Braving the Elements

And so it begins. Perhaps even ends. Or maybe it’s just along continuation, one battle after another with no end in site. Now that the circus is over in Dover and we await the judge’s decision; now that the citizens of Dover have kicked out their “IDiot” school board; now that science and creationism (and its bastard cousin ID) have had their day in court perhaps it’s time to reflect a bit about what Creationism and its bastard cousin really do to religion. Or to those raised in religion or around religion or those who have to share a neighborhood, country, dorm room, etc., with those who believe (whatever they believe).

For this discussion, conversation, debate, argument, dialogue, chat, talk, lecture, sermon(ette), let’s go about oh…sixteen hundred years ago to a most irreligious fellow (note the sarcasm ) known as Saint Augustine:

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

"And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement." ("De Genese ad litteram", Saint Augustine, fourth century)

I disagree with the line “…they quote and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement." Since people like moi who were raised in religion but who broke free know far more about religion than those still in the fold. We take a look at the quotes, at the context, read the original (as much as we are able), and look at what’s been written on the passage the better to understand it. We look at the theology, the philosophy, the science (as much as we are able) to help formulate our views. In essence, Curiosity cures Christianity (CCC – a new acronym perhaps? – oops, digressing) and the more knowledge you have the easier it is to debate and discuss these issues with believers.

But then, Augustine was theologian and as Diderot said

“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: "My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly." This stranger is a theologian.”-- Denis Diderot, Addition aux Pensees philosophiques, from John Daintith, et al, eds. The Macmillan Dictionary of Quotations (2000) p. 34, quoted from R, Rotando, in a personal letter to Cliff Walker (December 17, 2001)

Theologians are also mistrusted by the “religious” unless the theologian in question backs up the religious person’s point of view. This was demonstrated very well recently and it relates to the Dover ID(iot) case.

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover PA

Enough said?

But sometimes theologians can also see to the heart of a matter. For example, take this excerpt from not only a theologian but an ordained minister:

"It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it." (Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, page 26.)


I am an atheist. Sorry, that was a bit understated. I AM AN ATHEIST. (there, that better?)

“So, I'll out myself. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in God, Gods, Godlets or any sort of higher power beyond the universe itself, which seems quite high and powerful enough to me. I don't believe in life after death, channeled chat rooms with the dead, reincarnation, telekinesis or any miracles but the miracle of life and consciousness, which again strike me as miracles in nearly obscene abundance. I believe that the universe abides by the laws of physics, some of which are known, others of which will surely be discovered, but even if they aren't, that will simply be a result, as my colleague George Johnson put it, of our brains having evolved for life on this one little planet and thus being inevitably limited. I'm convinced that the world as we see it was shaped by the again genuinely miraculous, let's even say transcendent, hand of evolution through natural selection.” (Natalie Angier, Confessions of a Lonely Atheist, NYT, 2001)

Back to me again. I am an agnostic in the sense that Huxley originally meant the term. I do not know. I honestly admit I-do-not-know. (note that period). Some things are unknown and (perhaps…a bit understated again, PERHAPS) unknowable. But I am an atheist in the sense that I do not express a belief in God, Gods, fairies or leprechauns. And until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I relegate God to the same realm as Santa Clause.

And please, don’t tell me that creationism and IDiocy is science, it simply isn’t. But I was forced to take a hard look at both, especially creationism, when trying to formulate my views on what they are and their validity. This led to a hard dissection of religion; the good, the bad, the ugly. To theology and philosophy, to other areas of science beyond my specialty. And when all was said and done I came to realize that I-am-an-ATHEIST.

Honesty and intellectual integrity demand it.