Remember Harold Camping, who made international news by declaring that Judgement Day would occur on May 21st, 2011? Well, he is at it again.
For those who do not remember, or are a little fuzzy on the details, Camping claimed that Judgement Day would happen on May 21st, with massive earthquakes occurring all over the world at 6:00pm local time in each time zone. Then, all "true" Christians (i.e. those Christians who agreed with everything Camping said) would be Raptured into heaven, beginning a five month period of "fire, brimstone, and plagues" on Earth, culminating with the end of the world on October 21st. Family Radio spent over $100 million dollars on advertising in order to spread the word of the upcoming deadline.
Well, to the shock of almost nobody, May 21st came and went without millions of Christians disappearing, leaving their empty clothes behind (I guess heaven is a nudist colony) as an omen to all us sinful heathens of the horrible agony God was about to inflict upon us. Damn.
(Video via Unreasonable Faith. While I am not an atheist, it is an awesome blog. I recommend checking them out.)
Afterwards, in his typical delusional fashion (this was his third failed prediction for the end of the world; the others were in 1988 and 1994), Camping announced that the "judgement" had been spiritual, not physical. Instead, the Rapture of "true" believers will occur simultaneously with God's destruction of the Earth, which Camping still believes will occur October 21st. The only difference this time around is that Camping is not spending millions of dollars on advertising. While most believe this is because Camping spent all his money proclaiming his previous date, Camping says it is because there is no point, since May 21st was Judgement Day. Basically, if you were not saved by then, you are screwed. God will annihilate you when He destroys the Earth on October 21st.
Now that October 21st is approaching, he is back in the news again.The only thing I am grateful for is that, since Camping's last prediction failed, he is not getting anywhere near as much media coverage this time. At least, not so far. We can only pray it stays that way.
I have written about end-time prophecies and why they are so popular before. To put it bluntly, I think they are a bunch of crap. I am no more worried that the world might end on October 21st than I am worried that I might be abducted by aliens tomorrow. What does bother me, though, is the enormous amount of money spent because of these predictions. As I mentioned above, Camping's group spent $100 million dollars in the weeks leading up to May 21st. Think of all the good that money could have done. How many hungry people could have been fed? How many free or low-cost clinics could have been supported so that the uninsured could have access to desperately needed medical care? How many inner-city schools could have been renovated, giving kids a better chance of succeeding in the future? How much aid could we have sent to areas all over the world struggling to recover from natural disasters? How many teenagers from low-income families could have been put through college, giving them a better chance at breaking the cycle of poverty? How many houses could have been built for low-income families? How many shelters could have been built to help the homeless?
I could go on and on. The sheer waste of it makes me sick. Instead of being so obsessed with when the world is going to end, why can we not be obsessed with making this world a better place, with helping those less fortunate than ourselves?
To be honest, this is something I do not understand about many conservative Christian churches. In the Bible itself, Jesus reveals what is truly important:
When an "expert in the law" asked Jesus "what must I do to inherit eternal life?", Jesus said "Love the Lord your God will all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all you mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus then goes on the define "neighbor" as everyone around you (Luke 10:25-37).
In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is extremely popular with conservative Christians, since they take it as evidence for the existence of an eternal hell (as a universalist I obviously disagree, but that is a discussion for another day) Jesus determines who is a sheep (good) and who is a goat (bad) by asking whether they gave the hungry something to eat, gave the thirsty something to drink, invited the stranger into their homes, gave clothes to those who needed them, looked after those who were sick, and visited those who were in prison (Mathew 25:34-40).
Jesus did NOT say you needed to hold the "right" beliefs, or follow the "right" rules, or belong to the "right" denomination, or go to church every Sunday morning and Wednesday night, or anything like that. Jesus did NOT ask whether you knew the date of the end of the world, including the exact timeline of the events that will encompass it [e.g. the Rapture, the Tribulation, Battle of Armageddon, the Millennium, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, etc. (disagreements over the order in which these events will occur have actually caused churches to split apart, but, again, that is a discussion for another day)].
Yet all those things are what conservative Christian churches pay the most attention too! A couple of years ago, I was having a conversation with an acquaintance with mine who was a fundamentalist Christian. I brought up a similar argument and his response was that there was no point on spending all there time attempting to "fix" the world since the world was going to end soon anyway. Better to work on saving souls before it is too late. While I know that my acquaintance was a good person, his answer disgusted me. All of this "End Times" crap disgusts me. I can only hope that when October 22nd dawns and the world is still here, people will recognize that Harold Camping is nothing but a fraud and maybe begin to realize that we have more important concerns to focus on than attempting to predict the end of the world.
Apologies both for the long post and a month long disappearance. I have been struggling with terrible writer's block, but hopefully that is ending.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Destructiveness of Religious Judgement
Last week, I accompanied my mother to a doctor's appointment. While she was back in the exam room, I hung out in the waiting room. It was a typical doctor's office waiting room and I got bored rather quickly. As I looked around for some magazines to read, a shelf near the check-in counter caught my eye. I walked over and realized it was display of different books you could buy. Most of them were rather small and looked like they had been printed by a local budget publisher. Not poor quality or anything, just plain. These books mainly dealt with medical issues, like healthy meal ideas for diabetics or an exercise guide for people with arthritis. However, on the middle shelf of the display, there was a thin book of inspirational stories.
Just for the record, I usually avoid books like that. While I generally consider myself to be an optimist, I generally find these types of books to be just a little irritating. The stories always seem either too good to be true or totally cheesy and unrealistic. But, since I had nothing better to do, and was suffering from neither diabetes nor arthritis, I grabbed the book (unfortunately, I do not remember the title), opened it to a random story, and began to read. The story I ended up with was about 12 pages long, so I've written out a short synopsis. Before I begin, I want to note that, while the exact Christian denomination the couple in the story belongs too is never disclosed, I think it is safe to assume they were conservative Christians, possibly even fundamentalists. You will see why I believe this as you read my synopsis, but please feel free to disagree with me.
Throughout the story, the assumption is that the son was so miserable because he was gay. But I think the real reason he was miserable because he was raised in a religious system which judges homosexuality to be a sin and condemns homosexuals themselves as immoral and depraved. This religious judgement convinced him that God both hated him and was disgusted by him. He was an abomination. Even worse, when he died, God was going to throw him into hell to endure horrendous, conscious torment for all eternity. Of course, if you truly believe that God hates you, you are going to hate yourself. I am sure that is what led to the drug abuse and other problems not mentioned.
From the story, it is obvious that the parents loved their son very much. I met conservative Christians who, if they found out their son was gay and dying of AIDS, would have just hung up the phone. But these parents did not. They desperately wanted to save their son. Yet they were absolutely clueless it was their own religious beliefs that had done so much damage.
This story breaks my heart so much because those same beliefs, which had produced so much destruction in his life, were being shoved down his throat while he laid on his death bed. What he actually needed to hear was that his homosexuality did not make him evil or wrong, that God loved him completely and unconditionally, and that he had nothing to fear, for God would never abandon him to hell for being gay. Instead, once more he was reminded of how evil and wrong he supposedly was by being told he had to beg God for forgiveness and renounce his former lifestyle in order to be saved. My only hope is that he was able to die peacefully without fear. It was the least he deserved after the hell he lived through on Earth.
This story demonstrates the reason why conservative Christianity's (or any other religion's/denomination's/sect's) beliefs in an eternal hell and an angry, petty, and conditionally loving God makes me so angry and why I am so passionate about universalism and God's unconditional love. Despite the parents best intentions and their substantial love for their son, their conception of God totally destroyed him.
These beliefs must be challenged and changed. Even in the hands of good, loving people, they can cause immense suffering. In the hands of depraved, power-hungry, and manipulative people, they can wreak entire families, tear apart whole communities and utterly devastate an individual's soul.
People often act like the God they believe in. If their God doesn't love unbelievers and either tortures them forever or annihilates them, why should the believers in that God act any differently? How could it be wrong to harm or kill someone whom God is just going to torment and/or exterminate anyway? Their souls obviously have little value to God, so why should their lives be valuable to other people? But if their God is genuinely a God of unconditional love who will not stop until every single one of His children is saved, everything changes. Suddenly, harming an unbeliever becomes equivalent to harming a believer. Suddenly, life isn't about how many souls you can "save", but about self-sacrifice in service to others. Suddenly, unworthiness and fear are replaced by trust and love. Suddenly, the world becomes a better place for all of us.
Just for the record, I usually avoid books like that. While I generally consider myself to be an optimist, I generally find these types of books to be just a little irritating. The stories always seem either too good to be true or totally cheesy and unrealistic. But, since I had nothing better to do, and was suffering from neither diabetes nor arthritis, I grabbed the book (unfortunately, I do not remember the title), opened it to a random story, and began to read. The story I ended up with was about 12 pages long, so I've written out a short synopsis. Before I begin, I want to note that, while the exact Christian denomination the couple in the story belongs too is never disclosed, I think it is safe to assume they were conservative Christians, possibly even fundamentalists. You will see why I believe this as you read my synopsis, but please feel free to disagree with me.
The story begins with a devout Christian couple. This couple had a son who became extremely unhappy and increasingly distant during his teenage years. He rejected his religious upbringing and refused to continue attending church, which greatly upset his parents. As soon as he graduated high school, he left home without reveling where he intended to go.At this point, I should note that his homosexuality is never explicitly mentioned as being the reason for his "life of sin", but that was the vibe I got from the story. I would not have been surprised if the pastor had interpreted the son's AIDS as a punishment from God for the son's homosexuality.
Over the next few years, they had sparse contact with their son. During his rare phone calls, they attempted to convince their son to come home and return to the church, saying that no matter what his sins were, Jesus would forgive him. Not surprisingly, their son spurned their invitation to return home and declined to give them any information about why he had disappeared or where he was. Soon, the phone calls ceased all together.
Sometime later (I forget exactly how long, but it couldn't have been more than a few years), the phone rang in the middle of the night. It was their son. He confessed to his parents that he was gay and that he was in a hospital in San Francisco, dying of AIDS. He said he wanted to tell them so that they would know what happened to him, but that he did not wish to see them. He had directed the nurses not to allow his parents to enter his room if they appeared at the hospital. He said goodbye and hung up.
Being devout Christians, the parents instantly called their pastor, who agreed to meet them at their church. Once at the church, the parents explained what their son had admitted to them over the phone and asked their pastor what he thought they should do. The pastor told them that they needed to immediately fly out to California and attempt to see their son. He said that their son was still unsaved and that it would be their final chance to preach the Gospel to him and save him from his life of sin.
The parents promptly left for San Francisco, arriving that evening. Once at the hospital, they requested to see their son. A nurse showed them to a waiting area and then departed for the son's room. She returned several minutes later and informed the parents that their son had refused to see them. This news deeply distressed the parents. However, they asked the nurse to tell their son that they would not leave and that if he changed his mind and desired to see them, they would be waiting for him. This entire exchange was overheard by another nurse. She approached the parents and offered to go talk to their son for them. She thought she might be able to convince him to see his parents. Of course the parents were happy to let her try and persuade their son.At this point, I would like to note two things. First, while not much is mentioned about the nurse who goes to talk with the son, it is implied that she is a Christian with beliefs similar to those of the parents. Second, I believe the comment about the son's arms was meant to inform the reader that the son was a drug addict, another "sin" on top of his homosexuality. While the bruises and needle marks could have been from medical treatment, the tone of that passage suggested otherwise.
The nurse was gone for quite a while. As the parents waited, they prayed to Jesus for their son's salvation. When the nurse finally reappeared, she told the parents that their son had consented to see them. The parents rapidly made their way to their son's hospital room. When they saw him for the first time in numerous years, they were shocked. He was pale, thin, and appeared incredibly ill. His arms were covered in bruises and needle marks (I believe the point of that observation was to show the reader that the son had been using drugs). Despite this, the parents were overjoyed to be with their son.
Over the next couple hours, they talked with him. Their son told them that he had left the church because he was gay. He had tried many many times to change, but each time he failed miserably. Because of that, he loathed himself and was tremendously angry at God for creating him this way. He could not go back to the church because he thought Jesus would never accept him, since he had led such a sinful lifestyle.When I finally finished the story, I was in almost a state of shock. This was supposed to be one of those inspirational, feel-good-about-the-world stories. But I didn't feel good at all. Quite the opposite. I felt sick. I felt angry. I wanted to cry. It took every ounce of self-control I had not to chuck the book across the room. My first rational thought was "I hope to God this story isn't true". But I had a nauseating feeling that it was.
His mother listened to her son's story with tears running down her cheeks. After he was finished, she told him that it was not too late; Jesus still loved him and would accept him. All he had to do was ask for forgiveness, renounce his former lifestyle, and let Jesus into his heart. Then he could die in peace, knowing he was saved and that he would be granted eternal life in heaven. The son, with his mother's support and encouragement, did just that. He prayed the sinner's prayer and became a Christian in the final hours of his life. He died later that night, happy in the knowledge that he was saved through his faith in Jesus Christ.
Throughout the story, the assumption is that the son was so miserable because he was gay. But I think the real reason he was miserable because he was raised in a religious system which judges homosexuality to be a sin and condemns homosexuals themselves as immoral and depraved. This religious judgement convinced him that God both hated him and was disgusted by him. He was an abomination. Even worse, when he died, God was going to throw him into hell to endure horrendous, conscious torment for all eternity. Of course, if you truly believe that God hates you, you are going to hate yourself. I am sure that is what led to the drug abuse and other problems not mentioned.
From the story, it is obvious that the parents loved their son very much. I met conservative Christians who, if they found out their son was gay and dying of AIDS, would have just hung up the phone. But these parents did not. They desperately wanted to save their son. Yet they were absolutely clueless it was their own religious beliefs that had done so much damage.
This story breaks my heart so much because those same beliefs, which had produced so much destruction in his life, were being shoved down his throat while he laid on his death bed. What he actually needed to hear was that his homosexuality did not make him evil or wrong, that God loved him completely and unconditionally, and that he had nothing to fear, for God would never abandon him to hell for being gay. Instead, once more he was reminded of how evil and wrong he supposedly was by being told he had to beg God for forgiveness and renounce his former lifestyle in order to be saved. My only hope is that he was able to die peacefully without fear. It was the least he deserved after the hell he lived through on Earth.
This story demonstrates the reason why conservative Christianity's (or any other religion's/denomination's/sect's) beliefs in an eternal hell and an angry, petty, and conditionally loving God makes me so angry and why I am so passionate about universalism and God's unconditional love. Despite the parents best intentions and their substantial love for their son, their conception of God totally destroyed him.
These beliefs must be challenged and changed. Even in the hands of good, loving people, they can cause immense suffering. In the hands of depraved, power-hungry, and manipulative people, they can wreak entire families, tear apart whole communities and utterly devastate an individual's soul.
People often act like the God they believe in. If their God doesn't love unbelievers and either tortures them forever or annihilates them, why should the believers in that God act any differently? How could it be wrong to harm or kill someone whom God is just going to torment and/or exterminate anyway? Their souls obviously have little value to God, so why should their lives be valuable to other people? But if their God is genuinely a God of unconditional love who will not stop until every single one of His children is saved, everything changes. Suddenly, harming an unbeliever becomes equivalent to harming a believer. Suddenly, life isn't about how many souls you can "save", but about self-sacrifice in service to others. Suddenly, unworthiness and fear are replaced by trust and love. Suddenly, the world becomes a better place for all of us.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Religion vs. Science (Part 3)
The past two centuries of human civilization has brought about a myriad of scientific discoveries and technological inventions. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the pace of progress is only accelerating. However, these advancements have incited some profound and contentious questions. Many of these questions arise from the discrepancy between ancient religious ideologies and recent scientific theories. These disparities have instigated religious, social, and political animosity, particularly in the United States. Why has this conflict developed? What is the most controversial issue? Most importantly, can religion and science coexist?
I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “Can religion and science coexist?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.
Religion in the United States, and Christianity in particular, is extremely diverse. There are thousands of denominations of varying sizes, each of which has had to confront the questions produced by modern science: Is the Book of Genesis in the Bible a literal guide to the creation of the universe and humanity? If so, how do you explain the contradictory evidence presented by science? If not, how do you understand the Book of Genesis in light of modern science?
In my experience, the conflict between science and religion has been "solved" in three distinct ways, with a majority of Christians advocating for one of these three solutions.
The first solution is a rejection of all scientific theories which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. Christians who advocate this position tend to be the most conservative and incredibly anti-cultural. They believe the Bible is inerrant and the literal word of God. Science which does not disagree with Scripture, such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is usually accepted. Obviously, theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are resolutely denied and dismissed. Evidence for such non-Biblical theories is discredited in a multitude of ways. The most prevalent explanation is simply that the scientists are wrong and that the evidence has been misinterpreted. Another, much less common, explanation is that the scientists are being tricked by Satan, who plants the evidence in order to deceive them and lead them away from God.
The second solution also rejects all scientific theories which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. However, these Christians do not just dismiss the scientists. They actually attempt to prove them wrong by concocting their own scientific theories, such as Intelligent Design. These Christians tend to be conservative, but not completely anti-cultural. They believe that the evidence for non-Biblical theories is being misinterpreted, oftentimes on purpose by scientists who (they believe) are striving to disprove God. Reinterpreting the evidence into a theory which does not contradict the Book of Genesis allows these Christians to compromise between keeping their religious tradition of an inerrant Bible and continuing to be relevant in the 21st century.
Unfortunately for them, this method has been largely unsuccessful outside their churches. Only a handful of school boards across the United States have voted to include, in varying degrees, Intelligent Design in the standards for high school biology. Of those, several school boards later had elections which ousted the members who voted to include Intelligent Design, and the new board promptly overturned the modified standards. Even worse was the court case I discussed in the second post of this series, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which the judge determined that:
The third solution holds that the Bible does not necessarily have to be interpreted literally and that the Book of Genesis is a metaphorical story about how the universe, Earth, and life was created. This view tends to be held by moderate and liberal Christians. Not being restrained by a literal Genesis allows these Christians to believe in the validity of scientific theories such as evolution. These Christians are often criticized by their more conservative counterparts for believing parts of the Bible are metaphorical. They (rightfully) claim this begs the question "How do you decide which parts of the Bible to take literally and which parts to take metaphorically?" (however, that is a debate for another day). The most common justification I have heard for taking the story of Genesis metaphorically is that God gave the ancient Hebrews a creation story they could comprehend, since the reality was too complicated for humans of that time to understand.
As a scientist myself, I am closest in view to the liberal Christians. I believe religion and science can coexist. For me, they are complementary, not contradictory, because they are answering different questions.
According to the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, science is:
Religion, on the other hand, asks questions like: Does God exist? Is there something beyond the physical world? Do we have an immaterial and immortal soul? What is the meaning of life? Science cannot answer these questions and others like them because they do not concern the physical world. You cannot observe and measure such things in a laboratory. These questions are completely meaningless to science.
However, they are not meaningless to us. These questions, and others like them, reveal the deepest hopes, dreams, doubts, and fears of humanity. We have endeavored to answer them in nearly countless ways through religion. At times, this has led to violence and death. At other times, it has led to peace and progress. Obviously, the very nature of these kinds of questions means we can never have incontrovertible answers. Yet, these questions are one of the few universals of human life. We have contemplated them before and we will contemplate them time and time again, no matter how far scientific progress takes us.
I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “Can religion and science coexist?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.
Religion in the United States, and Christianity in particular, is extremely diverse. There are thousands of denominations of varying sizes, each of which has had to confront the questions produced by modern science: Is the Book of Genesis in the Bible a literal guide to the creation of the universe and humanity? If so, how do you explain the contradictory evidence presented by science? If not, how do you understand the Book of Genesis in light of modern science?
In my experience, the conflict between science and religion has been "solved" in three distinct ways, with a majority of Christians advocating for one of these three solutions.
The first solution is a rejection of all scientific theories which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. Christians who advocate this position tend to be the most conservative and incredibly anti-cultural. They believe the Bible is inerrant and the literal word of God. Science which does not disagree with Scripture, such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is usually accepted. Obviously, theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are resolutely denied and dismissed. Evidence for such non-Biblical theories is discredited in a multitude of ways. The most prevalent explanation is simply that the scientists are wrong and that the evidence has been misinterpreted. Another, much less common, explanation is that the scientists are being tricked by Satan, who plants the evidence in order to deceive them and lead them away from God.
The second solution also rejects all scientific theories which contradict a literal reading of the Bible. However, these Christians do not just dismiss the scientists. They actually attempt to prove them wrong by concocting their own scientific theories, such as Intelligent Design. These Christians tend to be conservative, but not completely anti-cultural. They believe that the evidence for non-Biblical theories is being misinterpreted, oftentimes on purpose by scientists who (they believe) are striving to disprove God. Reinterpreting the evidence into a theory which does not contradict the Book of Genesis allows these Christians to compromise between keeping their religious tradition of an inerrant Bible and continuing to be relevant in the 21st century.Unfortunately for them, this method has been largely unsuccessful outside their churches. Only a handful of school boards across the United States have voted to include, in varying degrees, Intelligent Design in the standards for high school biology. Of those, several school boards later had elections which ousted the members who voted to include Intelligent Design, and the new board promptly overturned the modified standards. Even worse was the court case I discussed in the second post of this series, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which the judge determined that:
"overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory" and "the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, [is] in violation of the Establishment Clause."Since the United States Court system relies heavily on precedent, it is unlikely another court case would find in favor of Intelligent Design.
The third solution holds that the Bible does not necessarily have to be interpreted literally and that the Book of Genesis is a metaphorical story about how the universe, Earth, and life was created. This view tends to be held by moderate and liberal Christians. Not being restrained by a literal Genesis allows these Christians to believe in the validity of scientific theories such as evolution. These Christians are often criticized by their more conservative counterparts for believing parts of the Bible are metaphorical. They (rightfully) claim this begs the question "How do you decide which parts of the Bible to take literally and which parts to take metaphorically?" (however, that is a debate for another day). The most common justification I have heard for taking the story of Genesis metaphorically is that God gave the ancient Hebrews a creation story they could comprehend, since the reality was too complicated for humans of that time to understand.
As a scientist myself, I am closest in view to the liberal Christians. I believe religion and science can coexist. For me, they are complementary, not contradictory, because they are answering different questions.
According to the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, science is:
"any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation"Basically, science answers questions like: What is the universe? How do galaxies form? Why does the Earth have liquid water? How did humans evolve? All of these questions concern the physical world which we live in, and all can be answered through observation and experimentation.
Religion, on the other hand, asks questions like: Does God exist? Is there something beyond the physical world? Do we have an immaterial and immortal soul? What is the meaning of life? Science cannot answer these questions and others like them because they do not concern the physical world. You cannot observe and measure such things in a laboratory. These questions are completely meaningless to science.
However, they are not meaningless to us. These questions, and others like them, reveal the deepest hopes, dreams, doubts, and fears of humanity. We have endeavored to answer them in nearly countless ways through religion. At times, this has led to violence and death. At other times, it has led to peace and progress. Obviously, the very nature of these kinds of questions means we can never have incontrovertible answers. Yet, these questions are one of the few universals of human life. We have contemplated them before and we will contemplate them time and time again, no matter how far scientific progress takes us.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The Theology of Right
In the comments of my last post, Bruce of Fallen From Grace, a former evangelical Christian pastor, wrote "For me, the most important thing was being right. In my mind I believed that by striving to be right I was closer to God."
Bruce's remark stuck with me today, presumably because it elicited vivid memories from my past. Why is the need for "rightness" so common in Christianity, especially the more conservative denominations? What has the requirement of being right done to Christianity as a whole? Does it, as Bruce once believed, bring one closer to God?
I believe the primary motivation behind the need to be right in much of Christianity can be traced back to the notion of moral superiority I discussed in my last post. I said that conservative Christians "vigorously insist that the only way to procure a genuine relationship with God and enter into heaven is through their religious system". This conviction naturally leads to a certainty of moral superiority. However, moral superiority is not solely an abstract idea. Adherents believe it is manifested in the individual doctrines advocated by conservative Christianity. This is where the demand to be right originates. For a particular doctrine to be morally superior to other doctrines explaining similar questions, it must be considered "right". If it was not, competing doctrines could assert "rightness" and then moral superiority would be in question. So, the more engrossed a denomination is with moral superiority, the greater the necessity for them to regard their beliefs as "right". In my experience, this correlation is most obviously demonstrated by fundamentalist Christianity.
Personally, I think this obsession with being right has absolutely decimated Christianity. There are currently thousands of separate Christian denominations. A majority of these denominations did not emerge from thin air, but instead were frequently created by schisms of previously established denominations. The dominant rationale for these schisms is a dispute in some point of theology. Some of these disputes are more serious than others: Was Jesus fully man, fully God, or both? Is salvation principally achieved by faith or works? Other disputes are comparatively minor: Is the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday? Did Jesus drink wine or grape juice at the Last Supper?
My personal favorite though, is: Will the Rapture of true believers occur before, during, or after the Tribulation? In the past decade or so, most fundamentalist believers have become thoroughly convinced that we are in the midst of the end-of-days. I found the intensity of the arguments over the timing of the Rapture to be beyond absurd. I observed not just churches, but actual families, being torn apart over such an insignificant issue.
Honestly, I find it rather depressing. Early Christianity had such awesome potential to transform the world. Yet, when I review history, I am left considerably disappointed. It seems as if much of this potential was squandered on superficial disagreements.
So, does striving to be right above all else bring one closer to God? While I cannot speak for everybody, I can speak for myself, and for me, the answer is no. Actually, quite the opposite. Growing up, I questioned many of the supposedly "right" beliefs. I realized they were either logically or morally inconsistent. Unfortunately, this brought on massive amounts of guilt and fear. As a child, I was taught those doctrines were the laws of God, and to question them put my immortal soul in danger. If you did not have perfectly right beliefs, God would torture you in hell for all eternity. Far from being close to God, I was terrified of Him.
Even today, I can still fall into the trap of "being right". Although universalism has brought me close to God in a way fundamentalism never could, sometimes I become anxious. What if I have gotten some of the details wrong? What if I have made a mistake? What about the questions I don't yet have answers too? When this occurs, I must to remember to step back and observe the bigger picture. Universalism has taught me that it is love that truly matters; God's love for each of us and our love for each other. The details are just that: details. I am not saying details are completely meaningless, but we cannot allow the details to take over our lives. If we do, our priority becomes being right, when it should be love.
Bruce's remark stuck with me today, presumably because it elicited vivid memories from my past. Why is the need for "rightness" so common in Christianity, especially the more conservative denominations? What has the requirement of being right done to Christianity as a whole? Does it, as Bruce once believed, bring one closer to God?
I believe the primary motivation behind the need to be right in much of Christianity can be traced back to the notion of moral superiority I discussed in my last post. I said that conservative Christians "vigorously insist that the only way to procure a genuine relationship with God and enter into heaven is through their religious system". This conviction naturally leads to a certainty of moral superiority. However, moral superiority is not solely an abstract idea. Adherents believe it is manifested in the individual doctrines advocated by conservative Christianity. This is where the demand to be right originates. For a particular doctrine to be morally superior to other doctrines explaining similar questions, it must be considered "right". If it was not, competing doctrines could assert "rightness" and then moral superiority would be in question. So, the more engrossed a denomination is with moral superiority, the greater the necessity for them to regard their beliefs as "right". In my experience, this correlation is most obviously demonstrated by fundamentalist Christianity.
Personally, I think this obsession with being right has absolutely decimated Christianity. There are currently thousands of separate Christian denominations. A majority of these denominations did not emerge from thin air, but instead were frequently created by schisms of previously established denominations. The dominant rationale for these schisms is a dispute in some point of theology. Some of these disputes are more serious than others: Was Jesus fully man, fully God, or both? Is salvation principally achieved by faith or works? Other disputes are comparatively minor: Is the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday? Did Jesus drink wine or grape juice at the Last Supper?
My personal favorite though, is: Will the Rapture of true believers occur before, during, or after the Tribulation? In the past decade or so, most fundamentalist believers have become thoroughly convinced that we are in the midst of the end-of-days. I found the intensity of the arguments over the timing of the Rapture to be beyond absurd. I observed not just churches, but actual families, being torn apart over such an insignificant issue.
Honestly, I find it rather depressing. Early Christianity had such awesome potential to transform the world. Yet, when I review history, I am left considerably disappointed. It seems as if much of this potential was squandered on superficial disagreements.
So, does striving to be right above all else bring one closer to God? While I cannot speak for everybody, I can speak for myself, and for me, the answer is no. Actually, quite the opposite. Growing up, I questioned many of the supposedly "right" beliefs. I realized they were either logically or morally inconsistent. Unfortunately, this brought on massive amounts of guilt and fear. As a child, I was taught those doctrines were the laws of God, and to question them put my immortal soul in danger. If you did not have perfectly right beliefs, God would torture you in hell for all eternity. Far from being close to God, I was terrified of Him.
Even today, I can still fall into the trap of "being right". Although universalism has brought me close to God in a way fundamentalism never could, sometimes I become anxious. What if I have gotten some of the details wrong? What if I have made a mistake? What about the questions I don't yet have answers too? When this occurs, I must to remember to step back and observe the bigger picture. Universalism has taught me that it is love that truly matters; God's love for each of us and our love for each other. The details are just that: details. I am not saying details are completely meaningless, but we cannot allow the details to take over our lives. If we do, our priority becomes being right, when it should be love.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Religion vs. Science (Part 2)
The past two centuries of human civilization has brought about a myriad of scientific discoveries and technological inventions. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the pace of progress is only accelerating. However, these advancements have incited some profound and contentious questions. Many of these questions arise from the discrepancy between ancient religious ideologies and recent scientific theories. These disparities have instigated religious, social, and political animosity, particularly in the United States. Why has this conflict developed? What is the most controversial issue? Most importantly, can religion and science coexist?
I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “What is the most controversial issue?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.
In my first post of this series, I touched on the scientific theories which have caused the most friction with religious belief, namely heliocentrism (historically), evolution and the Big Bang. I mentioned that the two latter theories are routinely dismissed by those who hold a conservative religious philosophy because they can provoke intense fear and an agonizing identity crisis. Of all the controversial scientific theories, evolution is currently the most contentious, since most high-schoolers in the US take a biology course which includes evolution. In today's post, I will examine the specifics of evolution which incite the fear and the identity crisis and attempt to determine why they do so. I will also detail the countermeasures conservative Christians have taken in the United States in an effort to combat the influence of evolution.
Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over extended periods of time due to natural selection, which initially leads to variation within a species and then eventually leads to an entirely new species. Because of this, it is logical to assume that all organisms currently alive share a common ancestry. Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species, published after his now-famous journey on the HMS Beagle. It was immediately controversial, both in the scientific world and the religious establishment.
In the century and a half since the publication, evolution has grown to be the accepted theory on the origin of the diversity of life within the scientific community, especially with the discovery of genetics as the mechanism of natural selection. However, the religious debate still rages on. This debate is centered on the origin of humans. Evolution proposes that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors about 200,000 years ago. Conservative Christianity, however, believes that God created humans about 6,000 years ago. This belief is based on Genesis 1-2, the absolute beginning of the Bible, which describes God's creation of the heavens, the Earth, plants, animals, and finally, Adam and Eve, the first humans. A large majority of conservative Christianity believes this story is a literal and true description of events, a belief called creationism, for they believe in the unconditional inerrancy of the Bible.
Conservative Christians seem to be threatened by evolution because, in their mind, it takes away the "specialness" of humanity. The Bible specifically says God created the first humans from the dust with His own hands. It also alleges that God granted humans superiority over all the plants and animals of the Earth. However, by claiming that humans are just descendants of "lower" animals, conservative Christians evolution makes us equal to all other life forms on the planet. They also believe that evolutionary theory removes the possibility of God, which they find offensive. As I stated in my last post in this series, denying God or their beliefs about God is threatening not just to their faith, but to their very identity. It is why their negative reactions towards evolution and other controversial theories are so intensely fierce.
The debate between evolution and creationism comes to a climax with the issue of which theory should be taught in public schools. In the early 1900's, many Southern states in the US passed laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. In Tennessee, it was the Butler Act, enacted in 1925. This law was infamously challenged the same year in the Scopes Monkey Trial, where John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution and fined $100. For several decades, the controversy died down. By the 1960's and 70's, many public schools were teaching evolution as scientific fact. However, in the late 1980's, Louisiana passed a law requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution. The controversy was reignited and a lawsuit progressed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that creationism cannot be taught in a US public school. They determined that the teaching of creationism violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution because it attempted to advance a particular religion.
The outrage from conservative Christians was enormous. In response, they formed a new theory: Intelligent Design. Basically, it is a pseudo-science claiming "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". Throughout the late 90's and early 00's, local school boards in conservative areas of the US began to advocate a policy called "teaching the controversy". This would often entail Intelligent Design being added to the high school biology ciriculum, despite that there are extremely few scientists researching and advocating Intelligent Design.
Once again, the controversy came to a head during a court trial, this time in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in Dover, Pennsylvania. In 2004, the Dover Area School Board passed a resolution requiring that all high school biology classes be read a short statement claiming that "[g]aps in the Theory of Evolution exist for which there is no evidence". It also informed the students that a textbook advocating Intelligent Design, called Of Pandas and People, was available to any student interested in learning more. Understandably, quite a few parents in the school district were upset, and a group of them sued the Dover School Board. The verdict of the lawsuit was in favor of the plaintiffs. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design was just creationism repackaged and, therefore, it violated the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
This debate personally effected me as well. Several months before the ruling in Kitzmiller, the school board of my hometown passed a similar resolution. I was in 11th grade and taking AP Biology. My biology teacher was extraordinarily irritated and refused to read the statement. This caused a minor scandal in the school district. Parents on both sides of the debate were complaining. There were several deeply religious students in my class, including one I considered a friend, who were upset when our teacher blatantly insulted creationism and Intelligent Design. She and the students who defended her, including myself, were threatened with hell and violence. The true passions involved in these conflicts are difficult to capture in a news story or a documentary.
Although Intelligent Design has faded somewhat from the national consciousness, the movement is still strong. In 2007, Answers in Genesis opened the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which presents an account of the origins of life consistent with creationism. Homeschooling is becoming more popular with religious families, especially now that textbooks advocating either creationism or Intelligent Design are easily available. The movement has shifted focus from legislating its beliefs into public schools to withdrawing their children from society and educating them with a narrow worldview which does not include information that contradicts their beliefs. Honestly, I feel that is a testament to the strength of the scientific theories. The evidence is so compelling that these people refuse to allow their children to study science for fear they will reject their religious upbringing. Unfortunatly, this leaves their children woefully ignorant in areas such as science and history, and places them at a remarkable disadvantage if they decide to attend a non-religious college. It is also contributing to the decline in the scientific and technological relevance of the United States and the so called "dumbing down" of America.
The conflict between science and religion bothers me for a multitude of reasons. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I had quite a few friends who were fundamentalist Christians. As an astronomer who studies theories rejected by conservative Christianity, there are times when I have visited back home and been condemned just for discussing my work, including by friends and family. I am automatically assumed to be an atheist and my research is taken as a personal attack. Although it pains me to admit it, this is quite painful, especially because I do believe in God. However, I am also encouraged by the increasing numbers of religious believers who are able to reconcile their faith with the facts of science. It gives me hope that science will win the day.
I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “What is the most controversial issue?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.
In my first post of this series, I touched on the scientific theories which have caused the most friction with religious belief, namely heliocentrism (historically), evolution and the Big Bang. I mentioned that the two latter theories are routinely dismissed by those who hold a conservative religious philosophy because they can provoke intense fear and an agonizing identity crisis. Of all the controversial scientific theories, evolution is currently the most contentious, since most high-schoolers in the US take a biology course which includes evolution. In today's post, I will examine the specifics of evolution which incite the fear and the identity crisis and attempt to determine why they do so. I will also detail the countermeasures conservative Christians have taken in the United States in an effort to combat the influence of evolution.
Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over extended periods of time due to natural selection, which initially leads to variation within a species and then eventually leads to an entirely new species. Because of this, it is logical to assume that all organisms currently alive share a common ancestry. Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in his book On the Origin of Species, published after his now-famous journey on the HMS Beagle. It was immediately controversial, both in the scientific world and the religious establishment.
In the century and a half since the publication, evolution has grown to be the accepted theory on the origin of the diversity of life within the scientific community, especially with the discovery of genetics as the mechanism of natural selection. However, the religious debate still rages on. This debate is centered on the origin of humans. Evolution proposes that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors about 200,000 years ago. Conservative Christianity, however, believes that God created humans about 6,000 years ago. This belief is based on Genesis 1-2, the absolute beginning of the Bible, which describes God's creation of the heavens, the Earth, plants, animals, and finally, Adam and Eve, the first humans. A large majority of conservative Christianity believes this story is a literal and true description of events, a belief called creationism, for they believe in the unconditional inerrancy of the Bible.
Conservative Christians seem to be threatened by evolution because, in their mind, it takes away the "specialness" of humanity. The Bible specifically says God created the first humans from the dust with His own hands. It also alleges that God granted humans superiority over all the plants and animals of the Earth. However, by claiming that humans are just descendants of "lower" animals, conservative Christians evolution makes us equal to all other life forms on the planet. They also believe that evolutionary theory removes the possibility of God, which they find offensive. As I stated in my last post in this series, denying God or their beliefs about God is threatening not just to their faith, but to their very identity. It is why their negative reactions towards evolution and other controversial theories are so intensely fierce.
The debate between evolution and creationism comes to a climax with the issue of which theory should be taught in public schools. In the early 1900's, many Southern states in the US passed laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. In Tennessee, it was the Butler Act, enacted in 1925. This law was infamously challenged the same year in the Scopes Monkey Trial, where John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution and fined $100. For several decades, the controversy died down. By the 1960's and 70's, many public schools were teaching evolution as scientific fact. However, in the late 1980's, Louisiana passed a law requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution. The controversy was reignited and a lawsuit progressed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that creationism cannot be taught in a US public school. They determined that the teaching of creationism violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution because it attempted to advance a particular religion.
The outrage from conservative Christians was enormous. In response, they formed a new theory: Intelligent Design. Basically, it is a pseudo-science claiming "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". Throughout the late 90's and early 00's, local school boards in conservative areas of the US began to advocate a policy called "teaching the controversy". This would often entail Intelligent Design being added to the high school biology ciriculum, despite that there are extremely few scientists researching and advocating Intelligent Design.
