On theology and science

[SlightlyOddGuy (Matt)]

@thoughtful

Thanks for explaining. I feel like I should explain my knowledge of that since you did. I’m not sure which book I read first - Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus or Cold Case Christianity but after that I began watching both apologetics videos on YouTube as well as Christian-Muslim debates. As I watched Christians and ex-Muslims pick apart Islam that gave me more confidence in Christianity (because I think Christianity is much easier to defend on multiple levels) even though apologists themselves made me sometimes uncomfortable with things I didn’t know - manuscript errors, interpolations, etc. It was worth wrestling through those things. Everything I learned about evolution has been reading on this forum or news articles or youtube. But I had always assumed the mainstream scientific community was better at making their case/ it had better explanations, so it doesn’t usually bother me that I don’t have all the answers, just when the questions come at me all at once is overwhelming here. I occasionally watch skeptic or ex-Christian videos, more often lately Paulogia and a few Jon Steingard recently. I believe you had said you found an Aron Ra video/podcast convincing. I have listened to other youtubers saying he’s very good at explaining evolution. From what I’ve seen, fairly hostile to religion also. I am curious to hear what he has to say.

Yeah, I can imagine the tsunami of questions is pretty overwhelming. I’m certainly glad I’m not on the other end of it for sure. I like Paulogia and Jon, I find them to reflect much more what I’m interested in than Aron. Aron’s good for getting a big picture view of evolution, but his anti-theism is pretty souring for some. I wouldn’t recommend him. I think there are plenty more neutral channels that can provide a similar function.

@thoughtful

Overall, I know even if I decided evolution was true, I don’t think I’d seriously doubt my faith, just the inerrancy of the Bible. I don’t like other explanations for purpose, meaning, beauty, or morality. Plus I’m sick of myself and my faults, and the evil in this world and excited about resurrected Valerie 2.0. Jesus makes sense of all of that for me and I like thinking about God. So that’s where I’m at. It fascinates me in a way that people can change quickly or reorient that fast. Maybe I’m not wired that way; I find it hard to imagine. It must be an emotional ride.

I suppose that’s a difference between us. Heaven never appealed to me even as a little kid. I just figured someday it would appeal to me more, but that never happened. As far as people changing quickly goes, I think that depends on what it is they rested their faith on and also how flexible people are with their theology. For me, YEC was the cornerstone, and it was rigid as H-E-double- . It’s like building your house upon the sand (I guess a super rigid sand? Yeesh, these metaphors aren’t mix well.). When the floods come… anyway, yes, it was emotional for sure. Scary, disappointing, and then a mix of anger and relief.

@thoughtful

Regarding an old universe and evolution, I wonder if then you’d give Ken Ham props and say Genesis is foundational to Christianity and when that crumbled you lost your faith, or was it more on the end of evolution gave legitimacy to atheism?

Maybe this is a question I should start a new thread with, but for instance, I was watching Jon Steingard and Paulogia have a conversation and Paul admitted the evolutionary explanation of dinosaurs is what really began his doubt about Christianity and Jon said reading Sapiens made him really think it was possible God didn’t exist. I don’t always agree with Ken Ham’s explanations but I do think evolution gives atheism legitimacy, in fact I don’t think it makes intellectual sense without it, and I’m wondering if atheists agree.

Ken Ham can have my props when he pulls them from my cold, dead fingers! Just kidding. Sort of. Heh. I think this whole idea of linking atheism and evolution is really interesting and sad, because I’ve now gone from Ken Ham’s view to an agnostic one (at the least), and having passed through that veil, I have a very different perspective on it (and it was pretty mind-blowing to realize as it was happening). From one side, it can seem like the steps go from:

YEC–>Become convinced of evolution–>Why is God even necessary?–>He’s not–>There is no God–>Become atheist.

When the steps go something more like this (may vary from person to person):

YEC–>Become convinced of evolution–>Realize that although you were super confident about it, you were also super wrong about a basic fact of reality–>If you and so many others were both super confident and super wrong about this basic fact, what other basic facts could you be wrong about?–>Begin questioning if God is one of those things–>Become unsatisfied with reasons to believe–>Leave Christianity–>Become atheist.

Now, one can say, “look, either one starts with believing evolution and ends with atheism–it’s all the same.” But it’s not. In Ham’s version, the cause of the atheism is believing evolution, but in reality, it’s discovering “Hammonism” is wrong that’s the cause. I have no doubt were I raised in a faith community that affirmed/accepted evolution, I would still be a Christian today. Ham’s dogmatic refusal to understand other people’s journeys, among other things, tends to ruffle feathers everywhere, non-theist and theist alike. It wouldn’t be such a problem, except he spreads that kind of closed-eared xenophobia throughout his sphere of influence, and it objectifies people and does real damage to relationships.