Choosing to Believe

In my previous post, I talked about belief, and how our actions reveal what we truly believe.  One question that was left unanswered, however, is one posed by Richard Dawkins, among others:

Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy.  At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will.  I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them.  But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't.  Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God.  And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'd see through the deception. [The God Delusion, p.104]

Dawkins makes a good point, one that  I struggled with it for a long time.  I didn't believe, and I knew it.  I really wanted to believe, but couldn't.  What advice would you give someone in this situation?  

For some, the issue really is that they don't want to believe.  For Dawkins, I suspect that he poses the question not out of a genuine desire to believe, but to simply point out that it is truly ridiculous to ask someone to "just believe".  He's right.  We can't just decide to change our beliefs. 

Like my last post, Dallas Willard's book, Renovation of the Heart can shed some light on this (at least it did for me).  Willard agrees with Dawkins:

We do not choose to believe (or not).  Our beliefs and feelings cannot be changed by choice.  We cannot just choose to have different beliefs and feelings...

But Willard continues:

 ...but we do have some liberty to take in different ideas and think about things in different ways. We can choose to take in the Word of God and when we do that beliefs and feelings will be steadily pulled in a Godly direction.

So if Dallas Willard is correct, (and I think he is) then we are not able, in the current moment, to change our beliefs by simply choosing to do so.  But this does not mean that belief is completely out of our control.  Our choices today can (and do) influence the things we believe tomorrow.  So if we choose to read and absorb the Bible and think in ways that will, over time, cause our beliefs to change.

Dawkins was correct when he wrote that:

I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed...

True, he could decide to do that.  But he doesn't.  And of course, he doesn't believe.  I'm not saying that going to church or reciting a creed will help someone believe in God.  I am only saying (mostly from experience) that if one decides that he is going to live like God exists, his life will include things like going to church and reading the Bible.  And these activities, sincerely pursued, will slowly change his beliefs.

So we are responsible for our beliefs, but not in a direct way.  This has great implications for how we present the Gospel.  In Willards words:

One of the worst mistakes that can be made in practical ministry is to think that people can choose to believe and can feel differently.  Following that, we will mistakenly try to generate faith by going through the will, possibly trying to move the will by playing on emotion.  Rather, the will must be moved by insight into truth and reality.  Such insight will evoke emotion, appropriate to a new set of the will.  That is the order of real inward change.

My pastor frequently says things like: 

You're too busy to read your Bible? Well, you see, we make time for the things that are important to us.  So make time to read your Bible.

Is it just me, or does that not make sense at all?  How does that change whether I find it important to read my Bible?  And if what he says is true, I will not begin to read my Bible until I find it relevant to my life.  My will can do nothing (over the long run) to change my habits.  My Bible reading will come through a change in my inner character, which will in turn change my priorities.

 In the same way, no amount of willpower will enable me to believe something that I do not see adequate evidence for.  True belief will come through experience of the truth of God's existence.

Believe? Sounds pretty simple...

When I was dealing with the whole atheism thing, one of the things that always bugged me was the concept of belief.  We're always told (and we tell others) that we just need to "believe in Jesus" and we will inherit eternal life.  In the words of D.L. Moody:

Have faith in God! Take Him at His word! Believe what He says!

Is it really that simple?  What if someone really doesn't believe?  Richard Dawkins makes this point by asking the question: 

What if I don't believe? How can I just start believing something that I don't believe? Does God want a bunch of fakers?”  [a paraphrase from The God Delusion]

 Stephen Weinberg, in Dreams of a Final Theory says the same thing, but much more eloquently:

The decision to believe or not is not entirely in our hands. I might be happier if I thought I were descended from the emperors of China, but no effort of will on my part can make me believe it, any more than I can will my heart to stop beating.

So is belief something we have control over, or are we at it's mercy?  Does our will have any control over our beliefs, or are our beliefs completely inaccessible to us, as Dawkins would have us believe?

And what is faith?  Is that the same as belief? Can you have faith and not belief?  Belief and not faith? 

A second aspect to this problem is less semantic and more theological.  Ever since I started reading my Bible seriously, I have been struck by the differences between Jesus and Paul - Especially when they start talking about salvation.  Paul, of course, says over and over again that faith (or belief) alone is what saves us whereas Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that we will be judged based on how we lived our lives. Now, neither Jesus or Paul are completely on one end of the spectrum, and this disparity is not new; it is one of the main causes of the Protestant-Catholic divide.  But I am continually shocked by the efforts my fellow Christians will make to neuter Jesus' words in an effort to reconcile them with Paul's statements on salvation.  

I read something recently that helps make sense of all this.  In his book, Renovation of the Heart, Dallas Willard discusses what it means for a Christian to "believe":

Gandhi, who had looked closely at Christianity as practiced around him in Great Britain, remarked that if only Christians would live according to their belief in the teachings of Jesus, "we all would become Christians."  We know what he meant, and he was right in that.  But the dismaying truth is that the Christians were living according to their "belief" in the teachings of Jesus.  They didn't believe them!

Moreover, knowing the "right answers" - knowing which ones they are, being able to identify them - does not mean we believe them. To believe them, like believing anything else, means that we are set to act as if they (the right answers) are true and that we will do so in appropriate circumstances.  And acting as if the right answers are true means, in turn, that we intend to obey the example and teachings of Jesus the Anointed.  What else would we intend if we believed he is who his people through the ages have declared him to be?

Perhaps the hardest thing for sincere Christians to come to grips with is the level of real unbelief in their own life:  The unformulated skepticism about Jesus that permeates all dimensions of their being and undermines what efforts they do make toward Christlikeness.

The idea that you can trust Christ and not intend to obey him is an illusion generated by the prevalence of an unbelieving "Christian culture."  In fact, you can no more trust Jesus and not intend to obey him than you could trust you doctor and your auto mechanic and not intend to follow their advice.  If you don't intend to follow their advice, you simply don't trust them.  Period.  (Of course in this case you might well have good reason.)

  

I find that this helps greatly with the questions I pose above.  What is belief?  Belief is that which we are set to act upon.  In other words, we believe something is true if we act as if its true.

This helps answer the second question:  Who was right? Jesus or Paul?  Well, of course, both are right:

In Acts 16, when Paul and Silas were asked by their jailer "What must I do to be saved?" they replied:  "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."  

This "belief" does not mean that the jailer should state that certain things are true about Jesus; that Jesus died for his sins, or say a special prayer, or even say that he is following Jesus with his life.  For the jailer (and likewise, us) to believe means that the jailer really believes; and real belief will necessarily lead to doing the things that Jesus told us to do.  If he doesn't go obey Jesus, he did not believe.

Likewise, In Matthew 25, Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and the goats, and describes how, in the end times, people will be separated based on their actions: "[The wicked] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt. 10:46)  These actions are simply the kinds of things someone would naturally do if they believe.  We will be judged by our actions because our actions are a direct and necessary result of belief, (understood correctly).  

Unfortunately, this doesn't help answer the question:  What must I do to believe?  Richard Dawkins' question is still valid:  "What if I don't believe?"  

I think the answer to that question must have something to do with "faith".  But that is another post.

Something a little different

In the last few weeks, I've seen a couple really good blogs hang up their proverbial hats. Others have mentioned blogging fatigue, and I can totally relate to this. I have the next post in my series on my journey from creationist to evolutionist about 50% completed, and have absolutely zero motivation to finish.

It is for this reason (and more that I'll mention below) that I'm going to take a little break. Not from blogging, but from telling the story that I've been writing about for so long.

Another reason for this little change is that this blog is about my faith. While coming to grips with evolution was a very significant aspect of my faith, that whole struggle is in the past. The present state of my faith is much more interesting (to me) and my desire to write about other things has increased significantly. So that's what I'll do!

One final reason for the change: Up to this point, my blog has been quite formal, with pretty complete thoughts that I have worked on for a significant amount of time before posting. This is not really the kind of blog that I want to write. From this point on, I'll be much less formal; some of my posts will be incomplete thoughts, quotes from things I read or hear, or simply a question that I am thinking about at the time.

I think I am going to enjoy the change, and I hope my three readers will too.

11. Dealing with Genesis

This is the 11th in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

If you have been following this description of how I became a theistic evolutionist, you probably can see why it was necessary for me to come to a conclusion (even if it was tentative) about the meaning of Genesis: I had been indoctrinated as a child with the belief that Genesis was God's way of communicating to us the process by which he created the universe. This belief was now gone, but the first few chapters of Genesis still required explanation.

I have found it very difficult to write this post. (This is one of the reasons why it has been such a long time between the last post and this one.) It is difficult to write for two reasons. The first reason is that the results are quite inconsequential (in a scientific sense). Although one can glean great insight into the thinking of the original authors and audience of Genesis, the conclusion that the Genesis accounts are not scientific leaves us with a purely theological message.

The second reason this post is difficult for me to write is that there is such a wealth of contextual information about Genesis 1-11 that any attempt to summarize it feels inadequate. Others have done so with great success, and it is not worthwhile for me to repeat their efforts.

For these reasons, I am going to be quite brief in my description of how I dealt with the creation accounts. I'll start by pointing out what I see to be the most significant aspect of Genesis 1-2, the observation that there are actually two creation stories. Next I will briefly discuss these stories' relationship within the context of the ancient near east. I'll end this post by describing some of my conclusions, however tentative.

About My Motive

One note: I will not try to hide my motive. As I have described in previous posts, I had determined that science was correct in its determination of the age of creation, and this was in conflict with my childhood beliefs. Seeing problems with the way young earth creationists read the Bible, my mind was fertile ground for a new system of belief (and method of biblical interpretation) that allowed the coexistence of biblical and scientific knowledge. It is only in retrospect that I have analyzed these new beliefs, and in doing so have gained confidence that they are correct.

Interpretation and Humility

One final thought before I begin: When faced with the seeming conflict between Genesis and science, it is often said (by young earth creationists) that “I just choose to believe the Bible”. I appreciate the sentiment of this statement, but let me expand that statement a bit, so it is plain what it really means. Choosing to believe the earth is young (because that's what the Bible says), despite all the evidence to the contrary, is in a very real way making the following statement:

“I am so confident that my interpretation of Genesis is correct that am willing to disregard the conclusions of every major scientific discipline. I am sure that this ancient text was meant to communicate scientific and historical information, and as a result, I am willing to throw out the observations scientists (many of them Christians themselves) have made about this world.”

I suspect that anyone who, in reference to creation, says something like “I just believe the Bible” or “That's just what the Bible says” is not considering the fact that every word or idea taken from the Bible must be interpreted. We have an interpreted Bible. It seems to me that this should bring an incredible amount of humility to any discussion about what the Bible “says”.

The Biblical Creation Accounts

One of the most revealing aspects of the first two chapters of Genesis is that they contain what is almost certainly two different creation accounts. If you haven't noticed this before, read them yourself: Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. Below is a summary of each. Please keep in mind that my purpose for discussing this is not to present an irreconcilable “problem” with the Bible that forces us to seek alternate interpretations of Genesis. My purpose is simply to show that there are good reasons to suspect that the authors of the creation stories were concerned not with history, but with theology.

Creation Story #1: Genesis 1:1 to 2:3

The first creation story is highly structured and great emphasis is placed on the order of creation. In the beginning, there is nothing. God speaks the universe into existence with a series of commands, i.e. “let there be light.” Gods creative activity takes place over six days. In the first three days, God does a lot of “separating”, and the result of this separating is several “containers” (or structures) which are ready-made for his creatures. The structures created on the first three days are:

Day 1: Day / Night
Day 2: Sky / Sea
Day 3: Dry Land

On days 4-6, God fills these structures with creatures. Notice the parallels with days 1-3: The structures are filled in the same order they are created:

Day 4: Sun /Moon & Stars
Day 5: Birds / Fish
Day 6: Animals & Man

This first creation story ends with the seventh day of the creation week, where God “rests” from the work of creation.

Creation Story #2: Genesis 2:4-25

The second creation story is less structured: First the author describes the creation of Adam, followed by God's planting of the Garden of Eden. In contrast to the first story, the focus is on Adam. God commands Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and then decides that Adam needs a helper/companion. To solve this problem, God creates “all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air” but none are suitable to be Adam's helper. Then God creates a woman, Eve, from Adam's rib, and what follows is the familiar story about Adam, Eve, the serpent and the apple.

Notice that in this second story, there is very little emphasis on the order of creation. It would seem that Adam is created before plants and before animals. To illustrate this, compare Genesis 2 in several different translations: The word “had” is inserted in Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 in several translations, making the order of events ambiguous. In any case, it seems that the author was not interested in giving a blow-by-blow account of how things came into being, but was instead addressing more important questions, like the origin of sin and death.

Different Authors, Different Purposes

These two creation stories clearly were written to communicate different ideas. This is supported by the mountain of evidence that suggests four different sources for the book of Genesis. (See the resources section at the end of this post for more information) The easiest and most compelling example of this is the names used for God: In the first story, God is exclusively called “Elohim” (translated “God” in the NIV). In the second story, God is exclusively called “Jahweh” (translated “LORD God” in the NIV). If you have never noticed this, I highly recommend re-reading Genesis, paying attention to the names of God. Identifying the switch between the various sources (indicated by a change in the name of God) can help in explaining some of the more awkward transitions.

Context of the Biblical Creation Accounts

The context of the creation accounts is that of the ancient near east (ANE). The religions of the surrounding cultures were predominantly polytheistic, with gods in charge of almost every aspect of nature and daily life.

Other creation/flood myths were already in circulation and were familiar to the original audience of the Genesis creation accounts. These myths include many elements common the the biblical creation accounts; two of these myths contain the most stark similarities: the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish.

The cosmology of the ANE was primitive; the earth was seen as a flat disk surrounded by an infinite sea. The sky was believed to be a metal dome, separating infinite water above from the disk of the earth. The stars were thought to be embedded in the dome, and the sun and moon traveled across the dome. It was thought that under the earth stood an infinite freshwater sea, which supplied the rivers and lakes.

These contexts become important when considering the purpose of the creation accounts; even without additional knowledge, it is easy to see the influence of these cultural elements. The cosmology of the ANE is clearly seen in the first creation account, and the religious contexts and creation myths provide a compelling backdrop which helps to understand the motivation of the original authors.

So What's It About?

If the first chapters of Genesis are not chronological descriptions of God's creative acts, then what are they?

Here we see two stories written at different times by different people for different reasons. The authors were concerned with explaining the universe and the state of humanity, and they used common imagery that was familiar to their readers at the time. Their stories use elements from Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths to communicate theological truths, not historical or scientific information. These stories were direct rebuttals to the opposing myths and religions of the time.

Here are a few theological messages that can be seen at a first glance:

There is a God.
There is a single, all powerful God. (Not many gods with various powers, like the surrounding Babylonian culture insists)
Man is created in the image of God
God takes an interest in mankind's well-being
Creation was originally goodWe are destined to fail to live up to our divinely appointed roles
We are fundamentally alienated from our creator

There are surely many more. I don't intend to suggest that the message of Genesis 1-2 can be summed up in a few bullet-points. My point is simply that there is a message, and this message is not scientific.

To me it seems like many Christians who place an incredible emphasis on the historicity of Genesis 1-2 are ignoring the real meanings of this text. They have substituted a counterfeit message, obtained through a short-sighted method of interpretation, in response to a perceived threat from science. As I continued to learn about the contexts of the creation stories, I saw that science posed no threat to my faith. The physical world is just another source of revelation from God, and along with the Bible, we can come to an agreement on the big questions in life. It is important however, to address these questions to the sources that are appropriate for answering each question; Genesis can answer the question “What is wrong with the world?” but was not intended to answer the question “How did the world come about?”

In my next post, I'll continue to describe my experiences in adjusting to a new world that includes evolution, an ancient earth, and an even older universe. I'll describe what happened when I “came out of the closet” and revealed these struggles and beliefs to some of my friends and family.

Let us never throw ourselves head over heels into the headstrong assertion of any one [opinion]. Perhaps the truth, emerging from a more thorough discussion of the point, may definitively overturn that opinion, and then we will find ourselves overthrown, championing what is not the cause of the divine scriptures but our own, in such a way that we want it to be that of the scriptures, when we should rather be wanting the cause of the scriptures to be our own.

-Augustine writing in The Literal Meaning of Genesis [400AD].

10. Dealing with Young Earth Creationism, Part 2 – The YEC Hermeneutic

Dealing with Young Earth Creationism, Part 2 – The YEC Hermeneutic

This is the tenth in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

This is a continuation of the previous post. In it, I described how the motivation for young earth creationism (YEC) does not come from an rigorous and thorough examination of the scientific evidence, but instead arises from a belief that the Bible plainly teaches that creation is young.

From as early as I can remember, I was taught the “fact” that the Bible, when read correctly, plainly shows how (and when) God created the universe. I was taught that Satan invented the idea that the universe is millions of years old, and anyone that accepts the idea of evolution rejects the God of the Bible.

