Religion’s Unanswerable Question
James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In my last entry I discussed the question(s) that evolution and evolutionists are incapable of answering. And so, in the interest of honest disclosure, in this post I want to share what I believe to be the question(s) that religion cannot answer. I want to underline, in bold face, and in italics, that this is my opinion, and others may disagree completely or in part. I have come to this conclusion after years of study, and as my study is ongoing and ever developing, I am sure that in future days my conclusions will change somewhat. As the apostle Paul said, here on earth we all see as “through a mirror darkly.” So, I am in no way going to claim some kind of spiritual omniscience here.
First, specifically in regard to the question of the origin of life, religion can answer the questions of who and why and what, but the question of when is totally beyond the realm of religion. Our biblical text begins, “In the beginning God created…” That is as far as I, as a Christian, can go. How many years ago did that creating begin? The Bible is silent. The years that are given in the records of the genealogies are given to place certain individuals in certain time frames that the original audience understood. As an assignment in one of my college courses I traced the lineage of the priesthood of Zadok. That singular exercise convinced me that genealogies in the Old Testament are used in a far different way from the “scientific” way in which we used them today. Does Genesis 1-3 give us a photographic image of the creation of the earth? Not as I understand the Hebrew language, the Hebrew method of storytelling (poetry), and the theology that the Genesis author (who, in a large way I believe to be Moses) wanted to convey. Instead of a “photographic” image I prefer to use the idea of a “painting.” Compare a painting of, say, the Revolutionary War with the gritty black and white images of World War II or Vietnam. The paintings convey what the artist wanted us to see and learn about the battle. The pictures showed everything exactly the way it was, no glamour, glory, or rapturous elements looking down from heaven. Moses did not give us a photograph of the creation of the world, he gave us a mural. And, as with any other mural, we have to look at the whole painting to understand each little part.
The other question in regard to creation that religion cannot answer is “how?” Once again our text simply says, “God created.” The most specific it gets is when it says, “God spoke.” We are told God formed man from the elements of the earth, and that is confirmed by our sciences. We are also told that woman was formed from man. Beyond that we are given no details, because, quite frankly, nobody really cared about such things until about 100 years ago. The questions related to how our world operates are a legitimate exercise of the field of science. I happen to believe that a Christian scientist is in a far better position to answer these questions, but once again, that is my opinion. There are many other questions of “how” that the Bible does not answer, and therefore I believe are illegitimate issues for Christians to attempt to answer dogmatically. We can search for clues and work to learn how God has acted in our world, but all of our answers need to be provisional and suggestive.
By way of summary, I would simply like to suggest that somewhere along the way we as Christians have allowed our antagonists to set the agenda and we have surrendered our Spiritual birthright for a mess of scientific porridge. We got sucked into answering questions that we honestly do not have any firm evidence to use, and our own political infighting over these tenuous answers has only served to embolden our opponents. Just as one example, I cannot begin to hold the figure of a 6,000 year old earth. I cannot because (1) my understanding of the Hebrew language and aspects of the Hebrew historiography, (2) I studied about how Archbishop Ussher [the source of the 6,000 year old claim] came to his conclusions, (3) my own [albeit limited] understanding of physics, astronomy and even archeology. However, Ussher’s chronology was incorporated into the printed text of some King James editions of the Bible, and soon it became sacrosanct. Therefore to challenge Ussher’s chronology was the same as denying inspiration of Scripture. Even today we are dealing with Ussher’s legacy, even though few even know about Ussher, and far fewer would subscribe to his methodology if they knew about it.
However, to continue the story, the evolutionists and atheists jumped on Ussher’s chronology and ridiculed it. Instead of saying that the chronology was just a human calculation and letting the theory rest on it own strengths or weaknesses, by defending it as a part of Scripture Christians bought into bad science and seriously weakened their case. I fear that now what most evolutionists ridicule about the faith of Christians and our beliefs about the Bible are only a caricature of what the Bible actually teaches, but is itself a caricature that is actually defended by Christians themselves. In the immortal words of Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us.
Is there a solution to the impasse between Christianity and science? Absolutely! We need to return to a serious and in-depth study of what the Bible actually does teach and the ways in which it teaches those truths. This means a return to the original languages and the original forms of teaching. It also means we must hold an open mind to the discoveries of archeology, physics and astronomy, as well as the other hard and soft sciences. If our universe is as ordered and as well planned as Christians have been arguing it is for the past several hundred years now, surely God will not mind if we explore how that order and plan actually works. And, scientists need to understand that a pure faith in God is not antagonistic to their life’s work. Science and theology can be, and must be, supportive of one another.
The fact is that science and theology are seeking to answer different, but inter-related questions. Let us work together to find all the answers.
Posted on July 9, 2012, in Apologetics, Science, Theology and tagged Bible, Christianity, James Ussher, orthodoxy, Theology. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.
love your spirit – lot’s of good stuff here and lot’s of stuff inbetween that I am not so crazy about – best thing is that you are talking about it and i thank you for that
Ha! Thanks for stopping by and reading (and commenting) even about the stuff you are not crazy about. Many times I am expressing deeply held convictions, sometimes I am just writing out loud to clarify my thoughts. Don’t ask me to say which is which – that would require too much thinking.
I do appreciate your “likes” and just the fact that you share some of your time with this space.
Paul, As evanlaar1922 wrote, “love your spirit” – I echo that comment. I would, respectfully, disagree with your conclusions – but I respect your right to them. I agree Ussher’s 6000 years may be too much. But I believe that Creation Scientists have produced much more questions about the lack of evidence for an old earth – or rather, more evidence for a young earth. And while I agree that Genesis is not a “scientific” textbook – it is a book that tells us how God created – He spoke – out of nothingness He created. Man, formed in the image of God, was made from the earth-material, yet Eve was created different – why? That is a question to ponder and consider. If God was using natural processes, they why was it recorded that Eve was not made in the same way as Adam. What is the import of Adam being made “in the image of God”. Was it to prepare the way for God to become a man (Immanuel)? And when God made Adam – and Eve – were they not made “fully formed” not as babes, but as adults. Were not other aspects of the creation made in the same way – fully formed. This should give us pause to consider the implications of why this was so. Another aspect to consider – when Moses recorded the ages of the first inhabitants of earth – the ages from Genesis 1-11 – what was his purpose? Why would he record their ages, their children, etc? Now, have you ever plotted on paper the ages of these people? If you plot their ages, and set up a chart based on this – you’ll see something very, very interesting… until the flood – the age of man was around 700-900 years… but once the flood occurred – then man’s age started dropping – until about Abraham’s time – it leveled off again around 120 years. But between these – there is an exponential decay curve – (just like in physics or chemistry – when you go from one steady state to another – for example – if you take a glass of room temp water… measure it’s temp for a few minutes – then add 2-5 ice cubes and record the temperature – it falls exponentially until it reaches a new steady state. If Moses was recording the ages with accuracy – why would this be evident? Or if you chart the times they lived… you notice – after the flood for about 500 – 700 years – we had an unusual patter develop – Men out lived their grandsons, great-grandsons, great-great-grandsons, even their great-great-great-great-great-grandsons. Noah and his sons and grandsons would have had tremendous influence on civilization as it developed while mankind was rebuilding itself. Then with in a couple of hundred years – all those “ancients” started dying off – causing a massive loss of experience and wisdom in a short while – again – having a tremendous effect on civilizations.
I guess you can tell – I get worked up about this.
Regards from Round Rock/Pflugerville, TX
Ted
Ted, you raise some excellent questions, and I appreciate the way you disagree in such an agreeable manner. To sum up very briefly, in my two articles I was trying to point out that there are questions that evolutionists cannot answer strictly from science, and there are questions that believers (namely, Christians) cannot answer strictly from the Bible. Hence my statement that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is because, quite simply in my mind, it is inconsequential how old the earth is. What I fear has happened is that in attempting to refute ignorant statements from atheistic evolutionists, Christians have been sucked into equally bad “science” and when the scientists attack the bad science we get all defensive thinking they are attacking the Bible (which, by the way, they think they are doing as well).
I suppose in a way I was reacting against “Creationists” who attempt to use every genealogy, every age, every date in the Bible as if it were a roadmap back to the very first day of creation. It simply cannot be done. Genealogies were not used for that purpose in the Old Testament. I referenced a study I made on the genealogy of Zadok for an Old Testament History class. One such genealogy is given in 1 Chron. 6, one in 1 Chron. 9, and one in Ezra 7. All three are unique, and while they may share some names, no two are identical. A more well known example is that of the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. A common explanation I have heard is that one writer gives the genealogy of Joseph and one of Mary, but that is distinctly NOT what the text of both Matthew and Luke states.
Once again, you raise some very fascinating questions, but also once again, I believe these are questions that are better suited to a theological study, and not a historical one. I might should say that I am in no way arguing for a “God created evolution” kind of twisted way of getting around these issues. I believe whole heartedly that God created the world – and he did it ex nihilo or “out of nothing.” I trust, however, that if it was important for me to know every exact when and how, God would have revealed that for me to learn.
I don’t think I mentioned it in this exact article, but consider the “revolutionary” change of thinking that had to occur once it was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun “rising and setting” over the earth as the Bible speaks of it. That scientific discovery shook people’s faith to the core – yet we accept it today just as we accept the “law” of gravity. In one way we could say that the Bible teaches bad science – the sun does NOT rise and set. But, from a human perspective it most certainly DOES rise and set. So, the Bible does speak truth. I think that illustrates the point I am trying to make. The Bible always speaks truth, but not always in a manner that science will prove at a later point in time.
I very much appreciate your conversations. And, I do not mind anyone getting worked up about matters of faith, God, salvation, theology or my little blog for that matter. I just wish more people would be as energetic as yourself, while at the same time being as generous in your comments.
Keep on keeping on…one day we will see everything clearly. Until then we ALL need to ask these questions and search for the answers!
Blessings on your ministry –
Paul
Paul, I agree that there have been some bad science from Creationists, but also there have been some questioning of the “status quo” of scientific thought by Creation Scientists that have been very good. I appreciate what you had to say about the revolutionary change of thought in the earth revolving around the sun… good point. And, as you mentioned, we, today, often forget about the impact it had on human thought. And I too appreciate your graceful “agreeing to disagree”. I have really enjoyed your blog… and I am reading through it to get caught up. Yours is the first blog that I have stuck with – and am really enjoying learning from you and interacting as well.
May God richly bless you and yours during this holiday season!
In Him,
Ted
Pingback: spiritual authority and the forgotten essentials of christianity « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci