Revisionist Creationism
The first thing I ever learned was how to create myself.
Though, of course, other factors were involved, I wish to take full credit for this feat, and this is why: while my copulating biological contributors provided the seed necessary for life, it was I, in rudimentary cellular form, who learned how to live.
It took no exposure to the trials and temptations of this world, nor any semblance of morality, ethics, or even thought, to convince me to do so; the fact is that I really had no say in the matter, and my own insignificant life could easily enough have been extinguished without an afterthought before its very beginnings had been allowed.
Before my first sunrise, or rainbow, or kiss, I taught myself how to exist.
This, then, is the first rewrite of the innate draft of human history; it serves to reconnect us with our humble origins and similarly rights the cyclical reality of nature — a truth rendered topsy-turvy by the various forces at work in our own socialized world. These words must be insanity to the “not me” reader (by this I mean simply: those who are not me, or think like me). Allow me to elaborate.
Our genesis accounts are multifaceted and diverse, this much is plainly evident in the myriad religious sects, their respective manifestos, and also in the break-throughs of science, philosophy, and even obscurantist pseudoscience (which is often a combination of legitimate and superstitious fields of logic). Naturally, in the pursuit of Truth, we must be vigilant when considering each of these perspectives, not succumbing to the external pressures of our “progressive-” and “conservative-ly” dichotomized societies to simply be tolerant of the manipulation and misguidance perpetrated by any of these origin myths and their collective sects. Even the realm of legitimate science is not excepted from abstract philosophical critique, as its adherents can sometimes become as misty-eyed and foolish as the subjects of religious doctrine or political ideology. It does, however, maintain at least an air of sensibility — due primarily to the efforts of the few, of those who recognize the necessity of rationality and the scientific method.
The same cannot be said of the liars who have constructed the vacuous and disgusting “science” of Creationism. These charlatans are seen easily as such by authentic science; yet our greater society continues to grant credence to their absurd, manipulative, and generally self-destructive claims. Taking creative license to science is among the only times the “slippery slope” argument really makes sense to me. If we do not brandish the razor of rationality when it is most necessary, the enemy, obscurantism, will continue its encroachment.
We are NOT the products of YHWH. Let’s just begin there. What a stupid assumption to begin with; you cannot have any hope of free inquiry if the questions begin with the conclusion already in-hand. Set aside the ridiculous biblical accounts of our origins and of our rapidly expanding universe, and let us dig deeper into the heart of this pervasive ideology:
Not even the most generous science could possibly support the theory of a five- or six-thousand-year-old universe. If we approach the matter theologically, we cannot dispute the clarity of the mythical Moses’ claims — to do so is to make doctrinal compromise, which is both a slap in the face to traditionalists and symbolizes the removal of integral stones in the foundation of belief. If God says that he made this world in six days, simply by speaking words into nothingness, who are we to dispute that? Likewise, if he has unequivocally given us dominion over the earth, why should we be responsible or thoughtful about this license? Given that the universe is fallible due to The Fall, we should be lucky if our untimely demise is the result of our irascibility; in such a doomsday scenario we still have the promise of heaven.
You may be reeling from these statements. As a theology student, these questions ultimately served as the erosion to my own fundamentals, and I cannot imagine them having no effect on anyone else with any semblance of curiosity or a critical eye. Yet our own innate prejudices have a way of blinding us that I cannot ignore, and the gentle prodding of a question serves as a much more invaluable medium than a tantrum or diatribe. To be able to coherently follow a thought through its logical and rational conclusion is a gift much greater than any offered in any evangelical manifesto; you cannot convince me otherwise. Within the deepest sense of my own being, I stand acquitted of intellectual folly.
“you cannot have any hope of free inquiry if the questions begin with the conclusion already in-hand”
Exactly. No matter how many times I say this to my evangelical counterparts, they still don’t get it. The burden of proof is upon the theist; they are arguing for the affirmative. Christians can’t argue as if God is tangible and palpable, because He clearly is not. You have to PROVE this conclusion before you can use it in an argument.
Anyway, great post. I’d be curious to read your comments on my most recent post (it’s on a similar topic).
awfrick
July 26, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hey Ryan, I appreciate your postings. I love thinking about/discussing stuff like this. I myself come from a fundamentalist Christian upbringing (and went to Whitworth, studied theology there, etc.) and am currently in the process of recovering from my background (I’ve come a long ways, but everything’s a journey – now I consider myself a pretty ‘hopeful’ agnostic in a lot of ways). I think you make a great many points in your blog postings that I appreciate and get onboard with.
That said, I think one thing to be cautious of in your blogging (or in this post in particular at least) is being too quick to attack a straw man version (albeit a very real, popular and unfortunate one) of Christianity without realizing there are more intelligent, thoughtful versions out there (I think this is a problem Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher in his “Religulous” documentary, etc. all fall into at times). Doubtless you know this, but one need not believe in a 5000-6000 year old earth or a literalistic view of Genesis or any of the early Hebrew writings and have ‘Christian’ faith. While a (sadly fairly large) segment of the Evangelical populace might say they believe such things and fight tooth and nail over those issues, not every ‘Christian’ does (thank goodness). There are much more intelligent, legitimate ways of interpreting Genesis and other ancient texts in a way appropriate to the historical period of the texts themselves. They’re poems – literature passed on by word of mouth for generations before finally being written down and they convey themes in a mythological sense, but they are not meant to be read through a modern, literal, Enlightenment-tinged lenses. When examining the Genesis creation myth for example, I think it’s far more instructive to compare that myth to other Ancient Near East creation myths around the same period (e.g. the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.) and see which elements are the same and which are different (e.g. which are more unique to the Genesis myth) rather than bickering over the details of how that creation could have scientically taken place. Unfortunately, that’s not where most public (or church) debate is focused.
Anyway, I hope those thoughts make sense. Keep up the intelligent, thoughtful blogging!
John Williamson
July 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Oh and my blog is jasherwilliamson.wordpress.com – I’ve posted links there to your blog (my massive reader base of about 5 people should provide huge linking to your blog,,,haha).
Check it out sometime if you have a chance.
John Williamson
July 26, 2009 at 1:40 pm
John,
I was surprised and pleased when I checked my new comments and saw that you had somehow stumbled upon and commented on my blog. Receiving insight from different voices from different perspectives is one of my favorite — albeit nerdy — pastimes, and you readily indulged my appetite.
That being said, you make a very good point, one which I have addressed elsewhere but also one which often needs clarification.
Straw-men are the worst of all argumentative interjections, simply because they reject nuance — a cardinal sin, by my standards — and read only the stereotype of a word or entity.
When I discuss religion, I do so freely as my mind initiates, and I sometimes forget to establish my credibility or level of understanding. As a Christian, I drifted about as far to the left as is possible, and the strain eventually snapped the remnant cords of bondage. While this may be seen as a tragedy by many within religious cicles — hell-bent upon conversion and salvation — many others couldn’t give any less of a damn. And how can they? The immediate preoccupations of their own lives — including the spiritual aspect — is of much more importance than my apostasy.
I do not even address these meek Christians because their beliefs and existence is not a threat to my own liberty or that of others. The “Christian” caricature, however, I feel free to lampoon as I fancy, and it is this establishment which I seek to assault — NOT the innocent advocates of the better notions of doctrine.
Though you may be right that prominent secularists often fail to distinguish between the postmodern and fundamentalist sects, you simultaneously employ the same weapon of simplification and inclarity; that is, effectively, what lumping Dawkins, Hitchens, and Maher does, and is no more thoughtful than the inverse. Maher is a chump with a chip on his shoulder, and though he is capable of making me laugh, I would hardly consider him an archetype of my belief. That, too, is a problem posed to secularists: the notion that all systems of thinking must have an ideal — a rallying point from which we may do battle.
Ironically, by refusing to posture themselves this way, the scientifically-minded hold the high ground, not constrained to the limitations of one or the other perspective, but rather taking each in as an incoherent — but valiantly inventive — whole.
Hopefully I addressed your concerns fully enough. Thanks again for reading.
Ryan Georgioff
July 26, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Ryan,
I want to support what John has shared as well. I am actually a Christian that is from the camp that really does not place too much stock in a literal reading of the creation story in the book of Genesis. There is certainly a long conversation to go with that, but to get to the point of my commenting here, I agree that it is important to watch tone so that you do not end up sounding like those you oppose. Open dialogue is so important on both sides.
To that end, I hope to be some sort of source for some of that open dialogue. While I do not have nearly the knowledge base that you do about these issues, I am really working on understanding both parties in effort to, well not really sure what that would look like.
Either way, as an example of what I am talking about I have recently written a post on “Religulous” which I just saw for the first time. Cannot say that it really shook my faith at all, but I do appreciate the honest questions that Maher presents.
I would love your feedback on my post, especially regarding the tone that I have attempted to present. You can find it at http://lunchboxsw.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/religulous-is-ridiculous/
Aaron
July 26, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Yea, hooray for the wonders of facebook and the expanding blogosphere. And, I’m sure you have addressed that issue of ’straw men’ elsewhere – I haven’t had a chance to peruse your entire blog as of yet.
That makes sense – I always appreciate a good lampooning of silly/destructive/institutional, etc. forms of Christianity/religion.
And you make a good point about me doing the same over-simplifying to Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, etc. I do recognize that they are quite different voices with different points of view, focuses, etc., but I think that at times (not all the time though – I think many of their points are excellent) they each in their own, separate ways make the straw man mistake (Maher perhaps more than the others – at least from watching his “Religulous” documentary).
Also, Aaron, I also reviewed “Religulous” on my blog – you can check out here if you’re interested: http://jasherwilliamson.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=64
jasherwilliamson
July 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm