T-Rex and God
Tissue recovered from a Tyrannosaurus rex is huge news. It is amazing what science has been and is doing, isn't it?
Now, wait for it to become "controversial," because of the creationists out there who believe something along the lines that dinosaurs were planted by Satan to fool us or God himself to test our faith; that the dinosaurs are some sort of global conspiracy created by God-hating liberals; or that the dinosaurs were alive and kicking 6,000 years ago, because these things--and other crackpot theories--fit into the literal words in the Old Testament. It will then expand into a discussion of evolution vs. creationism and such things as, if evolution is true, how come there aren't any apes born to humans? (to this I offer Robin Williams, who has to be the hairiest man alive)
As what usually happens, the creationists will discount the science involved in paleontology and evolution. They'll say things like, mathematics is the only exact science, and what about the second law of thermodynamics which says, in a nutshell, that the universe tends toward disorder and decay and not toward order and growth (or evolution)? If these things fail to persuade, then they will resort to, God is infallible, the Bible is the literal word of God, therefore every word of the Bible is the indisputable truth because God is infallible. And how do you argue with someone who believes that? They've thrown down the gauntlet and said, there is nothing to argue, you blasphemous non-believer!
One point I like to make is that, if you're arguing for faith completely over science, don't use a scientific principle (like the second law of thermodynamics) to make your case. I mean, you can cherry pick the scientific principles you want to believe in, but, if you're arguing for faith, how can you not say that those principles might somehow have the taint of the devil to them as well? I mean, I know people who are all about the space program--lots of physics, lots of science there--but who think evolution/dinosaurs are completely totally wrong. Somehow, shooting satellites and space shuttles into orbit, as well as humongous telescopes that can view galaxies far away, is okay, but the minute you mention carbon dating, science becomes evil liberal hooey.
Another I like to make is that maybe the Bible isn't literal but rather is metaphorical. Yeah, I know, blasphemy, but, in order for it to be effective and have lasting importance, it had to be something that could be understood. If thousands of years ago, someone would have written the earth was formed 5 billion years ago, people would've been baffled. What was there 5 billion of--much less 5 million of--that had been counted at that point? Grains of sand? Who would have understood the concept? If you throw in the planets, the galaxies, stars, evolution, etc., it would've been even more baffling. No one would've understood it, and the larger points of the Bible would've been lost, and the Bible itself would've been relegated to obscurity. [side note: I acknowledge that the Bible has a lot of nasty bits in it about the treatment of women and such that I don't agree with but won't discuss here]
Also, I think that, as a metaphorical document, the Bible has much more relevance and power than if it were literal. Literally, a document thousands of years old has no use for us in our modern society; however, metaphorically, we can examine it and see where it has use in our lives. The biggest metaphor I see in the Bible is the concept of being "born again." When Christ says that his followers "die" from the lives they've and are "born again" as a follower of Christ, it's all a metaphor, symbolism. When you are baptised, you're being "cleansed" and emerging as someone new in Christ. Again, metaphor, because there are no literal physical bodily transformations that are happening here. I discount none of it; I do see the metaphor as much more powerful than the literal (much in the way that I see the great works of fiction having more truth and power in them than any true story).
This, in turn, takes me back to an infallible God. Someone reading this (for example, a fundamentalist Christian conservative) might say, so, you don't believe the Bible is correct and the literal word of God, so therefore you think God is fallible. Um, no. I would say that we are fallible. We have this Bible, this word of God, but we don't understand how to read it, and we're small-minded enough to believe that what he's telling us is what it literally says. I say this: God is bigger than the Bible. He's infinite, the universe is infinite, and there has to be more to things than just what is printed on a several inch thick stack of papers. He [I use "He" for simplicity, not for suggesting God's male] gave us brains to discover where we are, where we were, where we can go.
And, lastly, I don't think that God wants faith to restrict us, to be close-minded to new discoveries. That, to me, sounds like the work of a desperate man trying to hold onto the waning power he has, not an infinite all-knowing God. Sure, you can believe that dinosaur bones are a trick of the devil, but can't you go even further and say that perhaps the Bible itself is the trick of the devil? Wouldn't that be the most deceitful trick of all--to use what is purportedly the word of God to undermine us? You could say that George W. Bush, Christian that he apparently is, was sent to us by God, but you could also say that he is an agent of the devil. Wouldn't that be another great act of deceit--to use someone claiming to be a Christian to deceive Christ's followers? Ludicrous, perhaps, but, if you were being tricked by a master, how would you know?
I think the thing I'm getting at in this long--laborious for you I'm sure--post is that perhaps dinosaurs, evolution, and the Bible can all exist together, that maybe all these things are true even though that seems paradoxical. T. Rex blood and tissue? That's pretty cool, God.