Once again, the controversy came to a head during a court trial, this time in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in Dover, Pennsylvania. In 2004, the Dover Area School Board passed a resolution requiring that all high school biology classes be read a short statement claiming that "[g]aps in the Theory of Evolution exist for which there is no evidence". It also informed the students that a textbook advocating Intelligent Design, called Of Pandas and People, was available to any student interested in learning more. Understandably, quite a few parents in the school district were upset, and a group of them sued the Dover School Board. The verdict of the lawsuit was in favor of the plaintiffs. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design was just creationism repackaged and, therefore, it violated the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
This debate personally effected me as well. Several months before the ruling in Kitzmiller, the school board of my hometown passed a similar resolution. I was in 11th grade and taking AP Biology. My biology teacher was extraordinarily irritated and refused to read the statement. This caused a minor scandal in the school district. Parents on both sides of the debate were complaining. There were several deeply religious students in my class, including one I considered a friend, who were upset when our teacher blatantly insulted creationism and Intelligent Design. She and the students who defended her, including myself, were threatened with hell and violence. The true passions involved in these conflicts are difficult to capture in a news story or a documentary.
Although Intelligent Design has faded somewhat from the national consciousness, the movement is still strong. In 2007, Answers in Genesis opened the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which presents an account of the origins of life consistent with creationism. Homeschooling is becoming more popular with religious families, especially now that textbooks advocating either creationism or Intelligent Design are easily available. The movement has shifted focus from legislating its beliefs into public schools to withdrawing their children from society and educating them with a narrow worldview which does not include information that contradicts their beliefs. Honestly, I feel that is a testament to the strength of the scientific theories. The evidence is so compelling that these people refuse to allow their children to study science for fear they will reject their religious upbringing. Unfortunatly, this leaves their children woefully ignorant in areas such as science and history, and places them at a remarkable disadvantage if they decide to attend a non-religious college. It is also contributing to the decline in the scientific and technological relevance of the United States and the so called "dumbing down" of America.
The conflict between science and religion bothers me for a multitude of reasons. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I had quite a few friends who were fundamentalist Christians. As an astronomer who studies theories rejected by conservative Christianity, there are times when I have visited back home and been condemned just for discussing my work, including by friends and family. I am automatically assumed to be an atheist and my research is taken as a personal attack. Although it pains me to admit it, this is quite painful, especially because I do believe in God. However, I am also encouraged by the increasing numbers of religious believers who are able to reconcile their faith with the facts of science. It gives me hope that science will win the day.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Religion vs. Science (Part 1)
The past two centuries of human civilization has brought about a myriad of scientific discoveries and technological inventions. As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the pace of progress is only accelerating. However, these advancements have incited some profound and contentious questions. Many of these questions arise from the discrepancy between ancient religious ideologies and recent scientific theories. These disparities have instigated religious, social, and political animosity, particularly in the United States. Why has this conflict developed? What is the most controversial issue? Most importantly, can religion and science coexist?
I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “Why has this conflict developed?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.
The antagonism separating religion and science is not a contemporary phenomenon. It originated during the Renaissance. Western civilization exited the Middle Ages and underwent a resurgence of scientific curiosity and exploration. This exploration included the new science of astronomy. Discoveries in this young field would thoroughly subvert humanity’s perspective of the universe and our status within it. The revelation most significant to this change in perspective was the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus, which postulated that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the universe. This theory was enhanced by Johannes Kepler, but it was popularized by Galileo Galilei. In 1609, Galileo learned about the device we now call the telescope, and constructed one for himself. That he originally invented the telescope is a prominent misconception. The observations Galileo made with his advanced contraption, including the phases of Venus and the four largest moons of Jupiter, supported heliocentrism.
Unfortunately, when Galileo published his conclusion, he was summoned by the Inquisition on suspicion of heresy. He was found to be a heretic and sentenced to house imprisonment for the remainder of his life. Why? Because, the Catholic Church asserted that the Bible proclaimed the immovability of the Earth: it could not revolve around the Sun (Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30).
The situation with Galileo demonstrates the authentic foundation for the contention between religion and science- the inerrancy of scripture or dogma. Within Christianity, each discrete denomination has its own doctrines, either from the Bible or from their distinctive analysis and interpretation of the Bible.
So, if the inerrancy is stimulating the hostility, what is the rationale for the inerrancy?
During the first centuries of Christianity, there was a dilemma over what books should constitute the Bible. However, by the time the Roman Empire finally disintegrated in 476 AD, the Catholic Church was instituted as the prevailing political force in Europe, the canon of the Bible had been settled, and the Middle Ages had commenced. This period in Western history is frequently designated as the Dark Ages. This is due to the relative deterioration in education and literacy. The citizens of Europe were split into two categories: the few of the aristocracy (which included a majority of the clergymen) and the many peasants. Only the aristocracy was literate and educated. Since Europe was devoutly religious during this period, almost everyone attended church. For the illiterate peasants, this was their only source of religious knowledge. At that time, the Catholic Church taught the Bible as if every passage was a literal description of reality. Of course, with science as we understand it not actually existing, and general knowledge about the world making relatively inconsiderable development, there were no challenges to that perspective. They had no reason to question their assumptions.
Once the Middle Ages concluded and the Renaissance arouse, there was a reason to start rethinking the literal interpretation. Multitudes did. But many more multitudes did not. Why? One word: tradition.
Tradition dies hard. Religion is transmitted through families from the older generation to the younger generation; parent to child. Customarily, religious beliefs are instilled in children at a young age, usually before the child is able to comprehend the intricacies of or rationally analyze those doctrines. Even once their mind has matured enough to examine their beliefs and make a logical decision whether or not to affirm and comply with them, the beliefs have been instilled so deeply that the concept of investigating them is too terrifying to contemplate.
Because of this, anything that contradicts their religious faith is usually instantaneously disregarded. There are two dominant justifications for this, one conspicuous, the other, often unconscious. The obvious reason is fear. Believers, especially within more conservative traditions, are frequently persuaded that doubting, questioning, or investigating their faith could be punished by God with tragedies on Earth or eternal condemnation to hell, and that "true" or "sincere" believers never entertain questions or exhibit doubts. The obscure reason is identity. A majority of believers regard their faith to be intimately intertwined with their identity. To doubt their faith is to doubt themselves.
Currently, the theories causing most of the dispute among religion and science are evolution and the Big Bang, both of which are more complicated than heliocentrism. This complication can amplify the problem, since these theories are often misunderstood. Misconceptions about what the theories actually assert have become quite widespread. Take, for example, the prevailing conviction that evolution indicates that humans evolved from monkeys. Of course, anyone who has seriously studied evolution understands that humans did not evolve from monkeys, but instead that humans and monkeys share a particularly recent common ancestor.
Despite evolution and the Big Bang being more elaborate than heliocentrism, they offend identical religious precepts. In the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, God creates the Earth and the whole universe for a sole purpose: man. The Big Bang threatens this notion by revealing billions of stars and planets not only exist in the universe, but were indeed spawned before our Earth and Sun. Evolution endangers it by postulating that God did not create us ex nihilo (out of nothing), but that we gradually emerged from the "lower" animals. Yes, these theories also invalidate other Biblical tenets, such as the age of the Earth. Utilizing the Bible, dozens of theologians have dated the Earth at roughly 6,000 years. On the other hand, evolution requires billions of years to fabricate humans, and the geological record establishes the precise age at approximately 4.5 billion years. But, threatening the centrality of mankind is much more offensive than threatening the age of the Earth.
The modern world has inevitably generated an environment hostile to tradition in two notable fashions. First: the quickening pace of scientific development. Second: the expansion of education, both basic and supplemental. Basically, as science invalidates more Biblical principles, and more individuals obtain an elementary science education, tradition will not only increasingly be assaulted, it will be assaulted in regions of the Earth where it has endured, unchanged and unfazed, for thousands of years. Without a transformation by a majority of religious believers to a more metaphorical method of interpreting their sacred scriptures, I anticipate the repercussions of this will be a dramatic expansion of conflict between science and religion. Regrettably, I do not envision this transpiring unless religious followers realize their beliefs do not have to exemplify their entire identity and existence, and that it is acceptable to make modifications without being tormented by threat of eternal consequences.
I will endeavor to answer these questions in a three-part series. Today, I will examine “Why has this conflict developed?” Note: Because I will be concentrating substantially on the United States, the primary religious doctrine scrutinized will be Christianity.
The antagonism separating religion and science is not a contemporary phenomenon. It originated during the Renaissance. Western civilization exited the Middle Ages and underwent a resurgence of scientific curiosity and exploration. This exploration included the new science of astronomy. Discoveries in this young field would thoroughly subvert humanity’s perspective of the universe and our status within it. The revelation most significant to this change in perspective was the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus, which postulated that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the universe. This theory was enhanced by Johannes Kepler, but it was popularized by Galileo Galilei. In 1609, Galileo learned about the device we now call the telescope, and constructed one for himself. That he originally invented the telescope is a prominent misconception. The observations Galileo made with his advanced contraption, including the phases of Venus and the four largest moons of Jupiter, supported heliocentrism.
Unfortunately, when Galileo published his conclusion, he was summoned by the Inquisition on suspicion of heresy. He was found to be a heretic and sentenced to house imprisonment for the remainder of his life. Why? Because, the Catholic Church asserted that the Bible proclaimed the immovability of the Earth: it could not revolve around the Sun (Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30).
The situation with Galileo demonstrates the authentic foundation for the contention between religion and science- the inerrancy of scripture or dogma. Within Christianity, each discrete denomination has its own doctrines, either from the Bible or from their distinctive analysis and interpretation of the Bible.
So, if the inerrancy is stimulating the hostility, what is the rationale for the inerrancy?
During the first centuries of Christianity, there was a dilemma over what books should constitute the Bible. However, by the time the Roman Empire finally disintegrated in 476 AD, the Catholic Church was instituted as the prevailing political force in Europe, the canon of the Bible had been settled, and the Middle Ages had commenced. This period in Western history is frequently designated as the Dark Ages. This is due to the relative deterioration in education and literacy. The citizens of Europe were split into two categories: the few of the aristocracy (which included a majority of the clergymen) and the many peasants. Only the aristocracy was literate and educated. Since Europe was devoutly religious during this period, almost everyone attended church. For the illiterate peasants, this was their only source of religious knowledge. At that time, the Catholic Church taught the Bible as if every passage was a literal description of reality. Of course, with science as we understand it not actually existing, and general knowledge about the world making relatively inconsiderable development, there were no challenges to that perspective. They had no reason to question their assumptions.
Once the Middle Ages concluded and the Renaissance arouse, there was a reason to start rethinking the literal interpretation. Multitudes did. But many more multitudes did not. Why? One word: tradition.
Tradition dies hard. Religion is transmitted through families from the older generation to the younger generation; parent to child. Customarily, religious beliefs are instilled in children at a young age, usually before the child is able to comprehend the intricacies of or rationally analyze those doctrines. Even once their mind has matured enough to examine their beliefs and make a logical decision whether or not to affirm and comply with them, the beliefs have been instilled so deeply that the concept of investigating them is too terrifying to contemplate.
Because of this, anything that contradicts their religious faith is usually instantaneously disregarded. There are two dominant justifications for this, one conspicuous, the other, often unconscious. The obvious reason is fear. Believers, especially within more conservative traditions, are frequently persuaded that doubting, questioning, or investigating their faith could be punished by God with tragedies on Earth or eternal condemnation to hell, and that "true" or "sincere" believers never entertain questions or exhibit doubts. The obscure reason is identity. A majority of believers regard their faith to be intimately intertwined with their identity. To doubt their faith is to doubt themselves.
Currently, the theories causing most of the dispute among religion and science are evolution and the Big Bang, both of which are more complicated than heliocentrism. This complication can amplify the problem, since these theories are often misunderstood. Misconceptions about what the theories actually assert have become quite widespread. Take, for example, the prevailing conviction that evolution indicates that humans evolved from monkeys. Of course, anyone who has seriously studied evolution understands that humans did not evolve from monkeys, but instead that humans and monkeys share a particularly recent common ancestor. Despite evolution and the Big Bang being more elaborate than heliocentrism, they offend identical religious precepts. In the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, God creates the Earth and the whole universe for a sole purpose: man. The Big Bang threatens this notion by revealing billions of stars and planets not only exist in the universe, but were indeed spawned before our Earth and Sun. Evolution endangers it by postulating that God did not create us ex nihilo (out of nothing), but that we gradually emerged from the "lower" animals. Yes, these theories also invalidate other Biblical tenets, such as the age of the Earth. Utilizing the Bible, dozens of theologians have dated the Earth at roughly 6,000 years. On the other hand, evolution requires billions of years to fabricate humans, and the geological record establishes the precise age at approximately 4.5 billion years. But, threatening the centrality of mankind is much more offensive than threatening the age of the Earth.
The modern world has inevitably generated an environment hostile to tradition in two notable fashions. First: the quickening pace of scientific development. Second: the expansion of education, both basic and supplemental. Basically, as science invalidates more Biblical principles, and more individuals obtain an elementary science education, tradition will not only increasingly be assaulted, it will be assaulted in regions of the Earth where it has endured, unchanged and unfazed, for thousands of years. Without a transformation by a majority of religious believers to a more metaphorical method of interpreting their sacred scriptures, I anticipate the repercussions of this will be a dramatic expansion of conflict between science and religion. Regrettably, I do not envision this transpiring unless religious followers realize their beliefs do not have to exemplify their entire identity and existence, and that it is acceptable to make modifications without being tormented by threat of eternal consequences.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Governor Robert Bentley
I read over twenty blogs where religion is the main focus, which is why I was surprised to see so few posts on the controversy surrounding Alabama Governor Robert Bentley's recent comments. Shortly after his inauguration on January 17th, Bentley was giving a speech at a Christian church and said:
Bentley apologized two days later, saying:
However, to me, this apology rings hollows, as it is a typical politician's apology. He is sorry that people "felt disenfranchised" and were "offended". He is not sorry for his words, he is sorry those words offended people and got him into trouble. Look up any news article about a public figure (politician, celebrity, etc) apologizing for something and an overwhelming majority of the time, their apology follows the same format: they are sorry that people got upset, not for what they did or said.
Whether Governor Bentley is truly remorseful about what he said, I do not know. I hope he is. What actually bothers me, however, is the prevalent thought behind his statement. Many people in the Governor's state, Alabama, were not upset by his words.
Governor Bentley considers himself a Southern Baptist, along with about 25% of Alabama's population. This is the same denomination I was raised in for most of my life. One of the primary reasons I left Christianity as a teenager was because of the attitude towards non-Christians I found in Southern Baptist churches. The part about non-Christians burning in hell was deeply disturbing, but it was not actually the worst part. It was the hypocrisy. Time and time again, I heard sermons about "loving our enemies" and "helping those who were less fortunate". Yet, at least when it came to non-Christians, reality did not match. It was almost as if non-Christians were "tainted" with sin and evil. We were indirectly encouraged not to hang around non-Christians for fear that their "badness" might rub off on us and then we too would be "tainted". If an adult found out we had a non-Christian friend, they would push us to proselytize them, something I was never able to bring myself to do. But I saw others do it. I saw my friends do it to their friends. And I saw the pain in the eyes of the rejected when their former friend would no longer play with them. But we were taught to isolate ourselves from these "sinners". We made assumptions about their behavior: they stole, they lied, they disrespected their parents. We feared their sins would negatively influence us and lose our salvation.
Later, in high school, I found myself on the other side. Several times a friend discovered I was not a Christian. They would attempt to convert me, tell me they were concerned for my soul, and beg me to accept Jesus as my savior. Once they failed, as they always did, they would become more and more distant until they eventually stopped speaking to me at all. It hurt. Badly.
The constant proclamation of "love the sinner" had an unspoken caveat: "love this sinner, but only if he/she is willing to convert to our brand of Christianity". This has created an "us vs. them" mentality. They see non-Christians as outsiders, people who must be resisted, sometimes even fought. It is this mentality I believe is behind Governor Bentley's comment. I'm not surprised he does not see non-Christians as his brothers and sisters, when he belongs to a branch of Christianity with this strong "us vs. them" attitude.
God individually created every single human being on this planet. If we have the same Father, how can we not be brothers and sisters? We are siblings, and it's time we started acting like it. I believe that if everyone on Earth treated all others like family, this world would be a much more peaceful and happier place. The "us vs. them" mentality brings nothing but conflict and pain. You cannot claim to love God and yet reject large parts of His creation and you cannot claim to be a good person and refuse to help those who do not share your beliefs.
"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."
Bentley apologized two days later, saying:
"If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way."
However, to me, this apology rings hollows, as it is a typical politician's apology. He is sorry that people "felt disenfranchised" and were "offended". He is not sorry for his words, he is sorry those words offended people and got him into trouble. Look up any news article about a public figure (politician, celebrity, etc) apologizing for something and an overwhelming majority of the time, their apology follows the same format: they are sorry that people got upset, not for what they did or said.
Whether Governor Bentley is truly remorseful about what he said, I do not know. I hope he is. What actually bothers me, however, is the prevalent thought behind his statement. Many people in the Governor's state, Alabama, were not upset by his words.
Governor Bentley considers himself a Southern Baptist, along with about 25% of Alabama's population. This is the same denomination I was raised in for most of my life. One of the primary reasons I left Christianity as a teenager was because of the attitude towards non-Christians I found in Southern Baptist churches. The part about non-Christians burning in hell was deeply disturbing, but it was not actually the worst part. It was the hypocrisy. Time and time again, I heard sermons about "loving our enemies" and "helping those who were less fortunate". Yet, at least when it came to non-Christians, reality did not match. It was almost as if non-Christians were "tainted" with sin and evil. We were indirectly encouraged not to hang around non-Christians for fear that their "badness" might rub off on us and then we too would be "tainted". If an adult found out we had a non-Christian friend, they would push us to proselytize them, something I was never able to bring myself to do. But I saw others do it. I saw my friends do it to their friends. And I saw the pain in the eyes of the rejected when their former friend would no longer play with them. But we were taught to isolate ourselves from these "sinners". We made assumptions about their behavior: they stole, they lied, they disrespected their parents. We feared their sins would negatively influence us and lose our salvation.
Later, in high school, I found myself on the other side. Several times a friend discovered I was not a Christian. They would attempt to convert me, tell me they were concerned for my soul, and beg me to accept Jesus as my savior. Once they failed, as they always did, they would become more and more distant until they eventually stopped speaking to me at all. It hurt. Badly.
The constant proclamation of "love the sinner" had an unspoken caveat: "love this sinner, but only if he/she is willing to convert to our brand of Christianity". This has created an "us vs. them" mentality. They see non-Christians as outsiders, people who must be resisted, sometimes even fought. It is this mentality I believe is behind Governor Bentley's comment. I'm not surprised he does not see non-Christians as his brothers and sisters, when he belongs to a branch of Christianity with this strong "us vs. them" attitude.
God individually created every single human being on this planet. If we have the same Father, how can we not be brothers and sisters? We are siblings, and it's time we started acting like it. I believe that if everyone on Earth treated all others like family, this world would be a much more peaceful and happier place. The "us vs. them" mentality brings nothing but conflict and pain. You cannot claim to love God and yet reject large parts of His creation and you cannot claim to be a good person and refuse to help those who do not share your beliefs.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Universalism and Christianity: My Perspective
I grew up in a Christian family. I have attended many Christian churches (although most considered themselves Southern Baptist). I celebrate Christian holidays. It is the religious tradition I am most knowledgeable about and the tradition I am closest too. I knew little about any other tradition until high school, and it was not until I was in college that I extensively studied another religious tradition.
Despite this, Christianity is the religion I feel the most isolated from. I know that many universalists practice this belief through the eyes of Christianity, believing that all people will be saved through Jesus Christ. While I take no issue with this, I do not. My early experiences with Christianity were extraordinarily negative. It was in a Christian church I was taught to hate myself and to fear God. Even with my conversion to universalism, those ideas still haunt me at times. I am not free of the damage that has been done.
But it is not only past events influencing this feeling of isolation. Almost everyday I see Christians who claim they love everyone isolate and condemn those whom they feel do not fit into their tiny little box of what they believe constitutes a "good person". Two of my best friends are homosexual. Neither of them would ever hurt another person, yet they are told what they do is evil. One of them is about to marry her partner of 3 years and she is told that her love is sinful. I have seen Muslim and Buddhist friends threatened with damnation because they do not follow Jesus Christ. I have seen how much this hurts them. Because of this, Christianity continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
However, I am not blinded by hate. I know this view of Christianity is not fair. I know most Christians are not so hateful and work tirelessly to practice the love that they preach. I know there are Christian churches which are inclusive and accepting of all people.
I also know this view is not fair to Jesus. Although I have not decided for myself exactly what he was (whether Son of God, a prophet inspired by God, or just a normal human), I do believe his ideas are immensely valuable to humanity as a whole, as well as individuals, regardless of the religious tradition they follow. It is because of this that I do not equate Jesus with Christianity since Christianity does not, and cannot, claim monopoly over him. Muslims consider him a prophet and people from every walk of life have been inspired by his teachings, including myself.
Even with this knowledge, however, I cannot bring myself back to Christianity, even a Christianity framed with universalist ideals. I still have much bitterness and anger towards Christianity that I must work through. How long this will take is anyone's guess. I might not ever be able to return to the tradition of my childhood. Even if I am able to work through the negativity Christianity has left me with, that is no guarantee I will want to return. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. I also have my personality working against me. I am an independent person, and prefer to study and worship God on my own terms. I am not criticizing those who prefer to do those things in a community setting. I just feel differently.
Overall, I do believe Christianity is a positive force in the world. But until I can heal from the wounds inflicted on me from one sect of Christianity, I do not feel comfortable claiming myself to be a Christian in any way.
Despite this, Christianity is the religion I feel the most isolated from. I know that many universalists practice this belief through the eyes of Christianity, believing that all people will be saved through Jesus Christ. While I take no issue with this, I do not. My early experiences with Christianity were extraordinarily negative. It was in a Christian church I was taught to hate myself and to fear God. Even with my conversion to universalism, those ideas still haunt me at times. I am not free of the damage that has been done.
But it is not only past events influencing this feeling of isolation. Almost everyday I see Christians who claim they love everyone isolate and condemn those whom they feel do not fit into their tiny little box of what they believe constitutes a "good person". Two of my best friends are homosexual. Neither of them would ever hurt another person, yet they are told what they do is evil. One of them is about to marry her partner of 3 years and she is told that her love is sinful. I have seen Muslim and Buddhist friends threatened with damnation because they do not follow Jesus Christ. I have seen how much this hurts them. Because of this, Christianity continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
However, I am not blinded by hate. I know this view of Christianity is not fair. I know most Christians are not so hateful and work tirelessly to practice the love that they preach. I know there are Christian churches which are inclusive and accepting of all people.
I also know this view is not fair to Jesus. Although I have not decided for myself exactly what he was (whether Son of God, a prophet inspired by God, or just a normal human), I do believe his ideas are immensely valuable to humanity as a whole, as well as individuals, regardless of the religious tradition they follow. It is because of this that I do not equate Jesus with Christianity since Christianity does not, and cannot, claim monopoly over him. Muslims consider him a prophet and people from every walk of life have been inspired by his teachings, including myself.
Even with this knowledge, however, I cannot bring myself back to Christianity, even a Christianity framed with universalist ideals. I still have much bitterness and anger towards Christianity that I must work through. How long this will take is anyone's guess. I might not ever be able to return to the tradition of my childhood. Even if I am able to work through the negativity Christianity has left me with, that is no guarantee I will want to return. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. I also have my personality working against me. I am an independent person, and prefer to study and worship God on my own terms. I am not criticizing those who prefer to do those things in a community setting. I just feel differently.
Overall, I do believe Christianity is a positive force in the world. But until I can heal from the wounds inflicted on me from one sect of Christianity, I do not feel comfortable claiming myself to be a Christian in any way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)