Thanks to everyone for your welcoming comments. I want to start by giving an overview of my own positions and the topics on which I believe I can make a profitable contribution here.
I’m called a theistic evolutionist. I have significant problems with that designation, though I find it necessary to use it at times. First, I accept the biological theory of evolution. It’s not a doctrine, it’s not a philosophy, it’s not my religion; I accept it as a valuable and overwhelmingly well-documented and supported scientific theory. Second, I am a theist, in that I believe in a personal God. The second does not impact the first. There would be no difference in my formulation of any scientific statement about evolution and that of an atheist. There is no such thing as a theory of “theistic evolution,” there is only the theory of evolution. But because there are those who assume that the debate over creation and evolution is one between theism and atheism, it is necessary to make that designation.
So what am I doing here?
Let me note that I was trained by the other side. I grew up as a young earth creationist. I have literature from the young earth camp that I purchased as a teenager. I went to a private, Christian elementary school where we memorized Genesis 1 & 2 and were indoctrinated in the clearly literal intent. Both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are from Seventh-day Adventist schools, and the SDA position has long been strong young earth support.
I came to accept and understand evolutionary theory (to a limited extent as a non-scientist) first through Bible study. I took my first personal step away from a young earth position in writing a research paper on textual issues with the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11. At the time, I simply thought that in order to accommodate the evidence from archeology, we would probably need about 100,000 years, considering population growth, migration and so forth. I followed this by studying the cosmology and imagery behind the creation stories of Genesis and other parts of the Bible, and comparing them with their counterparts in neighboring cultures. As a result, I came to understand that there is nothing in the Biblical text that cannot be explained entirely by an understanding of contemporary cosmology in the ancient near east, and that there is no implication of any modern scientific understanding in those texts.
At this point I still had no understanding at all of either geology or the theory of evolution. That had to wait for a number of wonderful trips through the western states with roadside geology books in hand as I watched the elements of evolution and geological processes fall into place for me.
I say all this because I am often confronted by the assumption that I learned about evolution in public school (I never spent a day in a public school classroom) and was indoctrinated in the “worldview” of evolution and then abandoned my previous belief in Genesis. The process was, in fact, the reverse. By studying the texts, I found that they could not be taken as any form of scientific statement, that they could not possibly be regarded as narrative history, that they had no claim to chronological accuracy, and thus they must be rejected as an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life and the early history of humanity. It was only after I had done so that I read my first books on origins written by authors who were not young earth creationists. (I exempt my High School biology text, because I was required to read a creationist book alongside it to prevent me from believing any of the evolutionary theory presented.)
Because of my background and training, I plan to contribute posts in the following three areas:
- Literary and critical studies of the Biblical stories relating to creation and human prehistory. I have already published a translation of the flood stories, disentangling and annotating the sources (http://energion.com/rpp/flood.shtml, and I intend to follow with a similar breakdown of all of Genesis 1-11. I will also write about the genre of the literature involved and how we understand it.
- Specific religious elements of the arguments and goals of the creationist and intelligent design movements. I find these as objectionable from a religious point of view as I do from a scientific one. I will argue that we must allow the science curriculum to be driven by the concensus of scientists, and that giving the force, authority and financial backing of the state to religious doctrine is destructive both of the state and of spirituality.
- Theological (and just logical) problems with intelligent design theory. I believe this is simply another means to get the support of the state for a particular religious doctrine. I believe it is both bad theology and bad science. In fact, it is generally bad theology that requires the combination of disguise and government authority in order to gain acceptance.
Finally, I note that while I have been called a theologian in some of the responses to the post introducing me, that’s not my profession. My field is Biblical languages most specifically and Biblical studies in general. Thus I will focus on the first item I listed. My best area of contribution to this debate, I believe, is in the serious study of the literature.
Welcome Henry! At least three of your fellow ‘Pandists’ are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge. But just so you’ll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don’t reject evolution are “… worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion.” (1) I’m afraid this means you’re going to Hell. At least if the DI gets to choose. Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI’s cat and mouse theology.
1. As related in Jack Krebs’ talk.
Welcome Henry! At least three of your fellow ‘Pandists’ are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge. But just so you’ll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don’t reject evolution are “… worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion.” (1) I’m afraid this means you’re going to Hell. At least if the DI gets to choose. Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI’s cat and mouse theology.
1. As related in Jack Krebs’ talk.
Welcome Henry! At least three of your fellow ‘Pandists’ are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge. But just so you’ll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don’t reject evolution are “… worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion.” (1) I’m afraid this means you’re going to Hell. At least if the DI gets to choose. Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI’s cat and mouse theology.
1. As related in Jack Krebs’ talk.
If the Bible must be rejected as an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life and the early history of humanity, why discuss it on this site? Why present negative theological arguements, instead of positive scientific arguements?
Why discuss it at this site? 1) Why not? 2) The DI is in effect spreading a package of bad science and bad religion. And I don’t mean the Rock Group.
Very simply, it works like this: they want people to believe that the argument from ignorance is scientific. In theology, the argument from ignorance becomes ‘God of the gaps’. This may lead to additional problems in either field. Many in the general public would be more concerned with keeping bad religion out of schools than bad science. But they don’t know about it. Let’s help them find out.
p.s. don’t let the posting system here, which sometimes reacts slowly, lure you into a double post. :(
Welcome Mr. Neufeld! As a fellow theist, I am looking forward to what you have to contribute. Your area of expertise is precisely what I would like to go into once I finish up with my undergrad studies. I, too, graduated from a Christian school and am wrapping up a management/ministry degree at a Christian college. I have talk.origins to thank for opening my eyes (or sending me to hell, depending on who you ask) over the last four years or so.
Welcome to Pandas Thumb!!
Henry,
What is your opinion on the “seventh day?” When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story. I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture. Is this reasonable or bullshit?
Hi, Henry: You certainly are welcome to PT as any sincere person should be. As a life-long agnostic, I’ve some questions for you. Now, when I define myself as an agnostic I mean that I don’t know of any unequivocal proof of either existence or non-existence of a Creator of the universe and therefore I abstain from maintaining a definite position on that point (although circumstantial evidence, IMHO, makes atheism more plausible than faith). However, my view of religions is a different matter. There are tens of thousands of religions, so why should I take Christianity more seriously than, say, Bahai or Sikh faith? My opinion is that all religions are based on very shaky foundations so thair tenets cannot be taken seriously. You are a theist - but from what you told about your biography seems to follow that your faith in a personal God stems from the indoctrination you receieved in your early formative years rather than from any rational argumentation.
Can you kindly explain why you, an obviously rational person who is capable of viewing the Genesis story from the standpoint of its logic and consistency, nevertheless keep faith in a personal God despite the complete lack of evidence, besides a sentimental adherence to your sweet childhood emotions? I have tried to get an answer to that question from other theists who, apart from their faith, are perfectly rational and science-loving people, but none of them gave a coherent answer (most simply avoided any answer).
Thanks in advance and, again, welcome. Mark Perakh.
Mark-
To be honest, I don’t think that’s really an appropriate question for this forum. Henry is not here to defend theism or Christianity, but to look at the validity of creationism/ID from the standpoint of a biblical scholar. To get off into arguments about the truth or falsity of Christianity in this forum would be counter to our goals, I think.
Ed, the question I asked may indeed be viewed as inappropriate for PT if judged from the original position of this blog’s initiators. However, in the course of its gradual progress, PT has been inundated with many comments and even posts that went rather far from the initial scope of its topics, so a brief discussion of my question will hardly lead us much farther from the original schema than it has gone already. I am not requesting from Henry a defense of faith or Christianity but only an explanation of how people like him maintain both their faith and adherence to science despite the quite serious divergence of the approaches and methods between religion and science. If, though, there is a strong aversion to discussing my question here, I’d be quite satisfied with getting a private response from Henry.
I too welcome you Henry, not quite as enthusiastically as Pete has perhaps, but genuinely just the same. I am new here too, and find most of the discussion a bit too technical to really grasp, particularly complex arguments about the chemistry involved. As a confirmed agnostic, I have been open to the fence sitter argument, but two things have moved me to my position, one is the extreme ignorance of our species on scientific questions of the most basic sort, the other, the problem of beginnings. God, gods, or naturalism has vouchsafed me no insights, so I am more inclined to the atheistic side of agnosticism, but still, I don’t know. I view a lot of what I see here as a competition between apples and oranges, the apples accuse the oranges of not having enough appleness, and the oranges demanding the apples submit to their orangeness, then provide pseudo applish reasons, and, in fact, become oranges “on faith” and applish argument. Religion, and science are very different at the core, and both have important places in the society we have. Try as it may, science cannot answer all questions, and (some) religion often makes unreasonable claims on the credulity of the flock. I am hoping that you will add some insights to this ongoing impasse. I certainly have not seen an example of anyone being convinced to “switch” in spite of a sea of arguments.
This all seems to be quite timely as I discussed intelligent design with several Christian friends who (surprisingly to me) had reached the independent conclusion that intelligent design was dishonest and a God of the Gaps argument and as such was posing a danger not just to science but also to religion. It was good to hear how Christians are starting to see how Intelligent Design is scientifically meaningless and poses a significant risk to religion.
The problem is certain people saying dumb and clearly false things about biology, and being very politically insistent about teaching these things in school as if they were science. It’s apples and (here’s a sample) anti science propaganda.
pete wrote: being very politically insistent about teaching these things in school as if they were science.”
I agree pete, you are preaching to the choir here, I am saying that the realm of science and the realm of religion do NOT and should NOT be overlaped, that the new “Religious Right” wants to was addressed by my earlier post here:
“demanding the apples submit to their orangeness, then provide pseudo applish reasons, and, in fact, become oranges “on faith” and applish argument.”
I find it wildly inapproiate, they do not understand their own religion IMHO.
From what I have read here so far, I am inclined to the view that pussyfooting around difficult questions leads far too often, to discussions like competition between apples and oranges . It is as if the thinking apparatus of some correspondents slides away from the initial point. Where is the terrier instinct? Let us define ourselves by our brains.
IMO all those who confess religious beliefs should try to answer this reductionist question. “ Is belief in a existence after death of the body, essential to be considered human and if so, then by what means do humans acquire this property of continuation? “.
Science teaches that humans evolved from proto-humans. Therefore there had to be the first one, different from its parents. This poor bastard was the first of our kind to realise the concept of personal death. What a ghastly thought! Probably the most pyschologically damaging idea idea ever. In order to rationise the fear, this horror of personal oblivion, the first thinker decided that positing the hypothesis of after-existence and actually coming to believe in it, seemed like a good idea at the time. Oh boy, that was a bad idea.
Humans since then have believed in thousands of false gods. Atheists simply choose to believe in one less than the rest.
Pericles
The reason I believe such commentary is legitimate is because of comments such as the following:
I think it is appropriate for either a scientist or someone versed in Biblical studies to respond to such a claim. It is as legitimate as explaining to students that “Gone with the Wind” will not help them learn chemistry, should any student actually think it would. And note that by saying that “Gone with the Wind” does not present facts of chemistry, I do not say that it presents nothing of value.
“Therefore there had to be the first one, different from its parents. This poor bastard was the first of our kind to realise the concept of personal death. What a ghastly thought! Probably the most pyschologically damaging idea idea ever. “
cf Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: “Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one, a moment, in childhood when it first occurred to you that you don’t go on for ever. It must have been shattering- stamped into one’s memory. And yet I can’t remember it. It never occurred to me at all. What does one make of that? We must be born with an intuition of mortality. Before we know the words for it, before we know that there are words, out we come, bloodied and squalling with the knowledge that for all the compasses in the world, there’s only one direction, and time is its only measure.”
I’m quite happy to respond privately, but I am also quite willing to respond publicly, just in another forum. I’m already available on the Compuserve Religion Forum (I have links to the sections at http://energion.com/chatting.shtml).
I think it’s a legitimate question, though I don’t know a definite answer. I believe the seventh day was part of the text in the immediate written source (in this case P, the priestly source) of Genesis 1. In fact, the six day creation scheme is used to focus on the seventh day and enshrine in worship form God’s sovereignty over time. (Genesis 1 is much more liturgy than any other form of literature.)
In the prehistory of the text, however, there is a clear design to counter certain poritions of the Mesopotamian stories, both Sumerian and Babylonian, while at the same time participating in the same cosmology and general symbolism. I will see whether I can find any definite evidence that would tie Genesis 2:1-3 to that background.
I think it’s a legitimate question, though I don’t know a definite answer. I believe the seventh day was part of the text in the immediate written source (in this case P, the priestly source) of Genesis 1. In fact, the six day creation scheme is used to focus on the seventh day and enshrine in worship form God’s sovereignty over time. (Genesis 1 is much more liturgy than any other form of literature.)
In the prehistory of the text, however, there is a clear design to counter certain poritions of the Mesopotamian stories, both Sumerian and Babylonian, while at the same time participating in the same cosmology and general symbolism. I will see whether I can find any definite evidence that would tie Genesis 2:1-3 to that background.
I’m confused. One important creationist position is that evolution is inconsistent with theism, and that accepting the former does or could lead to rejecting the latter. “Theistic evolutionists” say that evolution is not, or need not be, incompatible with theism. Mr. Neufeld said he was such a person. He also said, at least by implication, that in his view the creationist position is a mistake, and indeed a theological mistake. Mr. Perakh’s (original) question, as I understand it, is how one can embrace science (and its methods) while still maintaining belief in a personal god – how one can accept evolution (or science) and also theism. This seems pertinent to the typical creationist view that the two are incompatible. What’s inappropriate about that as a subject for discussion on this forum? Isn’t this a “theological problem … with intelligent design theory?” How can one argue that the creationist position that evolution (in particular, and maybe science in general) is incompatible with theism is “bad theology” without “defend[ing] theism” – at least to the extent of defending its compatibility with science?
Pericles wrote: all those who confess religious beliefs should try to answer this reductionist question. “ Is belief in a existence after death of the body, essential to be considered human and if so, then by what means do humans acquire this property of continuation? “.
A significant portion of those with religious beliefs would answer “no” and consider the rest of the question meaningless, for example Hinduisim and Buddhism are concerned with the removal of the individual from the wheel of life. This “karmic” idea also seems to have been present in the Orphic, and other mystery cults of the pre christian mediteranean area. Much of the Tao is concerned with proper behavior in society, and has little to say of an afterlife. Many religions have seen, and do see the afterlife as, at best, a shadowy affair. Ancient Greeks among them. Religions that have a strong “after life” theme have this continuation usually conditional on “right” behavior. Of course the definition of “right” is the exclusive realm of the church leadership’s interpretation. Galileo’s “crimes” come to mind. Science is based on reason and methology. Religion is based on faith. Any overlap is a figment, in the eye of the beholder, an argument from ignorance, or if you will, comparing apples to oranges, an argument, settled to the satisfaction of most, a century ago. This is an EX-ARGUMENT (or parrot).
Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 441, byte 1356 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.1/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187
Several years ago, while visiting the Smithsonian, I saw an exhibit of artifacts from the excavations at the ancient site of Ur (most on loan from the U of Pennsylvania). One of the most striking artifacts is a small sculpture of “A ram caught in a thicket,” which has a clear parallel in the story of Abraham and Isaac.
Picture available at http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/001019/ur.shtml
Henry, do you know of a more complete list of “borrowings” from Mesopotamian mythology in the first 5 books of the Bible?
(A local columnist has described Biblical fundamentalists as being obsessed with Genesis and Revelations, while paying too little attention to everything in between.)
What’s to argue? We know from astronomy & geology that the earth is very old and the universe much older, and vast. But there is nothing in theism as such that says that the universe must be a particular size or age, or that life wouldn’t evolve if the universe has great age.
Well before modern science, Christian theologians noted that not everything in the Old Testament need be believed literally. Jesus didn’t even take all the ‘moral’ rules literally. The ‘literal translation’ (two words that don’t go well together) fixation is a recent pathology.
I don’t know of other “list” like articles. Most discussions of the flood myth remark on the obvious match points using Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh. The flood story was very popular. The gods regret creation of man, they disagree (in Genesis Yahweh/Elohim is conflicted too), they seek to destroy man, man the “clever one” (the literal translation of Atrahasis) with help from a god, defeats the gods intention, the gods regret their acts and promised not to try to destroy man again.
When told in the oldest version known to scholars, Atrahasis, there are many persuasive details that this is an account from the origins of agriculture, and early state level organization.
Some readily accessable books are:
Blenkinsopp, Joseph 1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday
Cross, Frank Moore 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press
Dalley, Stephanie 2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press
Friedman, Richard Elliott 1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)
Jacobsen, Thorkild 1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion New Haven: Yale University Press
Pardee, Dennis 2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature
Parker, Simon B. (Editor) 1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L. Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature
Friedman skimps the earlier Summer and Old Babylonian material, but has interesting thinks to say about the authorial sequences in the pentateuch.
Let me add to those already listed:
Thomas, D. Winton, Ed. Documents from Old Testament Times. New York: HarperCollins College Division, 1979. This is the most closely tied to the Old Testament, but has the least breadth in ANE texts. It has a good scriptural index.
Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Volume I). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. This is a broader in terms of ANE texts than Thomas, but sometimes a bit harder to follow.
Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. This is the real thing, but at $130 for a copy, use it at the library!
Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Despite the dates involved, each of these has a substantial number of parallels annotated along with translations of the relevant literature.
There are many versions of the bible, in many languages. Vulgate, Catholic, Protestant. Some years back I was informed the the phrase “It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, was mis-translated. Apparently the Aramaic words for camel and rope differ by one dot. Does anyone know whether that is true? I would seem to make more sense. Then there is the needle itself. A modern needle is steel and manufactured in millions. 2000 years ago, what was a needle?
Rather more recently, I was informed that the bible is available in Pidgin for New Guinean tribesman, the people whom Jared Diamond is convinced are brighter than us. There were many difficulties in rendering the King James version in Pidgin, however the phrase I like, illustrates how cultural differences shape language. The tribesman at that time were unaware of what sheep were, so the description “Lamb of god” had to be translated in terms to which these people could relate. An animal with which they were all familiar.
The direct translation? Christ was the “Pig of god”. On that basis, should creationists really believe in the literal truth of their bible? I am sure we would all like to know the answer.
The early fathers of the Roman church edited the New Testament to suit their political goals. Anyone any ideas what they left out as inconvenient?
Pericles
TTTTTTTT “It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, was mis-translated. Apparently the Aramaic words for camel and rope differ by one dot. Does anyone know whether that is true? I would seem to make more sense.
It would seem to make more sense.
————————————– Have had look at bible translations. Found this!
Should The Church Be Concerned About Bible Translations? (By Marc A. Graham, D. Min.)
I am frequently asked as a pastor, “Which Bible translation do you recommend?” Most people, even most pastors, consider the answer to this question to be a matter of personal preference rather than an area of conviction.
Why does it matter which Bible we use: the King James, the New American Standard, or the increasingly popular New International Version? They are all the Word of God, we are told. ARE THEY REALLY? Let’s look and see.
The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew with the New Testament being penned in Greek. This is why you hear many preachers referring to “the Hebrew” or “the Greek” in their sermons. But the key question is this: “Since none of us possess the original manuscripts of the Bible, can we truly say that we have the Word of God in our hands today?”
This continues somewhat and concludes.
Digital Sword note: The King James Bible is free, whereas most other translations are not, and is the bible translation used for this site. If you want to check a verse then click on it and the whole chapter will be shown in a new window and will jump straight to the verse you want.
If you like the bible translation used here you can get it for free from the brilliant HTML Bible website. They provided the translation used here and they also have free translations of the bible in many other languages, not just in English.
Please note that reading a different translation than the King James is not a sin, it won’t stop you being saved either, but it will mean you have missing words or verses and this could be a problem if you do detailed bible studies for instance.
This page has been used with the permission of the webmaster here where, if you click the link, you will find the original page. The content is exactly the same except for spelling corrections I noticed and corrected, and the addition of each bible reference being made into a link so that you can check out every reference for yourself . I didn’t write the article but do agree with it’s content which is why I have asked for, and been given, permission to have it on the site.
Hopefully this will be interesting to you, at the very least it’s an eye opener :o)
So, There we have it. Missing phrases or words. Digital Swords words, not mine. Let us consider reducing the number of words even more, so it makes better sense. And the word is “bollocks”.
Pericles
I believe people without a religion do not exist. There is an evolutionary necessity for religion. Something has to fill the hole, some conviction or philosophy. In an ever changing world, what is inside us needs to be a sure foundation, a definite truth, at least one. This is my justification for attempting to prove why theism and scientific reasoning can successfully co-exist. The first way they can co-exist is by having your beliefs co-incide with what can be proven. But this is taking the easy way. Most people seem to choose this route. But not everything can be observed. When the outcome depends on chance, no one can know what will happen, although using probability we can guess. I propose that, although God is not bound to working within ‘chance,’ it is certainly a way he can work without the possibility of being detected. He may do otherwise, but whether someone witnesses it is up to Him. He will not allow science to probe him, therefore ID has no chance to prove His existance, neitehr does real science, to prove either His absence or presence. Is this a “God of the gaps” argument? It is the only way I can think of to pacify both sides.
shaggy maniac wrote:
I don’t believe in god or anything supernatural. But I don’t think anything I’ve written displays an ill-informed or incomplete understanding of the importance or impact of religion. I’m not ignorant of humanitarian work by people motivated by faith (or simply by human empathy); I don’t know what I wrote that led you to assume that.
No more condescending that people of faith constantly talking down to atheists and implying that we are immoral, incapable of compassion or humanitarianism, or that we are missing something essential in our lives.
I know people experience things that are outside their understanding or capacity to describe. I experience those things, too. I just don’t attribute them to the presence of a god in my life. I have three children, I’ve experienced the powerful emotions of childbirth and fatherhood three times now, but I don’t find any need to thank god or attribute my powerful feelings to something supernatural. If you had been raised without faith, or in a faith without a tradition of personal connection to a god, don’t you think you’d still experience intense joy and love for your child? What’s wrong with just accepting that those emotions are part of e