During my recent bout of arguing for historicity for parts of the Scripture
that are generally not considered historical, several people publically and
privately implied that the area of origins is really not that important.
One fellow privately thought I was merely being provocative and didn't
really believe what I was saying. I had to disappoint him :-)
Because of this widespread belief on this listserve that this issue is not
that important, (as is evidenced by Burgy's thread "How many Folks Really
Care?", I decided to get some anecdotal data on who cares. I posted three
questions on Talk.Origins, the usenet group that regularly beats up on
Christians. The questions are included in the notes below. I have been
given permission to post the notes, but I have removed all e-mail addresses.
It seems that lots of people didn't want to get spammed by Christian
presentations of the gospel and requested that their e-mails be removed.
Anyway, here are some people who cared when they were Christians about
whether Genesis harmonized with Science or not. They decided that it
didn't. This is the best case I can put before anyone as to why a
harmonization is important. We are losing people to the faith.
****responses******
>What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
>who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
>questions.
>
>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
>decision to leave Christianity?
It was one of two major reasons I left. As my awareness and
understanding of science and the evidence became more sophisticated
(I've always read many science books and magazines), the idea of a
literal creation or flood myth, a la Genesis, became more and more
ridiculous. The more I read Genesis, the more it seemed like myth to
me. It simply doesn't mesh with what we know from the fossil record
or the molecular evidence.
The other major reason I left was that I was one of the few Christians
I knew who actually read the entire Bible, and I just couldn't stomach
the vindictive, genocidal god portrayed in the Old Testament. If that
god exists, then this universe is absolutely absurd. A god who is
willing to wipe out entire portions of his creation and to infinitely
punish finite sins sounds more like a devil to me. I'm an optimist,
so I like to think the universe makes sense.
While I briefly considered a figurative interpretation of Genesis as a
solution to my evidence-inspired doubts, it failed to address my
second major concern with Christianity: the spitefulness of the OT
god. I gradually concluded that Christianity, while it contains some
uplifting and helpful elements, is, on the whole, a false belief
system. I am now comfortably agnostic.
>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
See above.
>3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
>inhabited by Christians?
Yes, but please remove my name from the header. Thanks.
**
GRMorton wrote:
>
> This apparetnly didn't make it out of here this morning. so I will try
> again. On another listserve, the issue came up as to who cares about
> Genesis being history. I mentioned that there are lots of former
> Christians, who are now atheists who did care that Genesis didn't seem to
> concord with science and history and because of this left the faith.
>
> What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
> who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
> questions.
>
> 1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
> decision to leave Christianity?
>
Very. The main one. There were ancillary moral issues
involved, such as the fate of those who had never heard
the Gospel, and various bad behaviors of God in the Old
Testament.
**
You write:
>This apparetnly didn't make it out of here this morning. so I will try
>again. On another listserve, the issue came up as to who cares about
>Genesis being history. I mentioned that there are lots of former
>Christians, who are now atheists who did care that Genesis didn't seem to
>concord with science and history and because of this left the faith.
I'm not sure if I would call myself an atheist but I do believe
at this point in my life "former Christian" is correct.
>What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
>who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
>questions.
>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
>decision to leave Christianity?
Coming from a fundamentalist background, these problems proved
to me in a way that no other Biblical "problem" ever has that
the Bible is not literally true. With this understanding came
the gradual realization that all of the fundamentalist doctrines
I'd been taught and believed were founded on false premises.
This engendered a sense of betrayal, feelings of anger and
confusion, and over time a perhaps somewhat irrational need to
distance myself from Christian beliefs as much as possible,
although I intellectually acknowledge the far more reasonable
beliefs and approaches of the liberal forms of Christianity.
From there I've reached the present, abandoning all forms of
religion and in some sense searching for god "from scratch".
I don't know where I'll end up.
>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
>3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
>inhabited by Christians?
Sure.
-ted
**
[NOTE: This one illustrates that the advancement of solutions which don't
match fact, repels people.-
GRM]
In article <5n4vge$dqv$1@sulu.isource.net>, GRMorton
<GRMorton@isource.net> writes
>This apparetnly didn't make it out of here this morning. so I will try
>again. On another listserve, the issue came up as to who cares about
>Genesis being history. I mentioned that there are lots of former
>Christians, who are now atheists who did care that Genesis didn't seem to
>concord with science and history and because of this left the faith.
>
>What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
>who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
>questions.
>
>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
>decision to leave Christianity?
Only part of it.
>
>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
That, the atrocities in the Old Testament, the atrocities of more recent
Christians, and the realization that there are more ways of being moral
than being religious. What really turned me into a non-Christian was
going to a christian discussion group at university and finding out what
weird things they believed and how they couldn't agree on any way of
coming to a shared understanding. What's turned me into an anti-
christian and indeed anti-religionist (I don't like any fundamentalists,
christian, islamic, jewish, or Nichiren) is the fundamentalists on
talk.origins - the combination of ignorance, aggression, and lies are
really too much to take. I don't want any association with any
organization that has space for behaviour like that. There's a few other
things, but that's basically it.
>
>3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
>inhabited by Christians?
OK if you leave identifying details right off. I could do without
threats of hellfire or attempts at conversion. This goes for you too -
just in case you feel tempted :-)
**
On 4 Jun 1997 19:50:31 -0400, in talk.origins you wrote:
> What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
> who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
> questions.
Well, I'm not sure I would go so far as to call myself an atheist, but I
was a fundamentalist Christian (Penticostal) for ten years (age 10-20), and
then saw the light :-)
> 1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
> decision to leave Christianity?
Very. The thing that originally got me started was Asimov's study of the
bible, which blew my (brainwashed) mind. Then, as I studied & learned more,
things just spiralled out of control. It was a very enlightening
experience, to say the least.
> 3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
> inhabited by Christians?
I'd rather you didn't, unless it's done anonymously.
**
In response to your questions
[edited part removed]
I have rambled way to long. In closing I want to say that I hadn't
thought vary much about religion and I was content being a good person and
a good biologist and found the discoveries of molecular biology
stimulating and then suddenly I learn that some religious people are
trying distort facts to fit their 'Truth' and what is more they insisted
that everyone else believe their 'Truth'.
This insistance on believing literally in Genisis at first struck me as
humorous and eventually frieghtening. So I would say that if anything
this whole 'creation' thing has served only to drive a wedge between my
own beliefs and religion. Certainly the crack no matter how beniegn was
already there.
3) In so far as I fear religious people I do not want you to give my name
or address or phone number to any of them. I suppose it is really
impossible to remain completely anon. on the net but pleas try.
**
[Note: This response while not coming from someone who believed the Bible,
illuminates the difficulty of
not having a workable harmonization between Science and Theology.---GRM]
Replying to GRMorton@isource.net (GRMorton)
: 1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
: decision to leave Christianity?
Not at all. I never considered Genesis to be a literally true. I
always considered it an allegory or even simply folklore.
: 2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
The realization that God is not necessary for the everyday workings of
the universe; that 'lifeforce' is not necessary for life; the numerous
internal inconsistencies in the bible (the parts of it I _didn't_
consider allegories or demented rambling (Revelations)).
In short: my biology education put God out of work, or relegated him
to the corners of the universe science has yet to reach, such as
chaos. IMO it is a reasonable assumption to assume gods non-existance
on the premise that he is not needed, and on the observation that his
supposed role diminishes as science advances (from running the show
completely as a ruler, to a creator having kicked off the universe 5B
years ago and then kept away, or a manipulator hiding from us behind
the concept of chaos).
The problem with how god, being completely good and all-powerful, can
allow evil in the world was never a problem for me; having had pets
all my life I realized that a superior intelligence may have to do
things which his subjects doesn't approve of, but which were
necessary.
: 3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
: inhabited by Christians?
I'd rather not, since that invariably leads to my mail box being
flooded with commercial email. Been there, done that.
I now have a spam-stop in my address, but I don't want to test it THAT
hard. If you remove my email-address you are free to repost it,
though.
: glenn
**
On 4 Jun 1997 19:50:31 -0400, GRMorton@isource.net (GRMorton) wrote:
>
>What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
>who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
>questions.
>
>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
>decision to leave Christianity?
it wasnt the contradiction since i never believed literalism anyhow.
what DID make a difference was the fact that a substantial number of
xtians believed in literalism. it seemed to be a dogma for the
religion of many.
>
>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
privacy. the right of individuals to have morals inconsistent with
xtian morals.
>
>3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
>inhabited by Christians?
yep.
>
**
In article <5n4vge$dqv$1@sulu.isource.net>, GRMorton@isource.net says...
>
>This apparetnly didn't make it out of here this morning. so I will try
>again. On another listserve, the issue came up as to who cares about
>Genesis being history. I mentioned that there are lots of former
>Christians, who are now atheists who did care that Genesis didn't seem to
>concord with science and history and because of this left the faith.
>
>What I would like to do is test that assertion. If you are an atheist,
>who was a Christian in the past, I would like the answer to a couple of
>questions.
>
I would consider myself an agnostic or a Deist. I no longer believe in the God
of the Bible or Koran. Taoism and Buddhism make more religious sense to me and
I am a secular humanist and for the most part subscribe to the ideas espoused
in the first and second Humanist Manifestos.
Before I left the Church, I was a very involved Anglican. I was a member of
the Vestry of our parish and seriously considered the Priesthood.
>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your
>decision to leave Christianity?
Not very, the Anglican church generally has no theological problem with the
theory of Evolution, nor science in general. A literal reading of the Genesis
is considered foolish.
>
>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
>
The Nature of God, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. I came to the conclusion
that the Bible was at best a very limited and limiting approach to
understanding God, and that it was a work of man, attempting to explain the
spiritual side of existance. Over time I came to the conclusion that God, if
such an entity exists, doesn't involve itself in the small stuff of the
Universe, and that any purpose that such and entity might have is intrinsically
unknowable by man. That the best we could do, was to enjoy its creation, be
good stewards and be kind to one another. I do not believe in a heaven or a
hell, nor in the continued existance of self after death.
>3. Can I post your reply to another listserv which is generally
>inhabited by Christians?
>
sure
>If you don't want to post your response, an e-mail to me will be fine. I
>will talley the results and post the results in a few days.
>
>glenn
>
**
On another listserv I once wrote:
>GM>If the Bible is nothing
>>but a nonhistorical set of nomad myths, which are objectively false, then
>>why bother with christianity. To say everything in a document is
>>historically false but the message in it is true, seems ludicrous to me.
>>I would not apply such logic in my work.
and received a reply from an atheist:
>
>This is a reasonably good summary of why I am not a Christian.
>
>However, I don't believe that the Old Testament is completely nonhistorical.
>Rather, I am more convinced by the claim that it is a record of a race's
>attempts to deal with divine concepts, rather than a record of a race's
>actual relationship with a divine being.
One final example, a man who is not a bigwig in the skeptics organization,
is a former Christian who could not find any preacher or youth director who
could answer his questions about Genesis. He finally figured that the Bible
wasn't true and is now an atheist actively working at undermining the faith
of others. This guy is a friend of mine and reviewed my book prior to my
publishing it. He was quite helpful to me. But according to him, the main
reason he left the faith was because of the problems between science and the
Bible.
I do not want to start up the round again so I will disappear. I throw
these examples out for everyone's consideration.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm