An Intense Self Discussion
While doing the dishes I had a pretty in-depth discussion with myself (inside my head of course) that brought me to some interesting levels of understanding. Lately I've been doing lots of reading and arguing about global warming, which I won't argue here, but I realized some key things. Namely this: science is not religion, religion is not science, and politics don't belong in either of the two.
First off, I'm a "young earth" creationist. What that means is that I believe in creation by God, rather than evolution. There are two commonly accepted beliefs these days, which are both evolution, one the so-called theistic evolution, or the "science and religion can coexist," and then just plain evolution, or "chaotic systems are cooler than God." For the latter, it's just another good reason to take God out of the picture entirely. Fine, if that floats your boat. I can't force anyone to any kind of religious beliefs. The former, though, is a cop out. It's a compromise. The point of religion is not to take what you like and leave what you don't. That's not really faith. Christianity is a package deal. You can't just pick and choose things to believe. This is a distinct difference, mind you, from the interpretation of the Bible. So many people cling to the idea that the Bible can't be understood. Granted, some of it is more difficult to understand, but let me establish exactly what the Bible is: a history book. That's it. Now tell me, when you read a history book, do you expect to find the use of metaphors to describe events? Of course not. The point of history books is to give facts. A history book is designed to tell a story; that is, an unembellished, untampered story, grounded in fact. And there, folks, is what the Bible is: the ultimate history book.
Don't get me wrong, the Bible is full of metaphors and imagery and other such devices that add more meaning to what would otherwise be a list of bullet points. This is where it becomes important to establish where the Bible is metaphorical and where it isn't. I'm sure I'm not the first one to realize this, but I realized it, like an epiphany. The literal parts are the parts that tell a story. Everything that is part of the history that fills the Bible is given straight to us. The parts that are metaphorical are the prophecies and the advice sections. The parables, visions, dreams, and proverbs are metaphorical, but don't confuse them with the historical texts. Interpretations of prophecies and such becomes a separate issue, but that's along a different line than the one I want to travel.
My main point (which actually leads to my mainer point) in all of this is: Genesis is one of the history books in the Bible. Once again, I can't force anyone to any sort of faith, but if you're going to profess belief in the Bible, at least believe in what it really is. The first chapter of Genesis is a list that effectively says "God did this. Then God did this. Then God said this..." and so on. That is fact, at least in terms of the faith. As a follower of this faith, I accept it as universal truth. Anyone who does not follow this faith can disagree that it's universal truth, but they can't argue that within the context of the religion, it's simply and undeniably true. There is nothing to be interpreted about Genesis, nothing to be understood, any more than there is to be understood about 2+2=4.
And here is the mainer point. As Genesis is history, everything that is written there should be treated as fact. Let me remind you, the Bible is written by humans. The "seven days may actually be thousands or millions of years, because God is outside of time" argument doesn't work. If the Bible were written by God, maybe you could say that. It's not. The Bible is written by humans. It's inspired by God, yes, but the hands that physically wrote the Bible were those of men. Divine inspiration really has nothing to do with the ultimate interpretation of the text. God said what to write down, and said it in terms that humans would understand. Tell me: would it make any sense at all for God to tell humans to write a book designed to be read by humans that was written in God's terms? Think about it; it really doesn't make any sense at all. Therefore I conclude that the seven day creation is absolute truth, and should be for anyone who professes faith in God. And that's why I say "theistic evolution" is a compromise. Compromising on faith is never a good thing.
"Theistic evolution" gives God the back seat to the physical laws of nature. Think about it: God causes, say, the Big Bang, and establishes fundamental laws of nature. From there, he just sits back and enjoys the show while life "evolves." God leaves the earth alone...until man "evolves," at which point it becomes hands on again. Tell me why that makes any sense.
Here's the deal: God creates the universe, the laws of physics, the earth, all life as we know it, and finally humans. Humans are the peak of creation, the final point. That's why creation ended there. It was all done. God created beings capable of appreciating Him of their own free will, and that's all there was to do. Well, one of the major important points of all this is that God is behind science. God is behind physical laws and the organization of life. Evolution and God effectively cancel each other out. In the case of evolution, God becomes pointless. In the case of God, evolution makes no sense, as I've spent time pointing out.
