not teach 'A', it simply tells us something else in poetic terms that seem to contradict modern science.’”
But where does this line of reasoning end? Just with the creation account? The Bible indicates quite clearly that God created the world in six (not seven) days and seems to indicate that this occurred only a relatively few thousand years ago. Modern science says no, the world came about through some long series of occurences over billions of years. So we go with science and explain away the Bible saying it is simply poetic in this passage?
Well, the Bible also teaches that a worldwide flood occurred a few thousand years ago and some dude built a boat and took aboard a bunch of animals. Obviously this contradicts science so it must be poetic.
That old book also tells such silly stories as those involving talking serpants, ninety year old women having babies, burning bushes, parting seas, talking donkeys, floating axe-heads, a dude killing hundreds with a jawbone of an ass, nine-foot tall men, and on and on. These obviously contradict modern science. So, what do we do with them? Do we reject the Bible? Of course not. But is it not dangerous to just accept fully the modern Godlless, naturalistic scientific assumptions as absolutely true and inerrant, then adjust our biblical notions to say that we must assume the Bible really does not mean these things to be taken literally, but poetically or symbolically or something?
The issue is this: is your standard of truth the teaching of the Bible or the teachings of modern science? Which do you adjust to fit which?
My answer is this: IF the Bible actually teaches six day recent creation then it is absolutely true and conversely modern “science” is mistaken. If the Bible actually does not teach recent six day creation, then modern science might possibly be going in the right direction.
Many a Christian, and I mean real, faithful, God-fearing, “conservative”, Bible believing Christians have come up with all kinds of theories (basically variations of the ‘poetry’ idea) to say that the Bible does not actually “teach” recent six day creation. I think these are all easily dealt with. I would recommend a book to you called “Creation in Six Days” by James B. Jordan. Mr. Jordan is absolutely one of the finest teachers of scripture on the planet today. His book does not at all deal with “creation vs evolution”, but deals with the historic faith in the accuracy of the Genesis account vs modern attempts by well meaning believers to meld the relevant scriptural passages with modern science. I think his conclusion is airtight: The Bible teaches recent six day creation. If the Bible actually teaches that, then we have no right or reason to ignore it and accept modern naturalistic explanations.
Yes, I believe in all those “unscientific” Bible stories. I believe Noah and the Ark; I believe Sarai conceived; I believe in talking donkeys and floating axeheads, parting seas, burning bushes, nine-foot tall men, and on and on. Oh, and I believe another very unscientific story recorded in scripture:
There was this dead guy who rose again!
It just does not get more unscientific than that, does it?
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for reading and thanks for the comment as well. I absolutely agree with you in saying that the Bible is not written in one particular way all the way through. There is poetry, history, prophecy, letters, etc.
I think I may have given you the impression that I actually think that every time science and the Bible seem to contradict, I tend to side with science. But this is not true of me. I think that there are definitely times when science can be flawed, and flat out wrong at times. And we know that when scientists come up with theories of evolution and the origin of our universe, that they are only theories and not proven facts. History shows that theories are often changed as more information is uncovered on the subject and things that even scientists used to believe were proven false.
That being said, I do give credit to the scientific community as being a legitimate source of knowledge even on things that at a glance seem to contradict the Bible. Scientists are out there researching, testing, observing, and doing a lot of other things to try to understand our world. And in doing so, they are criticizing and testing all sorts of theories -- throwing out some and accepting others. I don’t have to accept everything they say but, as a reasonable individual, I cannot just reject it all either.
Personally, there are a lot of scientific things I have heard that, instead of tempting me to deny God, actually help me believe in Him more and more. For instance, the fact that if the planet earth were just a little farther out or a little closer to the sun, then there would be no human life at all. The massive size of the universe teaches me just how infinite and big God is. The human body in so many ways teaches me how I am made in His image; and when I think about all the details of it, I can’t say that this thing called life randomly happened on its own.
I’m also not saying that all of the Bible must be taken metaphorically, or as one would read a poem. You know, I believe that Goliath was every bit as tall as the Bible says he was, and I believe that David killed him and cut off his head. I have no problem believing that literally happened. I believe that Jesus walked on water. I believe that Samson was really strong when he had hair and just a normal man when he didn’t have any. I’m not necessarily denying the miraculous and unbelievable, but I am saying you can’t take everything literally either. Jesus said that no one has life in them unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood. Paul also said that he died daily. Most Christians take neither of these passages literally.
I am no expert on the creation vs. evolution argument and I’m not going to pretend to be. I know there are groups of scientists that set out to scientifically prove creation, the flood, and other things in the Bible. I actually heard they were making a museum on creationism in Tennessee or somewhere and I’m fine with that. I may even visit it someday. But based on my humble and limited knowledge I don’t believe the world was created in 6 days, and by no means do I believe that attacks the “truth” of the Bible. Not believing in a literal creation story changes absolutely nothing about how I live out my Christian life following Jesus or how I relate with God and others. And if it did affect those things in the wrong way, that’s when I think this argument would matter.
It means a lot that you would take the time to read and to respond, so thanks again.
Post a Comment