Welcome to my blog. I plan to discuss various topics centering around theology, philosophy, and science, and I hope you can join the conversation. I’ll be starting with a series of posts exploring evolution and the surrounding debate from the perspective of a thoughtful Christian. I have read extensively on the issue, and I have been investigating a particular angle about which I am very eager to share. What I’ve discovered in the process forced me to adapt my position, and I’ve come to accept an evolutionary understanding of biology yet have maintained and developed my belief in a loving God and Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. Learning that these ideas are not mutually exclusive and finding that many other people share my convictions brought me encouragement at a difficult time in my life, and now I hope that I can help a few others that have found themselves in the same confusing situation.
I’m aware that many of those near and dear to me may be upset or disappointed in some of my conclusions. I know it will cause some stress and difficulties as I have experienced first hand from speaking with some loved ones. I have not been outspoken on the issue for many years, but now I feel that it’s time to speak up for a number of reasons.
1. Intellectual integrity. I want to be honest and clear on the issue. I have personally been hurt in part because many people holding these views have not been outspoken. This ambiguity has allowed many to continue believing that a Christian must be a Young-Earth Creationist when in fact so many Christian scientists, theologians, apologists, scholars, priests and pastors are not (C.S. Lewis, to name just one example, held an evolutionary view and is still considered one of the most influential Christian thinkers and apologists ever.)
2. To defend my faith against the false assumption that science has disproved it. I see the supposed war between science and religion is a false dichotomy propped up by extremists at both ends. Critics of religion often attempt to use science as a weapon against faith, and people of faith have at times rejected good science and refused to integrate new information into their understanding. I believe that those drawing lines in the sand and trying to kick Christian scientists and theologians out of the Kingdom of God for not toeing the creationist line are contributing to their own destruction and needlessly forcing God into science’s line of fire. I believe in a great God who is not threatened by scientific discovery or limited by the boundaries of human understanding.
3. To clarify the issues and terms that seem to be misunderstood and misrepresented, such as “Intelligent Design.” I’ve witnessed a serious disconnect between what scientists say and how their words are used and explained in the public square
4. To once again challenge my own views in an effort to find the truth. It’s my belief that the truth will always prevail, and does not need the interventions of censorship and selective study. I don’t want to cushion my views in guarded privacy, I want to expose them to be challenged as I’m sure they will be in the following blogs/notes. Whether you agree with me or not, I hope that you can be part of this process through your input, suggestions, intellectual contributions, criticisms, and feedback.
Understanding that the origins debate is in many ways more about one’s view of The Bible than biology, (as evidenced by comparing attitudes on evolution to lesser understood scientific theories that are widely accepted) I will also write about Genesis and the Bible as a whole. First, I will outline why I think the biological evidence strongly supports descent with modification [read post]. If it were not for the compelling case for this scientific principle, I may have continued believing the literal, 6-day creation model that I was taught throughout my early life. Even still, I found many theological issues and textual problems unsettling and the process of trying to better understand these questions eventually turned out to coincide with my interest in biology and natural history. I find all of this quite fascinating, although it has also created some drama and brought its own set of problems. Sometimes the truth can be difficult, but this realization in no way tempts me to give up or close my eyes to the vast and intriguing world around us.
mod synthesis 
Curtis
May 9, 2010
Tony,
I really admire you putting this out there. I am not sure where i stand on the topic as i have never given it too much attention. I will be happy to share my thoughts along the way. I don’t consider myself an expert on evolution by any sense. But without patting myself on the back too hard, I’m pretty much an expert on the book of Genesis. I spent almost 4 years studying Genesis. 2 at church and 2 studying it word by word in the original Hebrew in a scholarly environment. Second, I just want to say that i don’t believe issues like this are the heart and soul of the Gospel. My God is big enough to handle your view and the traditional young earth/ literal creation story. I’m not saying both are right (There’s a difference between thinking everybody is right and knowing that at the end of the day it may not matter who is right at all.) But nonetheless, it is certainly a stumbling block for so many and i appreciate you sharing your own journey that has brought you to your understanding.
Kevin
May 9, 2010
>
I believe in a great God who is not >threatened by scientific discovery or limited by the boundaries of human understanding.
>
Like Curtis, I still don’t know really where I stand with the evolution debate. I use to be afraid to even confront it, but something Tony you have said before (pasted below) in a private message to me made a big difference in how I view evolution and allowed me to open up my narrow mind to the possibility of evolution having a place. I haven’t come to that exact place you are at intellectually or spiritually. But, that is o.k.
–Now we have a better understanding of how vast and ancient our universe is, and we have seen God send his Son to die for us. We should be much more inspired than David! Whether we were made from dust or developed from other animals, we are humbled. We are not angels, we are not gods, yet the True God cares for us. I find that quite inspiring.–
Maybe it’s time for Christian scientists, theologians, apologists, scholars, priests and pastors to sit down and have a open discussion on this. Not so much to debate, but to figure out a way for them to be open about where they stand on evolution. Because if many of them are keeping it hidden, what is their reason unless they haven’t quite come to truly believe it themselves yet. So they are sparing people how confused they are themselves.
Christian scientists, theologians, apologists, scholars, priests and pastors will usually be open about things they strongly believe. There must be a reason why someone like C.S Lewis didn’t have a chapter in Mere Christianity on evolution. Then again maybe if Lewis would have produced his works after or during the birth of the modern creationist movement, then he would have wrote in tensely about it.
Kevin
Vielsa Harding
September 15, 2013
IF I may Kevin, I was in the same situation some years back until I came across John MacArthur and his website GraceToYou..you ought to check it out.
“Arguments that the speed of light has been slowing down and thus traveled much more rapidly in the past would indicate a very young universe in terms of thousands rather than billions of years.” Barry Setterfield, an Australian scientist, proposed the decay in the speed of light in his writings called The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. According to Setterfield the first careful measurement of the speed of light was made by a Danish astronomer, Reemer(?), in 1675 and then by an English astronomer, Bradley, in 1728. It’s been measured many times since then and is said to have reached an equilibrium at the number I gave you a moment ago. The data indicate that the speed of light in 1675 was about 2.6 faster than today and that it continued to decline until 1960 when atomic clocks began to be employed to measure it. Setterfield chartered a rate of about 5.7 kilometers decrease in velocity per second between 1675 and 1728 and 2.5 kilometers per second decrease between 1880 and 1924 and he kept charting the decrease. He worked out a curve tracing the decay of the velocity of light. On this basis, Setterfield figures the earth was created about 4000 and 40, plus or minus a hundred years.
At the time of creation the speed of light was going so much faster than it does now. If the speed of light has indeed decayed, along with everything else, then the most basic empirical measurement of the age of the solar system would fit precisely into the genealogical chronologies of Genesis. Wow, if you just take those same figures, put them on a curve, you have light being almost instantaneous 6000 years ago.
Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t. Moreover, assuming that’s correct, that would explain why the dates derived from various types of radio active measurements on physical geological elements such as the half life of uranium 238 decaying into lead over millions of years would all be skewed. The velocity of an electron in its orbit is proportional to the speed of light. Everything changes and what appears to be old isn’t old at all if you understand this immense fact.
Hence, radio metric ages in rocks, meteorites and other astronomical objects in conventionally allocated years can all be predicted by the high initial value of sea and accommodated within a 6000 year framework. I don’t want to go into any more detail, I’ve said more than I know now. But I’ll tell you this, we can start with a fixed point and the fixed point is Genesis 1. Genesis 1. We don’t find anything in science that legitimately cast doubt on the veracity of this creation in six days, six thousand or so years ago.”
I believe IT is very important to know these facts and bring The Truth forth. I mean how silly it is to go along with a lie just because -we don’t want to change things? books are written already, museums, etc? ah? how absurd is that ? Just saying.
modsynth
May 9, 2010
Thanks for bringing up that conversation, Kevin. I’ve posted the rest of my response:
http://www.modsynth.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/15/
Darlene
May 9, 2010
Tony, I do have some questions for you, and I have to admit that I haven’t looked up the highlights, i.e. Dover Trial, Scopes Trial, etc. BUT, I think it’s fine to look into evolution and how everything “may” have happened. I don’t think there is exact “proof” and that there never really will be any exact proof. Evolution is still a theory, not scientific proof. It also conflicts with a lot that I see in the bible. I believe that there are scientists, and that they’re amazing in their discoveries about medicine, etc. But, when I read the bible, it tells me I was wonderfully made in the image of God, and that is amazing to me (and it doesn’t fit with evolution of humans). Actually, I think that there is no real proof that a God exists — it takes faith, and part of that faith comes from reading the bible, but not all. There’s no way to prove that God is real, but I feel Him all around me, talk to Him constantly, and believe that He is, and I’ve felt that way before I even thought too much about ever reading the bible. I STILL am not really interested in reading the bible too much — my faith is sufficient. I believe that most people feel this way, and are not interested in the debate. I don’t think that God meant for us to find proof of these things — that’s why it takes faith alone to believe in Him. I think it’s great that you delve into things when your soul is searching. I’m not upset about some of your conclusions, but it does feel upsetting if you’d think to teach your children this as “truth” when only God knows the truth — then again, God is the final authority, and I trust in Him as far as the people I care for are concerned. I’m sure I’ll send another comment as I talk with you and look at this a bit more closely. I just wanted you to know what I was thinking very early on. — Darlene
Spivey
May 13, 2010
Tony,
This is good stuff. Very thorough and in depth.
My two cents for whoever cares to read:
Searching to prove the validity of the Bible, is equally as relevant and necessary as searching for proof of Evolution. If anyone took a few steps back and looked at both with just a passing glance, both Creation and Evolution theories seem like complete lunacy when quickly summarized. ie: A. We all came from nothing, then primordial ooze, then eventually some sort of reptile, then monkeys, then people, and this all took place over billions of years. (And in the other corner) B. Life began 5,000 years ago by an invisible God, in a garden with a talking snake, a magic tree, some mud and a rib.
Too often, the both sides take the wrong approach to argue their point. I’ve read from Creationists, when attempting to prove that the Biblical explanation of human origins is correct, a long winded tirade on the historical accuracy of the Old Testament (which still takes a lot of faith to swallow,) and different New Testament fulfillment of OT prophecies (even more faith required there,) therefore leaving little doubt in their minds that the account of creation is accurate. However, seeking to establish a historically accurate, linear Biblical Canon, based on it’s own claims to its prophetic fulfillment still doesn’t prove Creationism or Evolution. Neither does creating a timeline of the History of Evolution based on fossil findings establish without doubt the direct origins of man, as there are still a lot of gaps in the timeline. Both of these sides of the argument provide proof of something, but not that which was intended. It’s like saying coming home to find your brown lamp in your living room broken and saying “well my wife had the garage door opener at her work from 9-5, so therefore her boss must’ve used it to come into my house and break the lamp in the living room, since it was brown and he hates that color.” There’s still too many dots within the story that need to be connected, before we can rest on a undeniable conclusion. But putting that first glance lunacy of the two arguments aside, both of the explanations for the eternal “where did we come from” question are without a doubt, extraordinary.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) a well-known astronomer and author who hosted a TV series called “Cosmos.”
Up until the about 400 years ago (when Magellan sailed around the earth,) most of the world was convinced the earth was flat (or a dome, or curved, but certainly NOT round,) and the center of the solar system. This belief was based upon physical observation, lack of scientific discovery (gravity,) lack of technological advancement (telescopes, ships capable to sail the world,) and we have to also include Biblical interpretation. Biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text (depending on the translation) stating that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, “the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” etc. It was the consensus of the church that the earth was the center of the solar system, and most likely flat. So much so, that the Catholic Church even imprisoned Galileo to a life sentence, for trying to contend otherwise. Galileo was found to be a heretic, after being put on trial for “grave suspicion of heresy”. The “heresy” was in connection with his publication of a book, “Dialogue on the Tides” in which his belief in the Copernican notion of a Sun centered universe had sort of “slipped in”. This was not a popular belief among the church, but, as time went on, the Catholic Church had no choice but to amend their dogma, to make room for the fact that the earth wasn’t flat or anything else but round. Once it was proven that the earth was indeed round, and not the center of the universe, Christians dug back into the Bible for proof that the earth was round, because God couldn’t be wrong. Of course it’s not in there (see note below paragraph,) but I guess it doesn’t DIRECTLY say the earth is flat either, if you take “ends of the earth” (Job 38:13) and “four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1) more poetically instead of literally. Too bad for Galileo that Pope Urban the VIII favored the literal interpretation, as Galileo was 77 years old when he died serving his life imprisonment sentence, for something he was positively correct about.
*Isaiah 40:22 states “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” That may have been useful for Galileo to mention during his trial.
Bring on a new Pope, John Paul II, who said “new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis.” I say all of this, to bring into play that just as Christians in the 18th century abandoned their Biblically based belied of a flat earth theory once it was irrefutably proven by science that the earth is round, Christians are beginning to do the same thing with evolution, as more and more evidence begins to surface that evolution is “more than a hypothesis.” It’s even being said now that some Christians are starting to believe that Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on the earth, and that there was an “Earth Age” before the period of creation. I’ve been told that it can be found in the Bible, but I have been unable to find it, which is one of the reasons that I’m looking forward to reading more as Tony reveals more on his own studies.
What IS true for many people, is that extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. Evolutionist are on the right track in the search for proof of theirs. Thousands of scientists from across the world are constantly researching the Human Genome to find DNA similarities, anomalies, mutations – anything that may help them uncover another layer to the history and origins of mankind. Fossil records and archeological data continue to provide more and more evidence supporting their theories. We currently have unearthed of hundreds of transitional fossils, and several “missing link” fossils that potentially link homo sapiens, to reptiles and “the Great Apes.” It is pretty much the consensus of the majority of the scientific community that the evidence in favor of evolution far outweighs the claims of creationism. In order to prove creationism, Creationists continue to quote the Bible, and maintain that they have faith that what the Bible said happened, happened. In order to use the Bible as a form of proof, Creationists might gain some credibility if the were able to bring some validity to the Bibles other extraordinary claims. Such as: 1. Men living to be 900 years old. 2. A man surviving in the belly of a great fish for 3 days, 3. A world-wide deluge with a single man saving every known species of animal. 4. A man with super human strength that came from the length of his hair. 5. Talking snakes. 6. Talking donkeys. 7. Men walking on water. 8. The sun standing still for a day.
All these extraordinary claims have a severe lack of evidence, if not have been proven completely impossible altogether by the way of religions arch-rival, science. This brings up the notion that perhaps these stories aren’t literal at all, but metaphorical, a possibility which many Christians are now willing to accept. However, many still assert that the Word of God is 100% literal. So, if these Bible stories are metaphorical, how do we tell which ones are and are not? Is the account of creation in the Bible metaphorical and poetic? If Evolution prevails, and Creationism is deemed so metaphorical, then Christians face a very difficult battle ahead, which is best quoted here:
“If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we’re going?” -Justin Brown
Creationists, and now Christian Evolutionists have a lot of catching up to do, and I commend Tony for taking a step into the unknown, with his beliefs firmly by his side. Perhaps some of things written here will, if possible, bridge a gap between theories of Intelligent Design and Evolution.
I, personally, like where you’re taking this study, Tony. More power to you, and I can’t wait to read more.
modsynth
May 13, 2010
Thanks, Scott. I’m glad you brought up that quote about the Bible. That statement would be agreed upon by atheists and Biblical literalists – the two extremes that agree that if the Bible is wrong about one thing it’s wrong about everything. Ken Hamm says the same thing as this atheist when he is defending creationism. In the 4th century, long before the current “war” between science and the Bible started, Augustine said this:
“It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.”
My feeling is similar. Let’s not pretend to know so much, or to make the Bible out to be more than it even claims to be – a science textbook. Doing so backfires, as Augustine insightfully noted so long ago.
I certainly agree that existence itself is unexplainable and extraordinary. “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” We are apparently intelligent enough to ask the question but not to answer it to satisfaction.
By the way, DNA evidence and the boss’ GPS may make a compelling circumstantial case for his guilt in breaking the lamp – BUT it would tell us nothing of the motive (why) or exactly how he broke it.
Thanks for the well thought out response.
sydney huth
May 24, 2010
wow. that’s alot of interesting commentary! @spivey, i really like that you quoted carl sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” now, i’m going to say this right off the bat, and tony, i will understand completely if you’d rather me not comment on any of your blogs, but i am not a christian. this does not mean that i don’t appreciate a person’s belief or faith, or ridicule it. i was raised in a very strict christian household, went to christian schools, attended church regularly, and pretty much believed blindly what i was told until i was about 10-years-old when a series of life-changing events made me start questioning everything i knew. i’m still questioning, and i’ll be honest and say that alot of days what i think/believe depends on my mood. as far as evolution/creation goes, i think that most evidence does point towards evolution. there ARE scientific facts supporting the theory, whether one wants to acknowledge them or not. the “big bang” theory however has never rung completely true for me. i don’t like to think that all of this life, all of this world could be the result of some random cosmic accident, but i really don’t know. i don’t believe the bible was meant to be taken quite as literally as most christians take it, and it IS intrepreted very differently depending on the denomination/leader who is teaching scripture. i think it’s a very sad thing when a person believes anything blindly. everyone should be searching for themselves and actually THINKING for themselves and deciding what makes sense or not.
as far as teaching your children the truth, well, it’s part of a parents job to decide what that child learns. no one else can tell you how to raise your child, as long as it’s done in a healthy, loving environment. as for my own children, i will most certaintly have them learn biblical teachings, but also want them to learn about other theories and faiths and science and make their own decisions for themselves, when they are old enough to do so. i was baptized as an infant, and then again at the age of 7, and then again at 13 due to peer pressure from my youth group. obviously, for me at least, i hadn’t reached the age of reason. those decisions were made for me, and that was all i knew. sorry if i digressed, but i feel strongly about not pressuring a child into anything, especially if they aren’t old enough to fully understand anyway. since i’ve gotten slightly off subject, i’ll stop here, and just say that this world is full of questions, and alot of them won’t be answered in our lifetime, but a little reconciliation between science and religion wouldn’t hurt.
Vielsa Harding
September 15, 2013
If I may, I know this thread is old, but I want to share that I have found this Website GraceToYou where pastor John MacArthur explains Genesis so scientifically and thoroughly I never thought I would believe creation in six days – Now that I know, I wish The Whole World at least read through these and see for themselves and make their own minds.
“Arguments that the speed of light has been slowing down and thus traveled much more rapidly in the past would indicate a very young universe in terms of thousands rather than billions of years.” Barry Setterfield, an Australian scientist, proposed the decay in the speed of light in his writings called The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe. According to Setterfield the first careful measurement of the speed of light was made by a Danish astronomer, Reemer(?), in 1675 and then by an English astronomer, Bradley, in 1728. It’s been measured many times since then and is said to have reached an equilibrium at the number I gave you a moment ago. The data indicate that the speed of light in 1675 was about 2.6 faster than today and that it continued to decline until 1960 when atomic clocks began to be employed to measure it. Setterfield chartered a rate of about 5.7 kilometers decrease in velocity per second between 1675 and 1728 and 2.5 kilometers per second decrease between 1880 and 1924 and he kept charting the decrease. He worked out a curve tracing the decay of the velocity of light. On this basis, Setterfield figures the earth was created about 4000 and 40, plus or minus a hundred years.
At the time of creation the speed of light was going so much faster than it does now. If the speed of light has indeed decayed, along with everything else, then the most basic empirical measurement of the age of the solar system would fit precisely into the genealogical chronologies of Genesis. Wow, if you just take those same figures, put them on a curve, you have light being almost instantaneous 6000 years ago.
Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t. Moreover, assuming that’s correct, that would explain why the dates derived from various types of radio active measurements on physical geological elements such as the half life of uranium 238 decaying into lead over millions of years would all be skewed. The velocity of an electron in its orbit is proportional to the speed of light. Everything changes and what appears to be old isn’t old at all if you understand this immense fact.
Hence, radio metric ages in rocks, meteorites and other astronomical objects in conventionally allocated years can all be predicted by the high initial value of sea and accommodated within a 6000 year framework. I don’t want to go into any more detail, I’ve said more than I know now. But I’ll tell you this, we can start with a fixed point and the fixed point is Genesis 1. Genesis 1. We don’t find anything in science that legitimately cast doubt on the veracity of this creation in six days, six thousand or so years ago.”
modsynth
May 25, 2010
Thanks, Syd. I’m glad you stopped by, and of course I’d love to hear from you and Daniel as well, if he’s interested.
Spivey
May 27, 2010
“By the way, DNA evidence and the boss’ GPS may make a compelling circumstantial case for his guilt in breaking the lamp – BUT it would tell us nothing of the motive (why) or exactly how he broke it.”
Couldn’t agree more, which was the point I was trying to make, but perhaps I was too rushed in my attempt at analogy. There are still too many dots to connect within the circumstantial evidence, that could only be connected then by either a: more evidence, b: the boss’ testimony, or c: another suspect with greater motive, ruling the boss himself out.
If I may overcomplicate the simple things even more. Though most of us here know each other, I’m going to write as if we don’t, assuming nothing of each others belief systems, or knowledge thereof. Saying that, a lot of the introductory statements I make here are rather fundamental knowledge to students of theology, but essential in making my point.
“Why are we here,” is probably easier for a Theist (of any religion,) to answer than an Atheist. For Christians (since my background is in Christianity, I use Christian faith in my examples most often) a discovery that would validate claims of Creationism (“how” did we get here,) would immediately answer the “why” question for most. I submit that asking “why,” automatically implies that human existence is for a purpose. A modern Christian believes their purpose is to spread the Gospel of Christ; The Great Commission. After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the remaining 11 disciples and said this:
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)
Modern Christians believe this message was not solely intended for Jesus’ disciples, but also a commission issued to every future convert, and has essentially been the primary mission of Christendom since the first century A.D.
Digging further back in the Bible, we see that mankind once had a different purpose. God’s first duty for man was for them to “be fruitful, and multiply.” Biblical reference Genesis 1:27-28 reads:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
This “commission” was given before the “Fall of Man,” which is also found in the book of Genesis, chapter 3. We can reasonably conclude that God’s original purpose for mankind, was to be fruitful and multiply, but after the Fall, the commission had to change. We can ask, “why didn’t God just start over with Adam and Eve? Why not just wipe them out, like he did to the whole world in the story of the Noah and the Flood 1700 years after Creation, re-create life, and this time, keep a closer look out for that crafty Serpent? Surely, that would have been MUCH easier for him, and for all mankind.” We also don’t see another direct God given human purpose until The Great Commission, 4,000 years later, aside from “turn from your wickedness, stop sinning,” etc. (The default answer to those questions is often “God’s ways are higher than our ways.” A look a little deeper will reveal an answer with more detail.)
The general answer to why God didn’t just start over, is the introduction of “free will.” God wants us to willfully follow him, and gives mankind both a pleasant heavenly eternal reward for doing so, or a violent hellish eternal consequence for not doing so. A more detailed answer given for this absence of a direct God-given purpose for 4,000 years is that once sin entered into to lives of mankind through Adam and Eve’s “original sin,” God could not live along side of us, which is what he wants to do. It’s believed that throughout Biblical history, he gave mankind plenty of opportunity to turn from their wickedness, and though he found some men worthy in his eyes, the majority of the world was pretty much, lost. Enter Christ, the Great Commission and then the Holy Spirit, and now mankind has a purpose once again. That is IF mankind really was created by a caring, cognitive agent. Taking all this into consideration, we can now see why answering the “where did we come from” question for Christians also answers the “why are we here” question, and why the “where”is so important. Without being made by God, humans, according to Christians, have no purpose. The “where” answers the “why” in this case.
According to Atheists belief, answering “where did we come from” may not answer “why are we here.” Moreover, the two aren’t even related. Many Atheists are comfortable with not having a purpose (divine, or anything greater than living a moral life,) as they don’t believe in an afterlife. Though non-religious groups are just as curious as religious groups as to where we came from, many non-religious individuals don’t feel the need to search for an answer as to why mankind is here. Atheist Richard Feyman (an American physicist who died in 1988, and was known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, as well as introducing the idea of nanotechnology, a field that may be the next big topic in Religion vs. Science controversy) said “But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me” Let me be clear here: I’m certainly not asserting that every non-Theist in the world doesn’t occasionally wonder why we’re all here, but I am saying that the search of a purpose for life, is primarily rooted in religious (and mythical, though I don’t tie religion and myth into the same category,) dogma. Hence, why this response has been focusing on the religious side of some of mankind’s current outlook on human existence.
If I may through my own personal stance out there…
My stance is that I DON’T know, and don’t pretend to know why we are all here. But, it is educational and enjoyable to speculate and have healthy debate on the topic. My opinion (and only an opinion,) from what I can tell is that I’m not sure how anyone can KNOW with any certainty why we are all here. One can BELIEVE a thing, based on religious convictions, scientific data, speculation-whatever, as beliefs are understood to be up to the individual, and that should be perfectly alright. Or is it? Let’s for a moment, place all the people we know who share like beliefs in one column, and everyone else in another. Unfortunately for mankind, currently, there is a large gap between the inhabitants the belief column and non-belief column. Each group has an arsenal of facts to support their beliefs that are good enough for them, but not good enough for the opposing group. But belief is not just an individual choice that is easy for others to accept. If belief was simply a choice up to an individual, and respected by others, then we wouldn’t have all the conflicts over beliefs that we currently have. We wouldn’t have divided countries, war, divided families, this blog, etc. Thomas Jefferson said “Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
I fall in strange category, where I hope that science and religion will someday work together (I realize that the above quote wasn’t directly concerning scientific development and religion, but I am attempting to make a parallel.) Perhaps, science reveal the areas of the Bible (or any holy book) that were NOT inspired by it’s divine author (if in some ways it hasn’t already begun,) and were instead placed there by man, howbeit deliberate, or by error with good intention, or an intentional tampering of the scriptures. I’d hope that the believers of those faiths would be ready to accept those developments. It would certainly give them better insight into who and what they believe to be divine cognitive creator really is. We might say that science could gain a little from religion as well, should the shoe fall on the other foot. If Creationism prevails, true scientists in search of the truth will then have no choice but to start to bring a little faith into their life.
Finally..
I believe Martin Luther was wrong when he said “Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.” As was Benjamin Franklin incorrect when he said “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason,” if you place it in the context of that which I am bringing to the table. Martin Luther himself even reformed the Bible as Protestants now know it, based on his OWN beliefs, as did Thomas Jefferson, who penned out the miracles of Christ in the New Testament and retitled it “The Faith and Moral Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.”
Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society’s own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender – A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)
Why are we here? I’m not sure mankind is any closer to agreeing upon that answer than we were 6000 years ago, poking around in the mud for answers. Here we are, six millennia later STILL poking around in the mud, searching for answers! But one thing is for sure: we’ve certainly killed enough over it, and we’ve certainly seen nothing but an unwillingness to unite and find out. “Why are we here,” is a HUGE factor in human history, and our current state. Perhaps the new “Age” in human existence, IS to unite all faiths, non-faiths, and sciences, and (like Kevin said above,) have an open discussion about this, and furthermore, agree before humankind kills each other off. We may actually stand to benefit to TRY to work together,and try to learn from each other. Biblical prophecy talks about the end of the world by fire and brimstone, and it was written during at time before we had nuclear weapons, atomic missiles, and chemical warfare. Now, these weapons are in the hands of groups with varying beliefs, willing to defend them. Let’s not prematurely self-fullfill the prophecy, and destroy whatever evidence the Earth may have for us, while we are all in search for the same answers.
Again, the reason why I am enjoying this discussion so much, is that it seems that it could open a door towards that very development. Tony pulling the quote from Augustine is brilliant. There are very smart people in each column. Though we don’t all believe the same thing now, that should not be a motivator for any of us to prejudge the others ability to shine light on our own dark area of belief and knowledge.
The latter part of this commentary was riddled with opinions, more so than my previous post, so I expect some opposition, which is cool. Thanks for allowing me to participate, and for reading.
Spivey
May 28, 2010
Just realized by html breaks were placed wrong… curse my ignorance of modern technology.
Artifice
October 19, 2012
We’ve been debating and discussing a bit but I just got around to reading your intro blog here and I fully respect your take on life not only in a theological sense but also from a scientific standpoint. I however, cannot agree that faith is for anyone who is in anyway “looking” for the truth. Because faith is believing something when you have no reason to. If you had a reason to believe in anything supernatural than you wouldn’t need faith. One who has faith in anything is (in crude terms) lazy and does not care whether or not what he is believing to be true. Im still at not full understanding at the motives behind someone who realizes science and evolution to be a believer of God. (I’ve met many who have given me several different answers) but hopefully in time and after much discussion Ill find out. Of course, thats why we’re all here isn’t it? To continually ask the question WHY? My viewpoint is to not settle on something supernatural but to balance evidence and continue to look for answers before coming to a conclusion of belief. And since there is the never going to be a day when I stop searching for the answers of WHY and HOW then the day will never come where I can say that I believe in God.