Now, wait for it to become "controversial," because of the creationists out there who believe something along the lines that dinosaurs were planted by Satan to fool us or God himself to test our faith; that the dinosaurs are some sort of global conspiracy created by God-hating liberals; or that the dinosaurs were alive and kicking 6,000 years ago, because these things--and other crackpot theories--fit into the literal words in the Old Testament. It will then expand into a discussion of evolution vs. creationism and such things as, if evolution is true, how come there aren't any apes born to humans? (to this I offer Robin Williams, who has to be the hairiest man alive)
As what usually happens, the creationists will discount the science involved in paleontology and evolution. They'll say things like, mathematics is the only exact science, and what about the second law of thermodynamics which says, in a nutshell, that the universe tends toward disorder and decay and not toward order and growth (or evolution)? If these things fail to persuade, then they will resort to, God is infallible, the Bible is the literal word of God, therefore every word of the Bible is the indisputable truth because God is infallible. And how do you argue with someone who believes that? They've thrown down the gauntlet and said, there is nothing to argue, you blasphemous non-believer!
One point I like to make is that, if you're arguing for faith completely over science, don't use a scientific principle (like the second law of thermodynamics) to make your case. I mean, you can cherry pick the scientific principles you want to believe in, but, if you're arguing for faith, how can you not say that those principles might somehow have the taint of the devil to them as well? I mean, I know people who are all about the space program--lots of physics, lots of science there--but who think evolution/dinosaurs are completely totally wrong. Somehow, shooting satellites and space shuttles into orbit, as well as humongous telescopes that can view galaxies far away, is okay, but the minute you mention carbon dating, science becomes evil liberal hooey.
Another I like to make is that maybe the Bible isn't literal but rather is metaphorical. Yeah, I know, blasphemy, but, in order for it to be effective and have lasting importance, it had to be something that could be understood. If thousands of years ago, someone would have written the earth was formed 5 billion years ago, people would've been baffled. What was there 5 billion of--much less 5 million of--that had been counted at that point? Grains of sand? Who would have understood the concept? If you throw in the planets, the galaxies, stars, evolution, etc., it would've been even more baffling. No one would've understood it, and the larger points of the Bible would've been lost, and the Bible itself would've been relegated to obscurity. [side note: I acknowledge that the Bible has a lot of nasty bits in it about the treatment of women and such that I don't agree with but won't discuss here]
Also, I think that, as a metaphorical document, the Bible has much more relevance and power than if it were literal. Literally, a document thousands of years old has no use for us in our modern society; however, metaphorically, we can examine it and see where it has use in our lives. The biggest metaphor I see in the Bible is the concept of being "born again." When Christ says that his followers "die" from the lives they've and are "born again" as a follower of Christ, it's all a metaphor, symbolism. When you are baptised, you're being "cleansed" and emerging as someone new in Christ. Again, metaphor, because there are no literal physical bodily transformations that are happening here. I discount none of it; I do see the metaphor as much more powerful than the literal (much in the way that I see the great works of fiction having more truth and power in them than any true story).
This, in turn, takes me back to an infallible God. Someone reading this (for example, a fundamentalist Christian conservative) might say, so, you don't believe the Bible is correct and the literal word of God, so therefore you think God is fallible. Um, no. I would say that we are fallible. We have this Bible, this word of God, but we don't understand how to read it, and we're small-minded enough to believe that what he's telling us is what it literally says. I say this: God is bigger than the Bible. He's infinite, the universe is infinite, and there has to be more to things than just what is printed on a several inch thick stack of papers. He [I use "He" for simplicity, not for suggesting God's male] gave us brains to discover where we are, where we were, where we can go.
And, lastly, I don't think that God wants faith to restrict us, to be close-minded to new discoveries. That, to me, sounds like the work of a desperate man trying to hold onto the waning power he has, not an infinite all-knowing God. Sure, you can believe that dinosaur bones are a trick of the devil, but can't you go even further and say that perhaps the Bible itself is the trick of the devil? Wouldn't that be the most deceitful trick of all--to use what is purportedly the word of God to undermine us? You could say that George W. Bush, Christian that he apparently is, was sent to us by God, but you could also say that he is an agent of the devil. Wouldn't that be another great act of deceit--to use someone claiming to be a Christian to deceive Christ's followers? Ludicrous, perhaps, but, if you were being tricked by a master, how would you know?
I think the thing I'm getting at in this long--laborious for you I'm sure--post is that perhaps dinosaurs, evolution, and the Bible can all exist together, that maybe all these things are true even though that seems paradoxical. T. Rex blood and tissue? That's pretty cool, God.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home