Call me odd, but I love the fact that I have such a diverse group of friends that I frequently find myself in conversations with many an atheist. Recently I was having a discussion with one of these atheists and just asked some basic questions about why he's an atheist, and the response was not a huge surprise, but it made me start thinking that once again, the Christian church has failed to convey the proper message when it comes to God. He started out with what I now see as the "standard" atheist rhetoric. You've probably heard it as well... God is just a human idea, the Bible is just a bunch of man-made stories, and while Jesus had some nice ideas about being kind to one another, that was about all he was good for.
Naturally, he had not come up with this stuff all on his own. It took a combination of the Christian church and the ideas of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to turn him off. Growing up, he had listened to the stories of the Bible, about creation, the tower of Babel, etc, an as he grew older and was faced with more "logical" ideas like evolution, he had to begin disregarding the Bible as a whole. Then he read one of Mr. Dawkins' books called "The Selfish Gene" that talked about the "meme," which essentially is this idea that religious ideas are simply a genetic "mimicry" that we humans are pressured into culturally. Apparently, belief in God is merely a disease that just gets transmitted from one generation to the next. This he embraced and became an atheist.
Now we can demonize Mr. Dawkins all we want for spewing such ridiculousness out there, but really, it's not Mr. Dawkins' fault. It's our own. Why did this young man go searching for an "alternative" to the Bible in the first place? Because of how it was presented. In his mind, given what he was learning in school, the Bible seemed completely whacked and didn't deal with the reality of the scientific world.
Unfortunately, we Christians have helped create this problem. We've attempted to pit the Bible and science against each other. That these are two alternative and opposite ideas, and that if you want to go seeking scientific information, one should turn to the Bible. That there's only one way to ever read these stories, that there is only one interpretation. I obviously don't come from that background and have learned that there are always different ways to view any given Biblical text. The sad part is, many a scientist opts not to follow their own "scientific methodology" and choose to see the Bible from only the most conservative and literal of perspectives. For instance, renowned atheist and paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey, came out with a statement in a recent article regarding evolution that made the observation, "It's [evolution] not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."
The problem: Genesis was not concerned about the topic of evolution in any way, shape, or form. Hence, why Dr. Leakey is not finding the explanation he is looking for. The battle the writers of Genesis were facing had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn't on their radar and wasn't a conversation they were attempting to engage. The argument of Genesis 1 was related to the worship of God vs. other ancient near-eastern deities. These deities claimed dominion over the sun, moon, stars, light, dark, water, animals, etc. All the "stages" of creation represent the dominion of one of these gods. It's engaging the question of who is really God? Who deserves worship? The Creator behind the creation, or the creation itself? The conversation was not intended to be about whether the earth was created in a certain time frame or whether evolution was the process through which God used to create, etc. No, you won't find the dinosaurs mentioned. Why? Because it had no bearing on God's relationship to humanity. Sharks aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, either, and we know they're one of the oldest creatures that are still in existence, yet I don't think that the omission of mentioning sharks means that the Bible is trying to state sharks didn't exist back then, or that they don't exist today. But other than the fact that they can cause an early demise to a few surf-boarders and swimmers, sharks have no real bearing on the relationship between God's relationship with humans... thus they're not mentioned.
The Bible is interested in talking about how the human and the divine relate. Yes, there are observations made about the world in which the authors lived in, but physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, etc. were not its primary focus or concern. Yes, it claims some things that defy logical, scientific explanation sometimes (like the sun standing still in Joshua 10) - but then again, is that what is meant or is the Bible using hyperbole to get its point across? Is it a Hebrew poetic structure that was not intended literally? Is it a translational issue? Was it the power of God defying the laws of physics that he created and has dominion over? Did it merely mean that God gave the Israelites the time they needed to defeat their enemies? I suppose that's up to the individual interpreter/reader to decide for themselves. The point being - there are many ways in which to look at, read, understand, and interpret such passages. Yet, atheists grab hold of one perspective and one perspective only and use that to justify their stance that it's "evolution, not God."
Sadly, it's in part our own fault. How we approach these stories many times in Sunday School do not represent the stories as they actually are or approached them through different interpretations. Far too many people have grown up Christian and become atheists because the Bible simply isn't real enough to them. They've heard only one interpretation that causes the Biblical witness to become too far removed from our own reality and we've failed in many ways to make the Bible relevant.
As I've grown older and studied the Bible more, I've realized the vast majority of the stories I heard when I was a child from the Bible rarely captured the over-arching idea/theme of what was being conveyed in the story. Now granted, sometimes, the idea is a little too "adult" for our children to grasp, but maybe the story of David, rather than making him out to be this great and wonderful king, we should dirty him up a little...make him a little more "human" like he is in the Bible and make the message be about how despite how much David screwed up, God loved him anyway.
There is something real and very true about the Biblical witness. We just have not been able to convey that reality in convincing ways. Because if you actually read Mr. Dawkins' ideas, they aren't any more logical or even scientifically "provable" in any way (earth was seeded by aliens, and there's his explanation for life on earth... really?). They're simply a modern "alternative" for people who just don't think the Bible is relevant. Given the choice of the two, they turn to Mr. Dawkins.
Perhaps then it's time for Christians to start recognizing our cultural challenges - much the same way Jesus himself picked up on the culture of his day and how things were perceived and viewed - and make them more relevant. More understandable. More believable. To let the living Word of God have its way with us in today's world rather than trying to pigeon-hole it in 2000+ year old perspectives. Maybe then we'd have fewer people going elsewhere trying to find "alternatives" to the Bible, but will view the Bible as a commentary on what we learn and discover in today's world. How it informs what we learn rather than contradicts what we learn.
Naturally, he had not come up with this stuff all on his own. It took a combination of the Christian church and the ideas of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins to turn him off. Growing up, he had listened to the stories of the Bible, about creation, the tower of Babel, etc, an as he grew older and was faced with more "logical" ideas like evolution, he had to begin disregarding the Bible as a whole. Then he read one of Mr. Dawkins' books called "The Selfish Gene" that talked about the "meme," which essentially is this idea that religious ideas are simply a genetic "mimicry" that we humans are pressured into culturally. Apparently, belief in God is merely a disease that just gets transmitted from one generation to the next. This he embraced and became an atheist.
Now we can demonize Mr. Dawkins all we want for spewing such ridiculousness out there, but really, it's not Mr. Dawkins' fault. It's our own. Why did this young man go searching for an "alternative" to the Bible in the first place? Because of how it was presented. In his mind, given what he was learning in school, the Bible seemed completely whacked and didn't deal with the reality of the scientific world.
Unfortunately, we Christians have helped create this problem. We've attempted to pit the Bible and science against each other. That these are two alternative and opposite ideas, and that if you want to go seeking scientific information, one should turn to the Bible. That there's only one way to ever read these stories, that there is only one interpretation. I obviously don't come from that background and have learned that there are always different ways to view any given Biblical text. The sad part is, many a scientist opts not to follow their own "scientific methodology" and choose to see the Bible from only the most conservative and literal of perspectives. For instance, renowned atheist and paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey, came out with a statement in a recent article regarding evolution that made the observation, "It's [evolution] not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."
The problem: Genesis was not concerned about the topic of evolution in any way, shape, or form. Hence, why Dr. Leakey is not finding the explanation he is looking for. The battle the writers of Genesis were facing had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn't on their radar and wasn't a conversation they were attempting to engage. The argument of Genesis 1 was related to the worship of God vs. other ancient near-eastern deities. These deities claimed dominion over the sun, moon, stars, light, dark, water, animals, etc. All the "stages" of creation represent the dominion of one of these gods. It's engaging the question of who is really God? Who deserves worship? The Creator behind the creation, or the creation itself? The conversation was not intended to be about whether the earth was created in a certain time frame or whether evolution was the process through which God used to create, etc. No, you won't find the dinosaurs mentioned. Why? Because it had no bearing on God's relationship to humanity. Sharks aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, either, and we know they're one of the oldest creatures that are still in existence, yet I don't think that the omission of mentioning sharks means that the Bible is trying to state sharks didn't exist back then, or that they don't exist today. But other than the fact that they can cause an early demise to a few surf-boarders and swimmers, sharks have no real bearing on the relationship between God's relationship with humans... thus they're not mentioned.
The Bible is interested in talking about how the human and the divine relate. Yes, there are observations made about the world in which the authors lived in, but physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, etc. were not its primary focus or concern. Yes, it claims some things that defy logical, scientific explanation sometimes (like the sun standing still in Joshua 10) - but then again, is that what is meant or is the Bible using hyperbole to get its point across? Is it a Hebrew poetic structure that was not intended literally? Is it a translational issue? Was it the power of God defying the laws of physics that he created and has dominion over? Did it merely mean that God gave the Israelites the time they needed to defeat their enemies? I suppose that's up to the individual interpreter/reader to decide for themselves. The point being - there are many ways in which to look at, read, understand, and interpret such passages. Yet, atheists grab hold of one perspective and one perspective only and use that to justify their stance that it's "evolution, not God."
Sadly, it's in part our own fault. How we approach these stories many times in Sunday School do not represent the stories as they actually are or approached them through different interpretations. Far too many people have grown up Christian and become atheists because the Bible simply isn't real enough to them. They've heard only one interpretation that causes the Biblical witness to become too far removed from our own reality and we've failed in many ways to make the Bible relevant.
As I've grown older and studied the Bible more, I've realized the vast majority of the stories I heard when I was a child from the Bible rarely captured the over-arching idea/theme of what was being conveyed in the story. Now granted, sometimes, the idea is a little too "adult" for our children to grasp, but maybe the story of David, rather than making him out to be this great and wonderful king, we should dirty him up a little...make him a little more "human" like he is in the Bible and make the message be about how despite how much David screwed up, God loved him anyway.
There is something real and very true about the Biblical witness. We just have not been able to convey that reality in convincing ways. Because if you actually read Mr. Dawkins' ideas, they aren't any more logical or even scientifically "provable" in any way (earth was seeded by aliens, and there's his explanation for life on earth... really?). They're simply a modern "alternative" for people who just don't think the Bible is relevant. Given the choice of the two, they turn to Mr. Dawkins.
Perhaps then it's time for Christians to start recognizing our cultural challenges - much the same way Jesus himself picked up on the culture of his day and how things were perceived and viewed - and make them more relevant. More understandable. More believable. To let the living Word of God have its way with us in today's world rather than trying to pigeon-hole it in 2000+ year old perspectives. Maybe then we'd have fewer people going elsewhere trying to find "alternatives" to the Bible, but will view the Bible as a commentary on what we learn and discover in today's world. How it informs what we learn rather than contradicts what we learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment