Sunday, January 19, 2020

Genesis, Evolution, and Entrenched Battle-Lines

This continues a conversation with long-time friend Joe H, responding to his blog entry "Genesis, Evolution, and the Flood". For this post I'm sticking with the first few chapters of Genesis. I know that the same conversation needs to happen about the flood, but I expect that will only work after the groundwork has been done on the earlier material.

Joe:
Sorry to rudely awaken some (no not you Anne) but denying evolution is no longer an option for apologists. Moreover,this realization  is about 50 years behind the times. Many christians have a barrage, an array of anti-evolutionary arguments, they are wasting their time.No one listens, you can think it's so well  documented and rationalize about the scientific knowledge  of hydraulic  engineers and reflect upon how all non Christians and many Christians are just ignoring the truth, that wont make them listen. You are on;y ranking yourself among flat earthers. Such apologists are not making strong bold proclamations of God's word the are making God's word look silly.

Hey Joe. You can get frustrated with people who "are making God's word look silly" all day. But when it comes to what makes people listen, that's a two-way street. I'm hearing a lot of frustration and anger and I understand it; being stuck in that conversation interferes with your own progress in discussions with other people, having to always be about those same old battle-lines. I know you've done a lot of work on other areas in theology and apologetics and epistemology, some of it ground-breaking stuff, and it's got to be frustrating beyond words to have an atheist not take your work seriously because he just talked to an internet troll who thinks the world is 6000 years old. But if the message to YEC's is "you guys are behind the times" then "that won't make them listen". People don't generally change their views unless they see a better one, and better is defined by what matters to them.

Here's one thing that the pro-evolution religious discussion has been missing: a clear answer to where that leaves all the worldview that's built on the creation section of Genesis. Here are some parts of the worldview based on the creation section of Genesis, that people are concerned they'd lose:
  • creation is good and orderly
  • creation reflects God's goodness and ability to create beauty and order from chaos
  • creation is beloved by the one who made it
  • God gives people respect and kindness as birthrights (grounded in grace)
  • God's intentions for humanity are compassionate - from wanting us to have a companion in life to the gift of clothing for maintaining dignity in a fallen state
  • God's intentions for humanity are benevolent: the first word God speaks to people is a blessing
  • God gives Eden as the model for the world, & we were to fill the rest of the earth accordingly (world-wide paradise with humanity as benevolent rulers/stewards of it)
  • God's first command to us shows benevolence and is a blessing; it's the basis for understanding the intent of all commandments as blessing
  • God was present and in-relationship with people from the beginning
  • that relationship was broken by us, contrary to God's intent; now God intends reconciliation
  • the inherent problem with morality and moralizing is that humanity was first interested in it to gain status, and its next use was to pass blame. It's been tainted ever since. 
  • there is intentional evil in the world that includes manipulation, deception, creating division, and maneuvering for status at someone else's expense

I've seen some people say that you can still get all that from Genesis even if you think it's a myth. But that's not a convincing thing to say; claiming it's true doesn't make it plausible. There are unanswered questions about willingly embracing a myth, and those are part of the work that needs to be done to persuade people that it's a better view.
  • Once you classify something as "myth", what is the rationale for taking it seriously? 
  • Once you classify something as "myth", doesn't integrity demand an intellectual separation of sorts, an arm's-length dissociation from whether we let it inform our viewpoint?
  • What makes the Hebrew myth cycle a better basis for a worldview than the Greek or Norse ones? 
  • To what extent can we be convinced that those worldview-points (above) are true in the sense of "related to the real world" if the genre is myth? 
  • Do we believe that God was involved in the development of the myth? 
These are not arguing-questions or rhetorical questions; I see them as to-do-list questions of things that need to be articulated well, clearly, convincingly before Christianity can regain a more widespread consensus. Right now the consensus of the pro-evolution side hasn't taken those questions seriously because those questions haven't really mattered to the pro-evolution side. But they do matter to the other side.

There's a point that I want to ensure doesn't get lost: for many YEC's, the debate in their heads is often not between YEC and a retooled Christianity; it's between YEC and atheism. If you don't believe that, think hard about how many of the atheist online trolls are former fundamentalists, and I'll say it again: the debate in their heads is often not between YEC and retooled Christianity; it's between YEC and atheism. Retooled Christianity assumes it's the default winner in their heads if only they adopt evolution; often it's not. If we approach the conversation with the viewpoint that all they have to do is accept evolution and they'll retool their Christianity, I'll say that's not generally how I've seen it work. Part of the issue is the "entrenched battle line" problem where they're sure that hill is worth dying on. Part of the issue is that modern retoolings of Christianity generally don't make a positive case for themselves but assume themselves to be the default winner of persuading someone about evolution, though in the other person's head the default winner may be the nearest exit. Many don't see that revised Christianity has kept enough for them to buy into it; or in some cases there's doubt that revised Christianity has kept it honestly enough, with the questions answered and the intellectual groundwork laid. It hasn't earned consensus status but claims it by default; not everybody buys that default. That's why it's so important in my view to do the groundwork and answer the questions honestly and clearly.


Joe, in linked post:
Atheists are trying to use evolution as disprove God but it's not going to change their minds to try and debunk evolution. That will only result  in making   up their minds even more. We have to undermine their view by showing it  up; it can't disprove God for God to have used evolution.
I agree with that so thoroughly. And what if the same approach you take with atheists may be the approach that would be helpful with fundamentalists? Going about the argument by trying to debunk something they cherish will not change their minds but will only make them dig deeper trenches. The way to replace their view is by giving them a better one. Which begins with having a better one -- defining "better" in the ways that that matter to them.

So what's a mythologized Eve got that Pandora doesn't?


6 comments:

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


You are sort of approaching it like a public relations issue. I am not concerned with convincing YEC's. I guess feel like they are hopelessly committed to not thinking,


"There's a point that I want to ensure doesn't get lost: for many YEC's, the debate in their heads is often not between YEC and a retooled Christianity; it's between YEC and atheism."


They are reinforcing atheism. They are conniving atheists that they are right,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

"I've seen some people say that you can still get all that from Genesis even if you think it's a myth. But that's not a convincing thing to say; claiming it's true doesn't make it plausible. There are unanswered questions about willingly embracing a myth, and those are part of the work that needs to be done to persuade people that it's a better view.Once you classify something as "myth", what is the rationale for taking it seriously?"

YECs are still going by the antiquated notion of myth. myth = lie. Once we abandon that that understand myth //=lie then they can start rethinking what it does mean. Creationists allow Sunday school to dominate their thinking. We have to tech them the rudiments of science.

It's not about being more effective in reaching out to atheism it;s not about reaching YECs it;s about truth, we want to reflect truth not live in a world of imposed Sunday school fantasy.

When they see opinion leads pushing evolutionary thinking they will pick it up. Apologists are pinon leads.


"Once you classify something as "myth", doesn't integrity demand an intellectual separation of sorts, an arm's-length dissociation from whether we let it inform our viewpoint?

Need to discuss what myth is. Accepting that Genesis creation story is myth does not mean accepting it on some other level it means understanding the the theological issues apart from the false history

What makes the Hebrew myth cycle a better basis for a worldview than the Greek or Norse ones?

It's based upon theological views about the true God.

To what extent can we be convinced that those worldview-points (above) are true in the sense of "related to the real world" if the genre is myth?


Because myth does not mean lie. The underpinning theology is echoed through out the Bible and takes us to Christ


Do we believe that God was involved in the development of the myth?
These are not arguing-questions or rhetorical questions; I see them as to-do-list questions of things that need to be articulated well, clearly, convincingly before Christianity can regain a more widespread consensus. Right now the consensus of the pro-evolution side hasn't taken those questions seriously because those questions haven't really mattered to the pro-evolution side. But they do matter to the other side.

Those are answered throughout modern theology

Martin LaBar said...

"People don't generally change their views unless they see a better one, and better is defined by what matters to them."

Kevin Knox said...

Hello Anne,

What does Eve have that Pandora doesn't?

I'll play!

Assumptions: Homo sapiens have been around for 70,000 years, and about 4,000 years ago YHWH spoke to Abraham. Every story told before that moment is myth. And then I'll add one fantasy. I'll assume the author of Genesis was familiar with the story of Pandora, because the author was certainly familiar with many, many creation myths of his day.

Pandora teaches us men were immortal, happy, and pleased the gods, as well as being pleased by them. She teaches us women are the source of all that's wrong with the world, and by her very nature she destroys every good thing while being irresistible. She teaches us the gods need us to be pleasant.

Any corrective to Pandora would teach us men and women were created as part of one perfect whole, that they each played their part in breaking everything, and that both still exist in a way that pleases God.

Pandora is false; she never lived and her jar never spilled evil into the world. Her story teaches us to treat each other in a destructive way, and more so the more fully it's believed. That makes sense, because it's a lie. On the other hand, if we know what truly happened to bring evil into the world, it will guide us to doing things in a constructive way. Truth does that. But it can't be merely supposed truth. Us believing falsehood with all our hearts won't help us. Eve brings truth.

Beyond a doubt, the people who wrote the story of Eve never knew her. They didn't have the ability to relate her history accurately from their own experience. The author is counting on God to tell him Eve's story, so we're in no wise wondering whether we have a first person history in front of us. We don't. We have a truth told by God through a man.

The question before the house is whether God told a true story that gives accurate history or true literature that gives accurate lessons. That is a new question that only came before the house a couple hundred years ago. Historical facts came to light then that make it near-impossible for the book of Genesis to have been written by Moses, and because it's near-impossible for homo sapiens to have a history of less than 70,000 years, and because it's near-impossible for the universe to have a history of less than billions of years. The facts are too many, too diverse, and too consistent to ignore.

The higher criticism movement grabbed these new facts and with them tried to destroy faith. In the Fundamentalists' fight-back, we threw out the facts with the lies. We needed to fight back, but we needed to keep the facts. If the Fundamentalists can convince me they accept facts, and don't just go all-in on just so stories, I'll show an interest again. For now, I see them saying faith means believing any fact that doesn't align with their faith is not a fact. That doesn't work for me.

The creation account makes the most sense as a carefully crafted rebuttal of all known, local creation myths. They believed chaos gave birth to the gods. God said he calmed the chaos and tickled the worst monsters. They believed the gods themselves were limited and limited each other. God said he was God alone. They believed the gods were abusive masters of unwilling slaves. God said he created humans for love and wished to enrich people for their own sake. There's no question, the account does counter-balance all the existing myths. We know this. It's not a blank history. It's a slanted history absorbing all the local beliefs and overturning them with prejudice.

Kevin Knox said...

Part 2:


The question is still whether God is telling history or literature, and we don't know the answer. We just don't.

We know what Eve gives us that Pandora doesn't, but we want to know which Eve it is. What "Eve as literature" gives us that "Eve as miracle" doesn't is curiosity. If the Fundamentalists are right, we have nothing to learn about God. It's all there in the sacred words. We already know everything there is to know. If the Fundamentalists are wrong, then we grow curious why God dealt with us differently than we've always imagined.

Why do we know the words God said to Cain? Why did he wait several hundred years, or thousands, to talk to Abraham? Why were the pyramids 1,000 years old before Moses ever saw them? Why did God care about Nineveh? Why did he bless Nebuchadnezzar? Why does he profess affection for Egypt? If we know God was embedding a message in these texts beyond that his caprice is beyond questioning, a message humans can learn in human ways, then we dig. If we think the message is "God can do magic so quit with your questions and your learning", then we've not really come anywhere since 1516 AD.

I'm curious.

Kevin Knox said...

Part 3:

All that said, and it was fun to say, I really like your aim here, Anne. I agree. We need to appeal to brothers, not tell people they refuse to learn. I am a Fundamentalist at heart, and always will be. I want my brothers to play in this field and see what they see, not submit to my new insights and fundamentals.