Struggling With My Faith

Faith & Science Conversation
,
21

Hi again Mycha. I’d just like to add something to the many thoughtful replies already posted here. I hope you won’t mind an offbeat observation.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Bible and how it has often been used, and I’ve slowly been coming around to the idea that perhaps we’ve been asking the Bible to help us in ways it was never intended to be used for.

A couple of days ago, I went to the thrift store to look for a brooch for a sweater that doesn’t have buttons. (I get cold and like to be able to close my sweaters.) The store was very busy and the sales associate didn’t have a lot of time to show me the pieces in the glass display case. So I sort of quickly pointed out three pieces and took them home.

When I got home, I realized the three pieces seemed unlikely to be able to help me with my sweater problem, but they did kind of resonate with a “messagey” vibe that I’ve learned to recognize as a connection to something important from Mother Father God.

Here is one of the brooches:

evolution - 20231116_072103

From the top, the leaves look separate from each other, with one laid on top of the other, but from the bottom, you can see it’s all one piece. (On a separate note, I’m not sure what kind of leaves these are, but the shape reminds me of my patio geraniums. I know there are knowledgeable plant people here who can better advise me).

So I started to think . . . what if the whole of Creation, with all its history and science and evolutionary complexity, is like the big leaf, and the whole of our individual evolution (that is, our relationship with God) is like the small leaf? The two are related but not identical. And what if the Bible is intended to help us only with the “small leaf” questions – the questions about how we, as individuals, can grow our relationship with God by learning to listen with all our hearts and minds and souls and strength? If we ask the Bible to try to answer all the “big leaf” questions, is that really fair to ourselves or God?

One thing I like about the brooch is that the small leaf is out on top. It reminds me of the way God wants to nurture each of us as individuals, to let our small but worthy hearts shine, to help us evolve as we’re meant to evolve as individual children of God.

Anyway, this is how I’m thinking of the Bible in my life. It’s the book about how to grow the small leaf.

2 Likes
22

This is very very painful. I have been where you are. It actually led me to deep depression and I thought I was drowning in my doubt.

This might be hard to accept now but it will be worth it in the long run.

What we call faith deconstruction is like dominoes falling. Once they start it feels like everything is falling apart.

Again, it will be worth it in the long run.

I could say lots about my journey but I hope you will take a look at a person who really helped me. He seemed to really rescue my faith. Actually two people as I look back.

Dr Pete Enns and Dr Francis Collins

Please check out their videos on YouTube or their books.

I am attaching one from Pete Enns on doubt that really impacted me. However, it may not be the same for you.

6 Likes
23

@mitchellmckain
“I think Christianity loses too much. It means too much of what God tells us in those stories will be ignored. I think a far better approach is simply to treat the stories as really happening, while acknowledging that we don’t know all the details. There probably weren’t any magical fruit, talking animals, or a creation of people by magic… but cannot those just be unimportant details. The flood was probably a local flood, but again isn’t that just a detail? I think it is the relationships that matter… the thinking and feelings involved and that is what we should be focusing on to understand what God is communicating in these stories.”

What’s the difference between that and calling it a myth, as in something that did not literally happen the way it says it did. It’s a myth it’s a global flood even if the flood was local or just an element to a story?

24

I suppose it depends on how you use the word “myth.”

Is someone a myth just because you cannot believe everything they say about him in the news?

I often use the word for a story told so long in an oral tradition that the various purposes of history, philosophy, law, and entertainment become all mixed together. In that way, I would call these stories in the Bible “myth” myself.

But when I see the word used as a dismissal and getting in the way of learning what these stories have to teach then I object.

3 Likes
25

I wanted to follow up some more since this is so close to home for me and maybe where I have found some peace where I was in turmoil.

I am a person where things need to reconcile.

First, I was struggling with science and the creation story. For the most part, this was resolved through much reading and videos. I now see science or the “book of nature” as leading me to worship God as opposed to being in conflict. Francis Collins really helped me with this. The more I learn about nature the more I am in awe of God.

Second, the concept of Hell and eternal torment became my next stumbling block. I spent a lot of time researching this. I could not image a loving God allowing eternal torment for anyone. I have found that there are many views on heaven and hell and eternal torment is the least likely scenario. I looked at NDEs, after death communications, death bed experiences, reincarnations and quite honestly it is absolutely not clear what happens after death. This will remain a mystery for me but I no longer accept traditional views of Hell.

Third, I was having trouble reconciling things like Jesus loves the little children versus Jesus drowns the little children and thou shall not kill versus go kill all the Canaanites. God looks like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or some kind of monster. This was mostly reconciled by coming to accept that significant parts of the Bible are mythological or hyperbole. At first it is troubling that parts of the Bible might not be factual. This can be very troubling. However, I now see this as a good thing that some terrible stories are likely not factual or at least not because of Gods wrath. For example, Noah. I accept that there was a terrible flood in the Mesopotamian region around 2900 BCE but it was not because God was angry. It was just a terrible flood and the OT writers adapted a flood story from Atra-Hasis.

I think I learned from Pete Enns that I do not need to reconcile everything. Despite my nature that wants everything nice and tidy.

I learned that God is more incredible than humans can write in the Bible and I am learning to let God out of the box I built.

I am learning to just trust God and live with mystery.

This is where I am finding peace. (Not 100%). I am accepting mystery, listening to others who have been down this path, and just trusting God.

Many people have been down the path you are on. Multitudes. However, it can feel lonely.

I really suggest the books of Pete Enns.

7 Likes
26

Agree. The meaning of myth has a lot a baggage. Perhaps “epic” or “legend” is a bit closer to what we mean.

2 Likes
27

Hello and welcome, MychaAshlee. I, too, am relatively new here and have felt a bit of anxious hesitation to jump into conversations as I tend to in any new social environment. I have found that everyone I’ve interacted with here has been kind and gracious, and I expect that your experience will be much the same.

I find your story quite intriguing, as it is somewhat opposite to mine in certain ways. I was raised Catholic and drifted into a sort of materialist atheism over the course of my adult life until very recently rediscovering my faith. The path to this rediscovery tread quite surprisingly through the realm of science. A brief summary of my story exists elsewhere on this forum, so I’ll avoid the redundancy of telling it here.

I would like to address this particular question, however:

I feel it important to note that your inquiry is posited from a temporal perspective which presupposes that God experiences time in the same way that mortal humans do. This is the wrong formulation, because God watches over all at once. He sees our past, present and future as to him it is all happening simultaneously in a way we can barely begin to comprehend. He created our early ancestors, He created you and I, and He has already created those who will come long after we’ve returned to the dust of the earth. Simply put, God is.

This is perfectly fine. It is your right to question what you’ve been taught. In fact, it is your obligation as God’s creation to do so, as you’ve been blessed with the unique gift of consciousness which enables such inquiry. God calls upon us in ways and at times which we least expect. All that we can do in the meantime is prepare ourselves to listen intently.

7 Likes
28

Definitely. Indeed one of my problems in communicating sometimes is that I can’t understand how this isn’t true for everyone!

4 Likes
29

Hi Mycha,
I see that you asked for responses from science based faith, however, i would like to add balance to the answers here.

No doubt you are aware of a great Christian mathematician by the name of professor John Lennox.

He tells a fictional story of an aunty cooking a cake. She asks a number of nobel prize winners to critique the cake and they readily provide answers from physics, biology, astronomy,chemistry… however when asked the question “why did aunty bake the cake” , none of them could answer that question.

He goes on to say that only aunty can answer the question of why, if she chooses to reveal it.

We are faced with the same dilemma in our Christian faith…despite what any science says, the why is found only in one place…the place where our Creator has chosen to reveal it…the word of God, the Bible.

The reason why I believe you raise the question above is because you recognise the seemingly impossible situation you now face…if science is true, and if science best explains our reality, how can I believe a book that clearly is at odds with scientific discoveries?

The reality is Mycha…unless you are willing to accept that all Creation, all that we see around us, all that we interpret, and all those who attempt to do the interpreting, are corrupted by sin…you wont find the truth you seek.

I urge you to read the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 and 19

After Elijah fled from the threats of Jezebel in Chapter19, he hid in a cave. Note the following:

11Then the LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD. Behold, the LORD is about to pass by.”