As I said in my last post: In all my years as a YEC, I had assumed that scientists that call themselves young earth creationists were YECs because they had examined the evidence and determined that it agreed with what the Bible says. I was shocked to learn that in reality, the opposite was actually true; YEC scientists believe the evidence points to a young universe because that is what they believe the Bible teaches.

In retrospect, this seem extremely naive. I'm a little embarrassed. It seems pretty simple and obvious to me now. I guess this kind of naiveté comes from being raised in a particular way, and rarely being exposed to ideas that disagree with what one is being taught. This kind of childhood indoctrination is a significant barrier to overcome.

So, at this point I had quite a few questions to answer: Would I reject all of modern science because of what the Bible teaches? Was the evidence for an old earth more important than what the Bible teaches? How do YECs read the Bible? Is that the right way to read the Bible? Does the Bible really teach that the universe is young?

So how do young earth creationists read the Bible? It was obvious to me that a literal interpretation is important, but there is more to it than that. Answers in Genesis president & CEO Ken Ham gives us a clue:

“Let’s be honest – if one just reads God’s Word, without any outside influences whatsoever, one would never get the idea anywhere of millions of years. This idea, which contradicts Scripture, comes from outside of it.” [source]

Ham is suggesting that we read the Bible without considering anything outside the Bible. He and other YECs state that we should read the clear meaning of the Bible, taking it word-for-word, and interpret it without outside influences. They are fond of labeling their reading as the “literal, straight-forward interpretation” or as “Biblical fact” calling all others “anti-Biblical”. They openly equate a literal interpretation with the true interpretation.

This interpretation starts with the principle that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and as such, is completely free from error in every detail. The words of the Bible are treated as if they have been dictated word-for-word directly from the Holy Spirit, and as a result should be interpreted literally without any consideration for the historical context, genre, or human authors and audience.

The intent is to arrive at an interpretation that is free from outside influences and arrives at a single meaning for the text. This is a noble motive; it provides a seemingly self consistent framework for coming up with only one meaning, supposedly the meaning that the Holy Spirit intended.

Unfortunately, this fundamentalist approach makes the typical modernist assumption that one can read the Bible without subjectivity. This, of course, is completely false; Although one may attempt to rid oneself of all possible biases, we each approach the Bible from within our own cultural contexts.

To me, it seems the ultimate in foolishness to ignore the fact that these words came to us through thousands of years of history, from a people with a different language, culture, history, values, and scientific world view. It seems that the first step in understanding these ancient texts is to determine (as best as one can) the meaning intended by the original author.
Howard VanTill, in a great book called The Fourth Day, quotes this passage from Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation:

[In interpreting the Bible, one] "must place himself on the standpoint of the author, and seek to enter into his very soul, until he, as it were, lives in his life and thinks his thoughts. This means that he will have to guard carefully against the rather common mistake of transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century.”
-Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, p.115 (originally seen in VanTill, The Fourth Day, p.18)

Young earth creationists, in applying their fundamentalist interpretation, make this very mistake. This failure to place the text in its original context results in several difficulties which arise when trying to understand the Bible as a whole.

One serious difficulty which arises from a literal interpretation is that it leaves the reader impotent to deal with the contradictions and discrepancies that exist throughout the Bible. Literalists must resort to explanations that push the limits of our credulity, and in many cases they must break their own rules, dismissing the straightforward meaning of the text in favor of a flimsy cop-out.

The greatest of these difficulties, however, is that a literal interpretation completely ignores the historical and human character of biblical revelation. As I discussed in a previous post, I was quickly beginning to see the nature of God's interaction with His creation as primarily that of delegation. God seems to act primarily in the world through his creation. This is especially true for the Bible, which was produced by over 40 different human authors in a huge range of cultures, languages and geographical locations, and with an equally wide range of genres and purposes.

To ignore the historical context of the Bible is to ignore the method through which God communicated these words, and any interpretation which does not take the original author's intended meaning into account cannot be a correct interpretation. Let me try to make this clear: My ascent out of atheism relied heavily on reshaping my view of God's action in creation and in my own life. Any interpretation which refuses to incorporate this view of God's involvement in history (and in the Bible) is completely invalid and utterly useless in helping me understand the God in which I have placed my faith.

So, it had become obvious to me that young earth creationism was wrong for three main reasons: First, its evidence for a young age of the earth had proven completely inadequate. Second, because of the independent evidence from widely disparate scientific disciplines, it required a sweeping rejection of the entirety of modern science. Finally, (and most importantly) the refusal to consider the contexts of the author when interpreting the Bible made it impotent to deal with issues arising from God's pervasive use of humanity in producing scripture.

At this point, the idea that Genesis might not necessarily be a historical narrative (while still containing divinely inspired truth) had been introduced to me several times.  Now that I understood how and why YECs interpret the Bible and how this interpretation fails, I was ready to take a closer look at the cultural and literary aspects of the creation story.

I'll close this post with the words of three Christians (all from vastly different time periods) whose comments are applicable to this post:

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
-Augustine, in De Genesi ad litteram, 415AD. [source]

“Men today do not, perhaps, burn the Bible, nor does the Roman Catholic Church any longer put it on the Index, as it once did. But men destroy it in the form of exegesis: they destroy it in the way they deal with it. They destroy it by not reading it as written in normal, literary form, by ignoring its historical-grammatical exegesis, by changing the Bible's own perspective of itself as propositional revelation in space and time, in history.”
-Francis Schaeffer, in Death in the City pp. 77 1969. [source]

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?”
-Francis S. Collins, in Faith and the Human Genome, 2002. [source]

9. Dealing with Young Earth Creationism – Is science really the issue?

Dealing with Young Earth Creationism – Is science really the issue?

This is the ninth in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

The fourth phase in Roxburgh's description of paradigm change is that of transition. In the first part of this transition phase I dealt with the arguments for atheism that had drastically diminished my faith. The second part of this transition phase involved dealing with Young Earth Creationism. This is the subject of this post.

Having grown up being taught (and believing) that the earth, moon, and stars are all 6000 – 10,000 years old, it was quite a painful and confusing process learning about how each scientific discipline paints the same story of the history of the universe. This is a story of immense antiquity: a 13.6 billion year old universe, 4.5 billion year old earth, and a convincing record of the history of life on this planet, showing that all life on earth has come from from a single ancestor.

Although believers in Young Earth Creationism invest incredible amounts of effort to provide “evidence” for their views, I had investigated these claims and found them extremely lacking. Not only were they totally wrong scientifically, but they bordered on deceptive. (I discuss this in a previous post) The final nail in the coffin came via a radio debate featuring YEC evangelist Kent Hovind. His incompetence made me embarrassed to call myself a believer. (I discuss this here)

In a future post, I'll discuss my interactions with the friends, family, and pastors who affected me significantly during this time. During this time, I had a lengthy interaction with one of my pastors (I am a member of a Baptist church). During our discussions he (and others) asked me to take another look at the evidence for young earth. One of the books he handed me was In Six Days – Why 50 Scientists Believe in Creation. As the title suggests, this book contains essays from 50 different scientists describing why they believe the universe and earth are young. (The full text is available here)

As I turned the pages of this book, I realized that this was a great resource: Here I had concise statements from 50 intelligent people who had rejected the scientific consensus on the the age of the earth. I could quickly determine how they had come to this conclusion, and by reading multiple essays, perhaps a common thread would emerge.

I decided to make a list of the reasons these scientists give for their personal belief in a young earth. But as I continued to read, I found this to be grueling; many authors gave similar reasons or evidence, and I was finding it difficult to tabulate everything. Soon I found two incredible resources, the first is an attempt to index every Creationist claim and give a rebuttal. The second is a Creationist's response to each item. Although I didn't consult it at the time, a third resource addresses each of the claims from an old-earth viewpoint:

Index to Creationist Claims
Creationist's Response
Old-Earth Response

Using these resources, it becomes easier to identify a claim, look it up in each index, and make a judgment as to its veracity. In this way, I was able to read each essay, tabulate the reasons given by each scientist, and evaluate the strength of the evidence.

A bit about motive: One might suggest that since I had already come to the conclusion that the arguments for a young earth were extremely weak and misleading, I would simply find what I hoped I would find. Would I simply see that there was a reason to believe in an old earth and stop there? Well, I agree that our preconceptions drastically affect how we perceive any argument, whether for or against our own views. I don't intend to try to convince you that I approached this exercise with an unbiased, neutral mind. That is simply not possible. I will simply describe my experience in investigating these claims. I invite you to do the same. If you come to a different conclusion, I'd love to discuss that with you.

As I read these essays, I noticed over and over again that the arguments these creationists gave were simply “reasons” that didn't stand up to any amount of serious thought. Claims like “The second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution can not occur” or “interpreting evidence is not the same as observation” are so easily dismissed, yet are so common in these essays.
It quickly became obvious to me that in order to be a consistent Young Earth Creationist, one must deny the basic principles of cosmology, physics, geology, biology and paleontology. These disciplines, using completely independent methodologies, have come to an undeniable conclusion regarding the age of the earth, and to claim otherwise requires a sweeping dismissal of all of modern science.

The real issue, however, is not science. The “scientists” of In Six Days don't dismiss the process of science because they have evaluated the evidence and have determined that it shows the earth is 6000 years old. No one would come to that conclusion without an external motive. That motive is the Bible.

In his essay, geologist Kurt Wise describes in an extremely instructive way what is really going on here:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand. [source]

Here Kurt says most plainly what all the others were saying: That it doesn't matter what science says, it matters what the Bible says. No matter how much evidence exists against a young earth, creationists will deny that it represents truth, and instead find ways to make science say what they think the Bible says.

In all my years as a YEC, I had assumed that scientists that call themselves young earth creationists were YECs because they had examined the evidence and determined that it agreed with what the Bible says. I was shocked to learn that in reality, the opposite was actually true; YEC scientists believe the evidence points to a young universe because that is what they believe the Bible teaches.

This realization convinced me that it was utterly pointless to continue examining evidence for Young Earth Creationism. The evidence would never convince me, because it is not the reason one becomes a YEC.

So, the next step in understanding Young Earth Creationism was to attempt to understand how YECs read the Bible, and to ask the strange question: Should I abandon science because of what the Bible teaches? This is the subject of the next post.

8. Dealing with Atheism, continued...

Dealing with Atheism, continued...

This is the eighth in a series of posts describing my transition from young earth creationist to theistic evolutionist. In the first post, I described how Alan Roxburgh's 5-phase description of paradigm change describes this transition well, and I have been using his framework to shape this discussion. See the introduction for a list of all the posts in this series.

This is a continuation of the previous post. In the last few posts, I described how the religion of my youth had taught me that science was the enemy of faith. I was taught to believe that evolution was an evil idea invented by Satan to lead people into atheism. It was beginning to look like they were right. I had discovered the overwhelming evidence for the truth of evolution, and was terrified of the implications. If evolution was true, then my faith in God must be a silly case of wishful thinking.

The fourth phase in Roxburgh's description of paradigm change is that of transition. The first part of my transition phase involved dealing with atheist arguments that had caused my faith to diminish to a tiny ember. In my last post, I discussed two of the main ideas that helped me deal with atheism. In this post I'll discuss what I see to be the main flaw in atheist Richard Dawkins' view of God, and then deal with a problem I mentioned in a previous post about the lack of evidence for God's action in the world.

3. Dawkins' picture of “god” is naturalistic, not supernatural

One thing that strikes me as I read Dawkins' anti-religious writings is that Dawkins seems to be completely stuck with a picture of a god that is totally within nature. I didn't notice it in my first reading of The God Delusion, but it becomes more obvious to me every time I read or hear him speak. This was an important element of my transition; I deliberately approached subjects that I had a one-sided knowledge of and balanced out my familiarity with both sides of each argument.

As I said; Dawkins's view of god seems to be that of a god who is within nature. This is important, because almost every one of his scientific arguments against the existence of God assumes a god that is within nature. It is easy to see why: a God outside of nature is not within the purview of science.

Take this quote from Dawkins in this debate with Alister McGrath; notice how he constantly invokes the “probability” of God's existence:

"When you say god didn't come into existence but was always there, I find that not really very helpful because suppose I go back to my problem of explaining the eye; it would be no kind of answer to say "oh, well the eye was always there", it would still be something that requires explanation in the sense that anything statistically improbable does. So I don't think you can't get away with it with an eye, and I don't really see why you can get away with it with God." [21:14]

And just a few minutes later:

“Everybody agrees intuitively that the eye is far too improbable to have suddenly jumped into existence, and I want to say the same about God, and you don't and I don't understand why not...”

An eternal, supernatural God doesn't make sense to Dawkins, because for him, everything must be explained naturally. This can be seen by his insistence on comparing God with an eye: He requires the same kind of (scientific) explanation for God that he requires for an eye. He sums up this belief quite succinctly when he states:

“Any entity, any being, capable of designing a universe, or an eye, or a knee, would have to be the kind of entity which would be statistically improbable in the same kind of way as the eye is.” (emphasis mine)

This is a classic case of begging the question:

1) It's very improbable for natural causes to give rise to a being capable of creating the universe.
2) Therefore, God does not exist.

Dawkins' implicit assumption is that any god must exist within nature. He then bases the rest of his argument on this assumption. This is circular reasoning and complete nonsense. The Christian God exists outside of nature, and therefore it is nonsense to speak of the probability of His existence. The god that Dawkins argues against has nothing in common with the Christian God.

4. Divine Action: God as “The Great Delegator?”

In a previous post I mentioned one of the most significant challenges to my faith is the difficulty I experience in perceiving God's action in my life. This is a problem I still struggle with today, but McGrath provided me with some insights that help the situation considerably.

For instance, in the same interview I mention above, McGrath discusses this matter with Richard Dawkins. When discussing God's part in the September 11 terrorist attacks, McGrath states:

"Why didn't God just take the steering wheel [of the terrorist's plane] and change things? Well, that has been a constant issue down the ages as you well know. Christians understand God to have made the world in a certain way that is like a framework, but does not actually intervene. Of course the classic example of this the crucifixion. People were screaming at Jesus: 'If there is a God, why doesn't he just take you away from here?' That reminds us that we are dealing with a God that does not intervene directly in the world as we might hope." [47:40]

So God apparently prefers to delegate his action to creation itself; His activity in the world happens almost exclusively through natural causes. I didn't quite grasp this concept while I was initially dealing with the atheist proposition, but later it resonated with me because it fit perfectly with my experience. The concept of God as “The Great Delegator” sowed the seeds that eventually grew into an understanding of a God who is constantly creating through natural processes (evolution). This concept was simultaneously a defense against atheism and an introduction to the God who created evolution.

Unfortunately, this problem is not completely solved. A God who delegates His action to his creation can explain the lack of His obvious action in our world. But most Christians, including McGrath, claim that God does intervene in the world. In their discussion, McGrath states that if one child were spared in a devastating earthquake (while thousands of others perished) God could be seen as intervening to save the child. Dawkins points out the inconsistency of this position:

“What worries me is the inconsistency of what you just said when when I asked you whether God saved that one child... Sometimes you say that God doesn't intervene, (and you make a very eloquent case for why it would be a rather undignified thing to do as a God.) On the other hand you say He does intervene when He rescues one child from a earthquake.”

In a sense Dawkins is saying “Which one is it! Does he intervene or doesn't he?” I think Dawkins has a point here. Sure, God is free and able to intervene in one case and delegate in another, but for us to conveniently invoke God's intervention in this way is a pathetic case of theological cherry-picking. We really don't have a leg to stand on.

I think one possibility for obtaining a consistent picture of God's action centers around the extent of His involvement in the creation of natural laws. The word “design” has undesirable connotations in this context, but bear with me: What if God has so intricately designed the natural laws so as to bring about his purposes in both types of situations? What if God set up natural laws so as to save the child from the earthquake in what only seems like a miraculous way? This suggests a God in control of his creation in a completely different way; the laws of nature truly become the hand of God acting in our lives. It's hard for my finite mind to imagine, but I think this only amplifies the wonder of God and His creation.


So in conclusion: Atheistic ideas had dealt a serious blow to my faith, resulting in a seemingly perpetual state of doubt. With the help of the writings of people like Allister McGrath, I dealt with this problem by first realizing that both atheism and belief in God were faith positions. I decided to choose faith in God, regardless of my feelings about whether or not that faith was real. I saw that atheists like Richard Dawkins presupposed God's non-existence, and this could be seen in their main arguments for their position. Furthermore, my view of God was altered significantly with the observation that He seems to act almost exclusively through natural causes, and these causes could be so intricately designed so as to bring about events that are both mundane and incredible. This matched up well with my every-day experience. Finally, I was left with the resolution that my faith, whatever would become of it, would cease to be real unless it deliberately incorporated all the evidence from all credible sources.

In the next post, I'll continue discussing my transition phase by describing how I dealt with the remains of Young Earth Creationism that still lingered in the corners of my mind.