Anyone who has seen the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham regarding creationism as a viable scientific model might recall the point towards the end where both men were asked what, if anything, would change their minds. Nye replied that any good, scientifically sound evidence would change his mind, while Ham said that absolutely nothing would ever change his mind about (his interpretation of) the bible or (his interpretation of) creationism.
I saw many atheists proclaiming that this was what was wrong with creationism, creationists, or Christianity. I also understand that Dr. Ham most likely was trying to display his devotion, to "acknowledge Christ" in front of men, as the New Testament verse says to. There was a time that I would have replied along similar lines, and I think I understand his reasons for saying what he did.
But by his statement about not ever changing his mind, Ken Ham was not
only saying, "The Bible cannot
possibly be wrong," but also, "I cannot possibly be wrong about the
Bible." Not only is God never wrong, but Dr. Ham is never wrong about
God. He may claim to be more flexible than this, but I would be
interested to know whether he would ever reconsider his views on
abortion, homosexuality, whether unbelievers could go to heaven, or any
of the other "big" topics.
Would he ever conceive of the possibility that he could be mistaken,
even about a small thing? How can one admit that he might be wrong, and
yet say that he will never, ever change his mind? Based upon his
unwillingness to admit even the possibility that he might be wrong, I
believe that on some level Dr. Ham sees not only his God as infallible,
but himself as well.
And in a situation where someone were to disagree upon an important issue, this arrogant attitude becomes very
condescending.How can his views of unbelievers (and other Christians
who disagree with him) not be affected by the belief that he literally cannot be wrong?
If Dr. Ham or another Christian of the "100% certain" persuasion (which are not all Christians, of course) is
reading this, I would like to appeal to their humility as fallible human
beings. Isn't being so certain the same thing as "leaning on your own understanding" (about God, salvation, the Bible, etc) which the biblical God commands us not to do? What if
you are wrong or mistaken about a key doctrinal issue, one that might
even affect your salvation? (Ham did say that the "models" of the biblical accounts might change,
however he did not say that he would ever change his mind on doctrinal
issues, which I believe is a bit risky if one believes in eternal
salvation and hell.) And even if you are right, why is pride in your own intelligence or certainty acceptable, just because one is right?
Would God not want humility from
His own children? Would He not want even believers to admit that they could be wrong, even (or especially) about the important questions of salvation, the Bible, belief in Jesus, etc?
It makes me wonder, also, if God would ever sanction name-calling of the sort that atheists are subjected to much of the time. Psalm 14:1 is often used as a weapon against atheists (in a typically Christian display of loving one's enemies), based upon the idea that atheists are as certain of their unbelief as some believers claim to be certain of their beliefs.
We are mocked and called fools based upon the idea that we say in our hearts, "There is no god." And yet, looking at the rest of this psalm, it clearly goes on to talk about unrighteousness, oppression of the poor, and about all people being wicked. (The third verse, even, is the one, often used in gospel tracts, that says "All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.")
The very first verse, in fact, as used against atheists, is incomplete:
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
Why are some Christians taking not only the verse out of context, but a fragment of a verse? Perhaps because using the entire verse weakens their argument? Perhaps because the very next sentence makes it clear that God or the psalmist is really talking about wickedness, not unbelief? Notice also that the wicked "fool" is saying this in his heart, not with his mouth. He could have been proclaiming God all the time, and yet still be doing wicked deeds.
I have never been so arrogant as to think that I can say with absolute certainty, "There is no god." I do not know of any atheist who has done so (though there are probably a few). And yet, is it not arrogant also to go the opposite way, to proclaim with certainty that there IS a god, and that nothing will ever change your mind about it?
And most importantly, do you think God is impressed with such arrogance, just because it's used for Him? Would the person who allegedly sees into people's hearts not know that beneath all of the proclaiming, there is the basic assumption that you cannot possibly be wrong? The assumption that you could not have misunderstood God's message, even in the tiniest way?
Do you think God would be impressed that you are "leaning on your own understanding," that you are taking pride in your own wisdom, that you see yourself as closer to God than your fellow human beings who disagree with you? Does He like it somehow that you assume that you know more about Him than anyone else?
And what if He has chosen to reveal different aspects of Himself to different people, or give different people different beliefs or commands, or even not to reveal Himself to some, in order to test us, in order to see how we treat each other when we have disagreements? (And if you say that you know He does not, then I daresay that you have just proven my point.) Jesus' teachings about salvation actually do not mention belief, but they do say a lot about how one treats other people.
I am an atheist, and quite possibly a mere fool, but I do know one thing: According to Christians' own Bible, there is more hope for a fool than for one who is wise in his own eyes. (This comes after a number of verses about how useless, harmful, or hopeless fools are, including mentions of dogs and vomit.)
So it makes me wonder: If I am eating my own vomit, then what are these prideful Christians eating?
What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
No comments:
Post a Comment