Let me point out a formal logical flaw in the "theory" of evolution: All life forms are fundamentally similar implies they evolved from a common ancestor. Let me take this in terms of a p-->q statement. All life forms are fundamentally similar: p. All life forms evolved from a common ancestor: q. The only case in which a p-->q statement is false is if it takes the form T-->F, in other words the premise is true, but the conclusion is false. That statement becomes false when: All life forms have are fundamentally similar implies they did not evolve from a common ancestor. The problem is that all life forms evolving from a common ancestor is only one possible explanation for fundamental similarities. They may have fundamental similarities because they were created that way (think: progression of complexity; for instance, all cars are fundamentally similar, but that doesn't mean for instance that they evolved from bicycles. Man creates bicycles, and progresses upwards in complexity to cars, airplanes, space shuttles, etc.), in which case fundamental similarities doesn't imply evolution. In other words, you can't go from general to specific. The statement "All life forms evolved from a common ancestor, therefore they are fundamentally similar" is logically sound, because the premise can never be true while the conclusion is false.
I didn't come here to debate evolution originally, so I've gone off on sort of a tangent. What I want to establish is that, very similar to the "science" of today, religion (from my point of view, Christianity) is politicized to a ridiculous point. Neither should be politicized at all. Politics is about selling people on an issue, because opinions vary so widely. Science is about facts. It shouldn't be necessary to convince people of science based on a consensus. Religion is about faith, and needs to be taken in much the same way science is: things are because they are, period. 2+2=4. End of story. My self discussion tread briefly through the realm of separation of church and state, because that's a fine example of a clever political twist on religion, specifically Christianity. The idea behind what Thomas Jefferson was referring to was preventing the a national church; that is, preventing a religious body that had political tangibility. The church as an organization should have no direct influence on the political process. Don't, however, mistake that for personal faith. Banning God from the political arena and banning the church from the political arena are two grossly different things. The kind of entity that the Catholic church became during the previous thousand years was exactly what Jefferson sought to avoid. That does not by any means imply that our government was not founded on top of Christianity. Separating church and state doesn't mean eliminating any shred of the Christian faith from public schools, courts, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of God and state. We need to be clear on that.
I guess the whole point of this rant is this: keep your science, politics, and religion straight. Science does not determine God; God determines science. Politics belong in the legal process only. Politics involve manipulation, and we don't need that cluttering up the straight facts of science and the straight faith of any religion.
That's about all I've got for now. I would just like you to realize that I came to all of these conclusions through strings of logic, in my own head, all my own ideas. Try thinking through from point A to point B some time. It's really enlightening.
The End
First off, I'm a "young earth" creationist. What that means is that I believe in creation by God, rather than evolution. There are two commonly accepted beliefs these days, which are both evolution, one the so-called theistic evolution, or the "science and religion can coexist," and then just plain evolution, or "chaotic systems are cooler than God." For the latter, it's just another good reason to take God out of the picture entirely. Fine, if that floats your boat. I can't force anyone to any kind of religious beliefs. The former, though, is a cop out. It's a compromise. The point of religion is not to take what you like and leave what you don't. That's not really faith. Christianity is a package deal. You can't just pick and choose things to believe. This is a distinct difference, mind you, from the interpretation of the Bible. So many people cling to the idea that the Bible can't be understood. Granted, some of it is more difficult to understand, but let me establish exactly what the Bible is: a history book. That's it. Now tell me, when you read a history book, do you expect to find the use of metaphors to describe events? Of course not. The point of history books is to give facts. A history book is designed to tell a story; that is, an unembellished, untampered story, grounded in fact. And there, folks, is what the Bible is: the ultimate history book.
Don't get me wrong, the Bible is full of metaphors and imagery and other such devices that add more meaning to what would otherwise be a list of bullet points. This is where it becomes important to establish where the Bible is metaphorical and where it isn't. I'm sure I'm not the first one to realize this, but I realized it, like an epiphany. The literal parts are the parts that tell a story. Everything that is part of the history that fills the Bible is given straight to us. The parts that are metaphorical are the prophecies and the advice sections. The parables, visions, dreams, and proverbs are metaphorical, but don't confuse them with the historical texts. Interpretations of prophecies and such becomes a separate issue, but that's along a different line than the one I want to travel.
My main point (which actually leads to my mainer point) in all of this is: Genesis is one of the history books in the Bible. Once again, I can't force anyone to any sort of faith, but if you're going to profess belief in the Bible, at least believe in what it really is. The first chapter of Genesis is a list that effectively says "God did this. Then God did this. Then God said this..." and so on. That is fact, at least in terms of the faith. As a follower of this faith, I accept it as universal truth. Anyone who does not follow this faith can disagree that it's universal truth, but they can't argue that within the context of the religion, it's simply and undeniably true. There is nothing to be interpreted about Genesis, nothing to be understood, any more than there is to be understood about 2+2=4.
And here is the mainer point. As Genesis is history, everything that is written there should be treated as fact. Let me remind you, the Bible is written by humans. The "seven days may actually be thousands or millions of years, because God is outside of time" argument doesn't work. If the Bible were written by God, maybe you could say that. It's not. The Bible is written by humans. It's inspired by God, yes, but the hands that physically wrote the Bible were those of men. Divine inspiration really has nothing to do with the ultimate interpretation of the text. God said what to write down, and said it in terms that humans would understand. Tell me: would it make any sense at all for God to tell humans to write a book designed to be read by humans that was written in God's terms? Think about it; it really doesn't make any sense at all. Therefore I conclude that the seven day creation is absolute truth, and should be for anyone who professes faith in God. And that's why I say "theistic evolution" is a compromise. Compromising on faith is never a good thing.
"Theistic evolution" gives God the back seat to the physical laws of nature. Think about it: God causes, say, the Big Bang, and establishes fundamental laws of nature. From there, he just sits back and enjoys the show while life "evolves." God leaves the earth alone...until man "evolves," at which point it becomes hands on again. Tell me why that makes any sense.
Here's the deal: God creates the universe, the laws of physics, the earth, all life as we know it, and finally humans. Humans are the peak of creation, the final point. That's why creation ended there. It was all done. God created beings capable of appreciating Him of their own free will, and that's all there was to do. Well, one of the major important points of all this is that God is behind science. God is behind physical laws and the organization of life. Evolution and God effectively cancel each other out. In the case of evolution, God becomes pointless. In the case of God, evolution makes no sense, as I've spent time pointing out.
Let me point out a formal logical flaw in the "theory" of evolution: All life forms are fundamentally similar implies they evolved from a common ancestor. Let me take this in terms of a p-->q statement. All life forms are fundamentally similar: p. All life forms evolved from a common ancestor: q. The only case in which a p-->q statement is false is if it takes the form T-->F, in other words the premise is true, but the conclusion is false. That statement becomes false when: All life forms have are fundamentally similar implies they did not evolve from a common ancestor. The problem is that all life forms evolving from a common ancestor is only one possible explanation for fundamental similarities. They may have fundamental similarities because they were created that way (think: progression of complexity; for instance, all cars are fundamentally similar, but that doesn't mean for instance that they evolved from bicycles. Man creates bicycles, and progresses upwards in complexity to cars, airplanes, space shuttles, etc.), in which case fundamental similarities doesn't imply evolution. In other words, you can't go from general to specific. The statement "All life forms evolved from a common ancestor, therefore they are fundamentally similar" is logically sound, because the premise can never be true while the conclusion is false.
I didn't come here to debate evolution originally, so I've gone off on sort of a tangent. What I want to establish is that, very similar to the "science" of today, religion (from my point of view, Christianity) is politicized to a ridiculous point. Neither should be politicized at all. Politics is about selling people on an issue, because opinions vary so widely. Science is about facts. It shouldn't be necessary to convince people of science based on a consensus. Religion is about faith, and needs to be taken in much the same way science is: things are because they are, period. 2+2=4. End of story. My self discussion tread briefly through the realm of separation of church and state, because that's a fine example of a clever political twist on religion, specifically Christianity. The idea behind what Thomas Jefferson was referring to was preventing the a national church; that is, preventing a religious body that had political tangibility. The church as an organization should have no direct influence on the political process. Don't, however, mistake that for personal faith. Banning God from the political arena and banning the church from the political arena are two grossly different things. The kind of entity that the Catholic church became during the previous thousand years was exactly what Jefferson sought to avoid. That does not by any means imply that our government was not founded on top of Christianity. Separating church and state doesn't mean eliminating any shred of the Christian faith from public schools, courts, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Separation of church and state does NOT mean separation of God and state. We need to be clear on that.
I guess the whole point of this rant is this: keep your science, politics, and religion straight. Science does not determine God; God determines science. Politics belong in the legal process only. Politics involve manipulation, and we don't need that cluttering up the straight facts of science and the straight faith of any religion.
That's about all I've got for now. I would just like you to realize that I came to all of these conclusions through strings of logic, in my own head, all my own ideas. Try thinking through from point A to point B some time. It's really enlightening.
The End
posted by The Chris at 9:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home