Monday, February 3, 2014

Should Christians Accept Secular Critique?

Introduction
As humans we tend to prefer to listen to those who agree with us and avoid the discomfort of having our views challenged.We find this in all sorts of people who hold all sorts of different views- be they religious, philosophical, political, or whatever. As a child my most common exposure to this attitude was from those in the church. I remember one person pointing to scripture to affirm such an attitude:
Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who comes from God, so that we may understand what has been freely given to us by God. We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual...The spiritual person can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone." 1 Corinthians 2:12-15 (HCSB)
It was offered that the wisdom of unsaved people is useless to me, and the wisdom that I offer them is foolish to them. I was led to believe that anytime an unbeliever challenged my view, that scripture encouraged me to completely disregard it and anything else the person had to say. After all, even a challenge that seemed genuine or logical was really to trick me into rejecting God: that is the agenda of the Enemy- the "Father of all lies." Even the consideration that something I believed might be wrong was a cause for alarm.


Can Unbelievers Be Dismissed?
This leads to an attitude that we are above unbelievers in our knowledge- that we may dismiss what they say in virtue of them being unbelievers. If someone is a humanist, we don't have to listen to them. If someone is an evolutionist, we should disregard their evidence against our model. If someone is an atheist, run for dear life.

Unfortunately, I still see this quite often today. Some people believe that their views are not subject to critique by naturalists simply because "they can't understand God's wisdom." They shut off dialog before it even begins by marginalizing their critics by underscoring their lack of belief in God. They fear that being wrong about a nonessential of Christianity undermines the entire worldview (see Is Your View Falsifiable?), and they project that fear to those who will listen to them uncritically.

A Consistent Interpretation of Scripture
But is that what Paul was saying? Are Christians supposed to ignore critique of their views? Absolutely not! First, I don't believe that Paul was talking about all areas of knowledge. There are concepts that exist in the Christian worldview that do not exist at all in a naturalistic worldview (objective morality, logic, objective value, ultimate purpose, etc.). These concepts are foolish to the naturalist because their worldview cannot accommodate them; the naturalist has no ground to evaluate these concepts of reality. Any evaluation of a believer by a naturalist is relegated to mere opinion because of the lack of a mechanism to evaluate (logic) or standards by which to compare (morality and value).

The Dire Implications
Second, unless we are prepared to disregard as false all secular contributions to mathematics, history, and science simply because they were not Christians, then we could easily be thrust back to the stone age. Unbelievers can recognize facts of reality that may very well be in conflict with the beliefs of Christians (let us not forget the challenges to the church's views of geocentrism and the earth being flat- matters of interpretation, not scripture). Paul also told us that unbelievers have all of creation that gives them correct knowledge (Romans 1). If we are to reconcile Paul's words to the Romans with his words to the Corinthians, we must conclude that he was not talking about all knowledge in 1 Corinthians 2.

It is quite important that we not only allow our views to be challenged, but we take those challenges seriously (even if others do not). We are held responsible for what we believe, no one else. If we believe something that is incorrect about God, His Word, or His acts (including creation), we limit ourselves in our understanding of God, and thus limit our relationship with Him (see 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe). It seems to me that someone, who is unwilling to allow anyone to critique their view, has a dangerous amount of pride in their ability to decipher truth on their own. This pride can and will come between the person and God. Ironically enough, God can use secularists to draw Christians to a more accurate understanding of Him.

Scripture Taken in Context
We also cannot forget that later in the same letter to the Corinthians (chapter 15) that Paul states what Christianity is based upon: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not false if the universe is billions of years old; it is not false if God used natural processes to create; it is not false if God chose to create a multiverse; it is only false if Christ was not raised from the dead. We should not choose to limit God's work in us by refusing to honestly evaluate secular critiques of our views. We should be grateful if a wrong view is brought to our attention, so we can dispense with the false and embrace the true- worshiping God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

Conclusion
As tempting as it is to let the challenges of those we disagree with "go in one ear and out the other," it is just as dangerous, if not defiant of our Creator, to not meet these challenges head-on, with a heart and mind that is humble enough to change if necessary.


3 comments:

  1. I'm very disappointed in your take as a Christian on both the debate and Bible.

    The Bible clearly states that the Earth was substantially different in the past.

    - humans lived for hundreds of years (Genesis 5:4-31);
    - the waters below were gathered to ONE place (Genisis 1:9);
    - and there was enough water in the firmament to rain for 40 straight days and cover the entire earth when combined with the springs of the deep opening (Genesis 7:11-13).

    So 2 questions should imediately arise for any Christian:

    - How were humans physically able to live that long without the Bible sounding like a fairy tale?
    - How was it physically possible for there to be enough water to cover the Earth during the flood without the Bible sounding like a fairy tale?

    Do you see the pattern here?
    - If you want to pick and choose which Bible verses you want to believe... Then where does it stop? Jesus himself vouched for the writings of Moses and the old testament several times.

    The Bible is very specific about God creating everything in 6 days, and about humans living for hundreds of years before the flood. It stands to reason that the physical earth was different in the past. The atmosphere likely contained a lot more water than it does in modern times. This would have likely protected humans from the biggest reason for aging known to man... radiation from the sun's rays. Does that sound far fetched? Go 'Google' about the effects of the sun on aging in any seculal science publication; or take a quick look at this article for fun...(http://www.besthealthmag.ca/best-looks/skin/news-dont-believe-the-sun-causes-premature-aging-you-will-now/).

    Do you ever think about how so many animals tended to be huge in size in the past? Not just dinosaurs, but even gigantic insects, birds, and even mammals often seemed to be bigger versions of themselves? ...Ever wonder why? You honestly think that a different physical environment wouldn't be a strong explanation for things like that?

    Carbon dating techniques responsible for "billions of years" beliefs are based on an assumption that the Earths atmosphere has always been constant. Not only has that been proven wrong because of nuclear radiation from bomb testing over the past 50 years changing our atmosphere... But any reasonable person can easily conclude with simple logic that there must have been points in Earth's history where the impact of astroids; or major eruptions of volcanos; or large scale Forrest fires that burned for years would have surely changed the atmosphere of the Earth. And if you are a Christian... Then you surely must believe one of the most important parts of the Bible regarding Noah and the flood which Jesus vouched for. Surely a catastrophic event like a world wide flood would change the Earth's atmosphere drastically.

    But nope. You would rather lead Christians to believe in a carbon dating technique that assumes that the Earth's atmosphere has always been consistent instead of the bible; or a dating technique like counting tree rings when it has already been proven that the oldest trees on earth often produce more than one tree ring per year to conserve water; or a dating technique like ice core samples...where even a sample from a measly 50 years ago is buried under 250 feet of snow and thousands of pounds of weight... And samples from thousands of years ago are hard to distinguish even with a microscope.

    You are honestly going to encourage Christians to believe these silly dating techniques based upon faulty assumptions and a misguided worldview over the Word of God?

    Very disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,
      I appreciate your taking the time to write that comment. I do not have time to address each of your concerns with old-earth creationism at this time, but I do not want to leave you empty-handed. Here are a few links to posts about old-earth creationism from the perspective of a Christian who affirms biblical inerrancy. The last post includes books that do address your concerns, if you are interested in an honest investigation.

      How Do We Respectfully Disagree While Being Committed to Truth?
      http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-do-we-respectfully-disagree-while.html

      Does Old-Earth Creationism Compromise Scripture?
      http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/does-old-earth-creationism-compromise.html

      Top 5 Books on the Bible, Creation, and Science
      http://lukenixblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/top-5-books-on-bible-creation-and.html

      Delete
    2. Steve,

      Regarding your assertion that carbon dating is responsible for establishing an age of "billions of years" for the earth, this reflects an incorrect understanding of carbon dating. Carbon dating is based on the half-life of Carbon 14 which is between 5,000 and 6,000 years. The outer range for radiometric dating in general is about 10 half-lives which means that carbon dating can only be accurate to about 50,000 years ago, not billions of years.

      Regarding the accuracy of carbon dating, while I don't ascribe to Biologos' views on theistic evolution, consider pages 7-9 of this discussion by geologists Ken Wolgemuth and Gregg Davidson.

      http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/davidson_wolgemuth_scholarly_essay.pdf

      This discussion provides a compelling cross-correlation of carbon dating with both tree rings and varves providing a triple-check on carbon dating and a compelling case that carbon 14 dating provides an accurate measure of age. Additionally, the discussion includes a consideration of your assertion that the flood caused changes in the levels of carbon 14 in the earth's atmosphere.

      Tom

      Delete

****Please read my UPDATED post Comments Now Open before posting a comment.****