And a great and mighty wind tore into the mountains and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind.

After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.

12After the earthquake there was a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire.

And after the fire came a still, small voice. 13When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.

Suddenly a voice came to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

You see, Elijah did not find God in the thunder, wild wind, earthquake, fire …

he heard a still small voice and immediately recognised it as Gods. He then went to the mouth of the cave where Go asked Him…“What are you doing here Elijah?”

My point is, those seeking God in the mighty things…such as science, will not find his revelation there.

I would urge you to seek consistency in the bible and follow its revelation. Do not pluck passages of scripture out of context seeking to mould them into a satisfactory world view…that will only exascerbate the dilemma you already recognise.

Whether or not those many individuals here who call me a YEC TROLL are willing to admit, their world view has enormous biblical inconsistencies that are truly insurmountable. Below is but a small sample of significant theological problems…

  1. When and why does the bible tell us sin enterred this world?

  2. Does the bible clearly tell us that prior to the fall of Adam and Eve there was no pain and suffering? (if you read the final chapters of the book of Revelation its clear that the gospel is to restore what sin ruined.

The entire message of the sanctuary and the gospel is about salvation and restoration…Revelation clearly tells us that this story ends where it begins…fixing that which was ruined by sin. There shall be no more tears, no more crying, no more pain, no more death!

  1. Have TEist clearly explain to you with cross referenced biblical texts, an answer to the following question…

If the death foretold in Genesis was only an allegory, if it was only spiritual, why did Christ humble Himself and takeon the form of his own creation, live amongus, be tortured and died physically on the cross as atonement for “the wages of sin is death” (romans 6:23)

If only a spiritual death why the physical life, physical death, phhysical ressurection, physical ascention, and why will the second coming be physical?

A spiritual death is clearly only half the story of the plan of salvation. Clearly both spiritual and physical death are consequences of sin.

The bible also adds to this when it said in the gospel of Mathew 1:21…His name will be called Jesus, He will save His people from their sins".

To move away from any YEC vs TE debate…i think both sides can at least agree, Science and God can be complementary if we are willing to allow it.

So in the spirit of that agreement, i offer a wonderful debate between Professor Lennox and Professor Atkins… Can science explain everything

Lennox asserts,
“If modern science [according to the atheist worldview] explains the human brain as the end product of a mindless unguided processes, if that was your computer, would you trust it?”

He says that Christianity is the more logical and rational reason why we can do science because God is an intelligent designer. We are not the product of mindless random processes because in the Christian view, we are a purposeful creation

Kind regards

Adam.

30

It does not present serious theological problems. We all take the Bible serious, we just don’t all have to reject science to force a literalistic interpretation of it. Just like I don’t have to reject meteorology in order to cling to clouds are magically formed by God when he allows angels to open up windows in the dome over the flat earth and pour in bowls of water.

2 Likes
31

Thanks for sharing that video link of Enns.

As much as I appreciated Pete’s talk (and I really did - it was good!) - the song sung at the end … by … “Ken?” … ended up stealing the video for me. Can anybody link me to any information about him? Like maybe even his full name? All I had to go on is the throw away mention of him by Pete during his talk (referring to him as “Ken” I think). Using the lyrics to the song I still couldn’t find any record or trace of it on youtube or elsewhere.

1 Like
32

Mycha, you should know that it isn’t at odds unless you insist on taking the YEC path of not reading the scriptures for what they are.

Adam bringing in this false dichotomy doesn’t help anyone.

Taking it seriously starts with recognizing that it is ancient literature in ancient languages with ancient worldviews.

And read that way, it turns out that there is no conflict at all with science, nor any serious theological problems.

I think it’s worth pointing out here that Hebrew scholars long before Galileo studied the Hebrew of Genesis closely and concluded a number of things purely from the text:

  • the universe began smaller than a grain of mustard (an idiom for the smallest thing possible)
  • it expanded unimaginably rapidly, filled with fluid, until the fluid thinned enough for light to flow
  • it is also unimaginably ancient, with the days of Genesis 1 being “divine days” before there was any human to count/measure time
  • the earth is also incredibly ancient beyond human counting

It’s important to recognize that these conclusions were reached centuries before modern science was off to a decent start, so they aren’t positions that were attained by trying to make the Bible fit science. It’s also important to recognize that these conclusions were reached on the basis of the original Hebrew by scholars who had read ancient Hebrew from the time they could read at all.

I discovered these conclusions well after learning to read Hebrew myself and in fact after I had recognized that the opening Creation account matches a specific type of ancient near eastern literature that I learned to call “royal chronicle”. It’s a very strange type of literature for modern people because while the point of it is to relate a mighty accomplishment of a great king it also has the peculiar attribute that while the details can be taken literally for the purpose of understanding the chronicle/story they are not meant to be taken literally on their own. The story may be organized by themes or times or even places, none of which must be taken literally. This type of literature also may use poetic elements and repetition to make the account memorable.

Recognizing that the opening Creation story matches that ancient type of literature removes all need to take the days – or even the order of events! – literally. Of course that leaves the question of how much is meant literally, and that’s actually not difficult to discern: the aspects of the accomplishment, which would be the list of things God created, and the means of the accomplishment, which would be the manner of creating those things.

That, by the way, also fits with a major purpose of the account. The order of events follows the order of creation events in the Egyptian creation story, and it does so for a reason: in the Egyptian version, all the items listed are gods or goddesses in their pantheon, from sky and sea and land right down to plants, but the Hebrew writer takes each of those and explains that every one of them is nothing more than something that YHWH-Elohim created to serve His plan. Indeed two of the greatest Egyptian gods get thoroughly dealt with because they aren’t even named, they are just described by their function (the two great “lights”).
I like to sum up this purpose of that Creation account in relatively current slang as saying to the Egyptians “All your gods are belong to YHWH”.

Why would the writer do this? Because the Israelites had lived their entire lives along Egyptians and would have known the Egyptian creation stories, and the writer wanted to let God’s people know that the Egyptians had the most important part all wrong! As examples, in the Egyptian version light just existed, it was there before the gods even, but the Hebrew writer lets the audience know that YHWH-Elohim created the light; and in the Egyptian version nighttime, i.e. darkness, was an enemy of the gods that they had to fight every night or other dark period to keep existence from being destroyed, but the Genesis writer notes repeatedly that night (the time between evening and morning) is just another bit of Creation that YHWH-Elohim made.

I think I should point out that I learned all this before I studied science as a university student, so I never saw a problem when in geology class I learned that the Earth’s youngest mountains are at the very least many hundreds of thousands of years old and that the oldest rocks are some four billion years old, or in botany class traced plants back many millions of years.

So while I never really struggled with ditching a YEC viewpoint – I didn’t really have an opinion on the matter – I did learn things about the opening Creation account that let me see that the YEC version actually misses a good deal of what the account is about. This helped me realize that the account isn’t just a listing of what God did, it’s a story that announces that God is in charge and in fact is on my side!

= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =

A book I found worth reading that includes some points I made above is In the Beginning… We Misunderstood–

3 Likes
33
  • You’re posting to the wrong person; and I already cautioned the right person, privately.
1 Like
34

Thank you for your reply.
You are right. I cannot trust what people say the Bible teaches.
I’ve read the bible and studied it since I could read. As an adult, I have studied it more comprehensively.
All through the lens of specific doctrines and biases my church leaders had.
How do I reread the bible without all the indocrination, and brainwashed ideas?

1 Like
35

Thank you so much for this insight. It gives me a lot to think about.

1 Like
36

I really like this. Thank you.

1 Like
37

this ignores the O.P’s own stated dilemmas.

38

I probably cannot help with that one. Its not like I read the Bible independent from my own scientific based perception of reality. Perhaps others here with a background more similar to yours can be more help there. But my impression is that it is a long a difficult road.

1 Like
41

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic speaks to it I think.

42

I made a big dent in that by learning ancient Hebrew and Greek, but also through reading the early church Fathers since they were so much closer to the cultural context than anyone today (although scholars have learned things about the text that the Fathers didn’t know). Those work for me, so I really haven’t come up with other ways to do it.

2 Likes