The dichotomy presented in the museum between man's knowledge and God's knowledge made me angry with its complete wrong view of human knowledge. John Calvin wrote that God gives common grace to those who don't believe. He gives them the grace to understand and investigate the world. Yes, man's knowledge without God is wrong, but then, you might rightly ask, is it real knowledge in the first place?
Oddly enough, the museum contained very little about the theory of evolution. It actually contains very little science, other than the fossil display, which is very cool. In fact, the Creation Museum saved its most obvious attacks not on atheist evolutionists, but fellow Christians who believe in some form of evolution.
There are quite a few of them: Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Denis Lamourex. Early conservative Christian theologians during the time of Darwin like Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield. All of these guys and girls would say the Bible is God's word. They were, and still are, lights for Christ in their respective fields. All believe or believed in evolution in some form or another.
Forget theistic evolutionists, the Creation Museum can't even tolerate those who don't like evolution but believe the world is much older than 10,000 years. The thing that probably blew me away the most was the bookstore. As you go in, you notice that Ken Ham himself wrote about 50 percent of the books. There are some other authors and scientists, but I was struck by how much Ham's books seemed to dominate the shelf. There were no other books by Christians who might disagree with the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) perspective or even have a different view of YEC than Ham. The only mention I saw of it in the bookstore was a book critiquing old earth creationism. That's it.
After the bookstore, I couldn't take anymore. I left my group and went outside. I watched the atheists mill around the grounds outside. I watched the Christian families eat their picnic lunches by the beautiful lake. Both groups seemed like a race of aliens, neither of which I could join.
I didn't know what to think about the whole experience. I felt confused. I felt isolated from the atheists because of my firm belief in God. There are times when atheists have described me as "almost one of them" because of my love for science and reason. It amazes me that they might think my faith would cave so easily, especially in light of most of their objections to Christianity that I find so highly unconvincing. I mean, I realize it's their way of saying they like me, so I try not to be rude about it. I just tell them I won't be joining their ranks any time soon.
Yet, I also felt isolated form my fellow Christians walking the grounds at the museum because I thought their view of Genesis entirely mistaken. Even worse, I felt that, if they knew what I thought, they would question my belief in God and how faithful I'm really am.
It's happened to me a lot since I started working with atheists. Christians ask me all the time about my faith. They take the time to warn me about the apparent danger atheists are to my faith. They give me worried and concerned looks as if they're afraid I'll drop my faith the second the right atheist argument comes along. These are people who are friends of mine and should know better.
I appreciate the concern. I know it's supposed to make me feel better because people are worried about me. It makes me feel isolated when I'm around other Christians. It makes me feel as though they think I'm some sort of faith bomb that will go off at any moment spraying them with shattered faith debris.
That wasn't my real problem.
C.S. Lewis, in his book The Screwtape Letters, talks about spiritual pride. Screwtape is talking about Wormwood's patient hanging out with witty, urban nonbelievers on Saturday and then going to church with his fellow Christians the next day. Screwtape writes,
"Your patient can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabits on Saturday evening; and contrariwise enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a deeper, spiritual world within him which they cannot touch. You see the idea the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complex man who sees around them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction."
I realized at that moment I was in serious danger of doing exactly what Screwtape described. My danger wasn't that I would lose my faith. My problem wasn't that I had become overly critical of other Christians. My issue had become that my pride had taken over against both Christians and atheists. I had become perfectly treacherous to two groups of people and had grown to love the feeling. This had been the real part of my reluctance to attend the Creation Museum. I had been afraid that I would have to pick a side and lose my superior status.
In the midst of all that, I prayed. I prayed that God would forgive me of my arrogant heart toward my fellow believers. I asked God to forgive my silent scorn of atheists. I prayed that God would make me more open, more honest and more loving. I prayed that God would help me not to be so in love with my own cleverness.
With that, I walked back to the car with my atheists friends for our long drive back to Columbus.
Follow Rev. Jonathan Weyer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/spookypastor
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Improving Science Education by Ignoring Evolution? Absurd!
Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family ...
Creation Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Visit to the Creation Museum, 11/10/07 - a set on Flickr
Paleontology and Creationism Meet but Don't Mesh - NYTimes.com
Raiding the Creation Museum with Peaceful Pirate Atheists ...
What often happens, however, is that facts stop being facts and turn into beliefs when they are used as evidence to justify whole belief systems, as is the case here. If we really care whether or not our beliefs are true, we should take great care not to filter the facts we use through sources that confirm our belief while choosing to be skeptical of evidence that contradicts our belief.
This is not an attack at all on your belief system, but it is a fact that speciazation has been directly observed in laboratories among flies (and perhaps other animals as well). It has also been observed in nature. (when I say observed, I mean documented, observed speciazation over the time period of the observations being made)
Whether or not you chose to be skeptical of evidence of other kinds of speciazation over longer periods of time ("macro" evolution) there still is a ton of really good evidence. There is both a wide variety of kinds of evidence (DNA, fossil, etc.) and simply a huge amount of it.
I have no problem with skepticism regarding any or all evidence. But to say there is no good evidence, even to say there hasn't been direct observation, is simply incorrect.
It sounds official while being conveniently vague.
It could reference the act of directly tapping into god's brain (err...brainless mind) the way that prophets do, and take possession of that which belongs to god. Technically only prophets would have access to "god's knowledge", and they would pass it on as "knowledge of god's knowledge".
The non-prophetic meaning could just be knowledge OF a particular theist belief-system, but this definition has problems, too.
Technically it's possible to accumulate knowledge (skills and expertise) of a belief system whether those beliefs are true or not. The word "knowledge" might still be appropriate for even something like a catalog of faith-based beliefs. However, the implication is that the knowledge of beliefs can be applied to the entire universe outside the belief system. In other words, knowledge of belief magically becomes knowledge of the universe.
In that case it's a misuse of the word "knowledge" similar to how "creation science" misuses the word "science".
This would be true only if one can conduct ones life equally as well by making decisions based on magic as on reality. I think you'd be better of embracing empiricism and faking belief to "get along" rather than depending on an imaginary entity to carry the day.
My dear man, those are all GOOD things. Why does it bother you that you feel good about this?
We're born with nothing but animal instincts and spend our lives learning new ideas. Our minds try to fit these puzzle pieces together to construct a coherent philosophy that is consistent with reality. Nobody can do that for you. Your philosophy is an expression of your personality. Why shouldn't you have pride in it -- and thus, in who you are?
If you lacked such pride you would be amoral. If your philosophy isn't better than the police chief's, and he asks for a list of your atheist friends so he can arrest them per President Huckabee's executive order, you have no reason to refuse. You would only resist if your philosophy is opposed to religious persecution AND you think it's superior to theirs.
Too much pride is a problem, too, when it makes you unwilling to change your philosophy in light of new data. That's Ken Ham's problem: He's too proud of his faith-based worldview to accept scientific facts that punch holes in it.
You should be proud of how you've assembled your experiences into a philosophy, even as you continue to improve it.
Are we using "superior" in different ways?
My main concern, Reverend, is that your story, which had been going so nicely, turned into an unpleasant self-recrimination that, bluntly, sounds like a classic religious cop-out. Just when you're on the verge of accomplishing something, it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy". So the story ends up being about you repenting, not a visit to a museum run by history deniers.
It's like getting to the climax of a book, turning the page, and reading "Then they were all run over by a truck. The end."
Nothing in what you described feels like "treachery" to this atheist. Treachery would be something like using confidential information I trusted you with against me, or using your influence in the atheist community to harm atheism.
Thinking you're better than me isn't treachery. It's human, normal, and healthy unless you go much, much farther with it than anything you've described.
In "Screwtape", wasn't CS Lewis basically saying "Don't associate with people different from you because they may pollute your thinking" ? Or do you think he would have advised keeping your atheist friends, but preaching at them instead of talking with them? You don't really think that's good, moral advice, do you?
Also....
John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches...."
If you take that verse literally, WHICH BRANCH ARE YOU?
See how silly it is to say that you take it literally. And, if you say, oh, that's not what it means....then you are then taking it metaphorically and not literally.
Not to mention your apparent lack of tolerance.
The official United Methodist doctrine is that the Bible was inspired by God and contains all things necessary for salvation. When read under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is our true rule and guide for faith and practice.
We do NOT believe it is literal. It contradicts itself. It tells us to do some very unusual thingss (have your garments inspected by the priest for midlew...?? don't eat shell fish? etc etc)
It is interpreted by a known mysgonist who over-ruled his own interpretive scholars...King James who said God annoted him to change the wording of the original scriptures to make women servants not deacons etc etc
and yes, all pick and choose from the Bible in their faith. We do call it a personal relationship in the PRotestant versions. And except from some fundies we get to interpret and act on our own.
It all sounds very Christian to me. I just haven't figured out what kind of ChristianiÂty it is. None that I am aware of. Each day of the rest of my life, I am more and more convinced that the last Christian died on the Cross!
http://wwwÂ.rationalvÂalley.com/Âviewtopic.Âphp?f=29&tÂ=903
http://sliÂnkingtowarÂdretiremenÂt.com/?p=3Â2608
http://wwwÂ.dailymailÂ.co.uk/newÂs/article-Â1352041/ThÂe-gay-chicÂken-row-ChÂick-Fil-AsÂ-anti-gay-Âstance-spaÂrks-protesÂt-loyal-cuÂstomers-tuÂrn-chain.hÂtml
http://wwwÂ.site.stanÂleyyelnatsÂ.com/
http://wwwÂ.dakotavoiÂce.com/201Â1/02/chickÂ-fil-a-conÂtroversy-iÂs-anti-chrÂistian-bigÂotry/
They seem too completely denounce what science tells us about our world how we got here etc,....yet they use Dinosaur models and early mane models that are completely informed by what science has discovered. it's bizarre. So they seem to completely trust that science tells us Dinosaurs, early man, and early plants looked like this, but make up a whole new story for everything else.
Why not make dinosaurs completely different looking? you don't buy from science that dinosaurs came waaaay before man, yet, you def buy that we're putting them together right and thats how they looked? whacky.
Would it be wrong to ask why I should give weight to Calvin's opinions as they apply to science?
Or yours, for that matter? Or CS Lewis'?
Actually, I feel that I as an atheist am intruding here, and that you are writing for an audience which shares some basic assumptions with you, and that the opinions of someone who would find it odd to invoke Calvin in the cause of science are not relevant. (Yes, I know that there have been many Calvanist scientists. No doubt there still are a few.) You say, and your bio says, that you "work with atheists." I wonder who these atheists are, and whether all of them would agree that you are working with them and not against them.
What I'm saying might sound really harsh. That's not my intention. I just don't know to respond honestly to what you write and make it sound nicer. And I'd rather be honest than nice if I can't be both.
The problem for the religious community is a lack of credible authorities with intellectual clout. One may cite Aquinas, Origen or Clement, for example but ultimately, via borrowed arguments from Plato and Aristotle, they are all defending the same turf which hasn't changed (or developed) over the last 2,000 years.
I doubt you will gain anything further from the SSA, although I do not question their aims.
The Preacher with no name.
You realize that you aren't really treacherous to your 'atheists'...nor are you treacherous to the religious/spiritual people you encounter...they are all like you. They might vary in their understandings but they are as much as in the 'know' as you are. They cherry-pick what to 'accept' as 'truth' as much as you do, as much as I do, as much as anyone does. Who are we to say they are wrong? We are nothing, but we have this great objective tool in science, that can point us to getting to the best cherries possible. And by best I mean reality based, objective, questionable, testable num-nums. Mmmmmm! Mmmm! De-li-cious. Gods, spirits, hocus-pocus, all rotten fruit, all will make you drunk when eaten.
"Yes, man's knowledge without God is wrong, but then, you might rightly ask, is it real knowledge in the first place?"