Faith, Fundamentalism and My Proctologist

By Curt Harlow

Part 1

Last year my proctologist assaulted me. Not medically mind you but mentally. It started innocently enough. While in the middle of a procedure (anyone who has follow the today show can guess which one) he asked me what I did for a living. I told him quickly that I was a minister and I did so in that tone of voice that clearly indicated, “I don’t really want to chit, chat right now.”

In spite of this, when he learned that I was a reverend he immediately blurted out, “Oh God! You’re not one of those fundamentalist are you!?”

I  breifly tried to explain the difference between the historic understanding of Christian fundamentalism and my evangelical/Pentecostal (with a Catholic background) positions on the inspiration of scripture, correct Biblical hermeneutics and reasoned faith but I guess I am not that articulate looking at a live video feed of my innards.

Not that my explanation mattered. Without hearing a word I said, and before I could finish he began to pepper me with an anti-God lecture in the form of the rapid-fire questions. “Why believe something so stupid?” “You believe in dinosaur saddles don't you?” “How could you trust anything in the Bible?” And his coup de gra question, “Why would you believe something that science has already proven wrong?”

<a href="http://curtharlow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341bf89d53ef0133f1ffc62f970b-800wi.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-290" title="6a00d8341bf89d53ef0133f1ffc62f970b-800wi" src="http://curtharlow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341bf89d53ef0133f1ffc62f970b-800wi-198x300.jpg" alt="6a00d8341bf89d53ef0133f1ffc62f970b-800wi" width="198" height="300" /></a>G.K. Chesterson came to mind. “There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic.” I had the presence of mind not say the quote out loud while still at the mercy of his procedure.

I have found that whether it is in the classroom, break room, board room or even exam room at some time those of us who are convinced that scripture is more than ancient literature eventually become the focus these apologetic questions.

While the setting (please atheist proctologists of the world, can we talk in the waiting room from now on?) was a little out of bounds, the questions asked, regardless of motivation, were completely fair.

In fact scripture itself demands that as believers we give reasoned answers to these questions (even if they are not asked in a reasonable way). As important as being reasoned, our answers must respectful and gentle in spirit (2 Peter 3:15).

Wouldn't it be nice if ever christian new their apologetics and had the character to converse in a respectful manner? Even in the proctologist exam room?

I am sad to say that such is not the case. Too many Christians regard apologetics as too complex to master or too trivial to matter. Some regard it as unspiritual to be logical.  I have even heard several proclaim that only miracles are able to convince non-believers of the truth.

Some believers dogmatically and loudly hang onto historical or scientific ideas that are neither Biblical nor reasonable, making all Christians look ignorant.

Even worse, some stridently induce contentious debate thinking that being rude is somehow similar to being bold. Again the 2 Peter passage is completely ignored.

Contrast this with Proverbs message that wisdom (applied reason) is crucial for a good life and true faith. “Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.  Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it.  Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway. For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD.” (Prov. 8:35)

Wisdom means making a life long (at time expensive) investment (Prov 23:23) in learning.  Every mature believer should be reading, discussing and preparing to intelligently and honestly respond to people who have questions. At this point I need to confess that in the proctologist office, I fail to respond effectively.

In the end (pun intended) if I were able to revisit him, here are the ideas I would have tried to convey to my metaphysically unmotivated physician.

Faith, Fundamentalism and my Proctologist Part 2

<a href="http://curtharlow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/howbig_galaxies_l.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-300" style="margin: 2px; border: 5px solid black;" title="howbig_galaxies_l" src="http://curtharlow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/howbig_galaxies_l-300x199.jpg" alt="howbig_galaxies_l" width="300" height="199" /></a>Here are the four big ideas I would like to help my agnostic and atheist friends (including my proctologist) to understand about my faith.

1.  I Agree, Science Describes the Material World a bit Better.

Describing things correctly is important. Anyone who has ever gotten bad driving directions (just turn at that white barn near that coffee shop â€" you can’t miss it) knows exactly what I mean.

Science is an amazing and wonderful human achievement simply because of its long history of helping irrational humans describe our world accurately. Most evangelical Christians get this and rejoice.

In fact, many believers feel strongly that Christians should lead the charge in proclaiming that science does a better job of describing our <em>physical</em> universe than the Bible.

What many non religious people fail to understand is that this support of the scientific process does not diminish faith. In fact it liberates the Bible to be what it was always meant to be.  Scripture does not seek primarily to be scientific in its description of anything.

While there is amazing content on almost all disciplines in the Bible, including some of the earliest most accurate descriptions of our physical world, non of the varying authors  of the Bible had the scientific method as a goal for writing.

Because this was not the intent some parts of scripture clearly advocate for a bronze age view of the universe. Yes, some believers still dogmatically insist that the intent of these passages is to teach about the physical truth of our world. Yes, this does make all people of faith look like we still believe in a flat earth. This is probably what made my doctore so animated. Sorry about that Dr. Proctologist.

Most others see that the Bible intends to speak to the issues of the nature of God and the nature of man not the nature of the movement of the planets.

Don't get me wrong. I am not argueing for a softening of the inspiration of scripture or for an overly alagorical interpretation of the texts. I am advocating for an intelligent view of the scripture that allows it to be what it wants to be - God's revelation about himself- instead of an 8th grade science book.

This is important because as good as science is - it has serious limitation when addressing key questions about meta-physical issues.  Stephen Hawking is useful here, “The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.”

Truth is not just about how particles and genes bounce around but also about the most fundamental of all questions,  “Why am I here?”  The physics of the singularity, the natural selection of moths or the behavior of blood serums does not give satisfactory answers to this “why” existence question. So...

2. I like Science but I Don't Believe Materialism is Cool

Some very smart people, like Dawkins and Hitchenson, think blood serum actually does tell us the why of life.  To them we are of the same amazing chance results that came with the happy “accident” (calculated at 1 out of 10³⁷) of “creating” matter in the first place.

These materialist are the absolute, completely convinced, -on the warpath- new evangelists of atheism. To them science concludes that there is nothing but the physical world.

Problem is that that scientific method has not proven materialism. If anything the fact that our understanding of the physical world goes through endless revisions due to scientific discovery should bring a certain humility of opinion to all of us. Not so with these guys. They know there is no God, no spirit and no after life. Story over.

Take the problem of the creation of matter. I have read and reread Dawkins explanation of the odds (and those who disagree with him, and those who disagree with those who disagree, and those who are confused by those who agree, etc. etc.) and still after 10³⁷explanations how 1 to 10³⁷odds both refute and endorse design and chaos, I still can’t get beyond the problem that there must be a first cause.

Simply put, something does not come from nothing. Nothing by definition can do nothing.

Believing matter came from a vacuum  (let alone where the vacuum came from) is wishful thinking. Could it be that they are at least partially motivated by ego? Could it be they do not want any deity telling them how to live and therefore they are not open to the existence of a Deity?

It would be more honest for these materialist dogmatists to simply say, "I don't know" then to appeal to the extremes of unsupported theories that point only to more all powerful "meta laws" that in the end sound a whole lot like God anyway.

I am not saying that materialist are total dummies. Their position can be very persuasive. I am saying that the dogmatic devotion to materialism by some (Dawkins himself produces about 10³⁷ words against religion every day) it not the only position open to rational, honest people.

And I am saying that materialists are motivated by more then hard reasoning. Old fashioned human ego clouds the debate on both sides. The history of science is the history of  the ever-increasing accumulation of accurate knowledge <em>and</em> at the same time the history of intellectual rivalry, ambition and deceit.

For instance Dr. Fritz Zwicky’s mind-blowing advances in astronomy (think black wholes, before black wholes where cool) were almost universally ignored simply because Zwicky was personally disliked by the astronomers that worked down the hallway from him. Likewise, Rosalind Franklin, groundbreaking researcher on the structure of DNA, went to the grave without receiving credit for her contribution to the discover of the double helix. Most historians agree that the fact that she was both Jewish and female contributed largerly to the unjust pilfering of her research. Read any halfway decent science history (Bill Bryson's <em>A Short History of Nearly Everything</em> for instance) and you’ll find a hundred of these stories.

In the long run science gets it right - in the long run. It is important to note that scientists themselves however are not always rational. The reach of materialism, especially in it most dogmatic forms, is an example of this.

The truth is that we can see only a small fraction of our universe and we understand only a very small fraction of what we see. To conclude that we know for sure that there is no God is simply not scientific.

Next: The last two big ideas (1) the problem of irrational faith and (2) the misunderstanding of authentic faith.

Storm Survival 101

<a href="http://vimeo.com/18024131" target="_blank">Some simply lessons from Paul's storm experience in Act 27.</a>

Storm Survival 101

<a href="&lt;iframe src=&quot;http://player.vimeo.com/video/18024131&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; height=&quot;225&quot; frameborder=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/18024131&quot;&gt;Curt Harlow: Surviving the Storm 101&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com/bayside&quot;&gt;Bayside Church&lt;/a&gt; on &lt;a href=&quot;http://vimeo.com&quot;&gt;Vimeo&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;" target="_blank">Some simply lessons from Paul's storm experience in Act 27.</a>

Storm Survival 101

Some simply lessons from Paul's storm experience in Act 27.

Peggy Noonan's Take on the State of the Union

I am a huge fan of the way Peggy write's and how she thinks. She is always reasoned, never base and sharp. Here latest article is best read at <a title="Noonan" href="http://peggynoonan.com/" target="_blank">http://peggynoonan.com/</a>

Faith, Fundamentalism and my Proctologist Part 2

<a href="http://curtharlow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/howbig_galaxies_l.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-300" style="margin: 2px; border: 5px solid black;" title="howbig_galaxies_l" src="http://curtharlow.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/howbig_galaxies_l-300x199.jpg" alt="howbig_galaxies_l" width="300" height="199" /></a>Here are the four big ideas I would like to help my agnostic and atheist friends (including my proctologist) to understand about my faith.

1.  I Agree, Science Describes the Material World a bit Better.

Describing things correctly is important. Anyone who has ever gotten bad driving directions (just turn at that white barn near that coffee shop â€" you can’t miss it) knows exactly what I mean.

Science is an amazing and wonderful human achievement simply because of its long history of helping irrational humans describe our world accurately. Most evangelical Christians get this and rejoice.

In fact, many believers feel strongly that Christians should lead the charge in proclaiming that science does a better job of describing our <em>physical</em> universe than the Bible.

What many non religious people fail to understand is that this support of the scientific process does not diminish faith. In fact it liberates the Bible to be what it was always meant to be.  Scripture does not seek primarily to be scientific in its description of anything.

While there is amazing content on almost all disciplines in the Bible, including some of the earliest most accurate descriptions of our physical world, non of the varying authors  of the Bible had the scientific method as a goal for writing.

Because this was not the intent some parts of scripture clearly advocate for a bronze age view of the universe. Yes, some believers still dogmatically insist that the intent of these passages is to teach about the physical truth of our world. Yes, this does make all people of faith look like we still believe in a flat earth. This is probably what made my doctore so animated. Sorry about that Dr. Proctologist.

Most others see that the Bible intends to speak to the issues of the nature of God and the nature of man not the nature of the movement of the planets.

Don't get me wrong. I am not argueing for a softening of the inspiration of scripture or for an overly alagorical interpretation of the texts. I am advocating for an intelligent view of the scripture that allows it to be what it wants to be - God's revelation about himself- instead of an 8th grade science book.

This is important because as good as science is - it has serious limitation when addressing key questions about meta-physical issues.  Stephen Hawking is useful here, “The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.”

Truth is not just about how particles and genes bounce around but also about the most fundamental of all questions,  “Why am I here?”  The physics of the singularity, the natural selection of moths or the behavior of blood serums does not give satisfactory answers to this “why” existence question. So...

2. I like Science but I Don't Believe Materialism is Cool

Some very smart people, like Dawkins and Hitchenson, think blood serum actually does tell us the why of life.  To them we are of the same amazing chance results that came with the happy “accident” (calculated at 1 out of 10³⁷) of “creating” matter in the first place.

These materialist are the absolute, completely convinced, -on the warpath- new evangelists of atheism. To them science concludes that there is nothing but the physical world.

Problem is that that scientific method has not proven materialism. If anything the fact that our understanding of the physical world goes through endless revisions due to scientific discovery should bring a certain humility of opinion to all of us. Not so with these guys. They know there is no God, no spirit and no after life. Story over.

Take the problem of the creation of matter. I have read and reread Dawkins explanation of the odds (and those who disagree with him, and those who disagree with those who disagree, and those who are confused by those who agree, etc. etc.) and still after 10³⁷explanations how 1 to 10³⁷odds both refute and endorse design and chaos, I still can’t get beyond the problem that there must be a first cause.

Simply put, something does not come from nothing. Nothing by definition can do nothing.

Believing matter came from a vacuum  (let alone where the vacuum came from) is wishful thinking. Could it be that they are at least partially motivated by ego? Could it be they do not want any deity telling them how to live and therefore they are not open to the existence of a Deity?

It would be more honest for these materialist dogmatists to simply say, "I don't know" then to appeal to the extremes of unsupported theories that point only to more all powerful "meta laws" that in the end sound a whole lot like God anyway.

I am not saying that materialist are total dummies. Their position can be very persuasive. I am saying that the dogmatic devotion to materialism by some (Dawkins himself produces about 10³⁷ words against religion every day) it not the only position open to rational, honest people.

And I am saying that materialists are motivated by more then hard reasoning. Old fashioned human ego clouds the debate on both sides. The history of science is the history of  the ever-increasing accumulation of accurate knowledge <em>and</em> at the same time the history of intellectual rivalry, ambition and deceit.

For instance Dr. Fritz Zwicky’s mind-blowing advances in astronomy (think black wholes, before black wholes where cool) were almost universally ignored simply because Zwicky was personally disliked by the astronomers that worked down the hallway from him. Likewise, Rosalind Franklin, groundbreaking researcher on the structure of DNA, went to the grave without receiving credit for her contribution to the discover of the double helix. Most historians agree that the fact that she was both Jewish and female contributed largerly to the unjust pilfering of her research. Read any halfway decent science history (Bill Bryson's <em>A Short History of Nearly Everything</em> for instance) and you’ll find a hundred of these stories.

In the long run science gets it right - in the long run. It is important to note that scientists themselves however are not always rational. The reach of materialism, especially in it most dogmatic forms, is an example of this.

The truth is that we can see only a small fraction of our universe and we understand only a very small fraction of what we see. To conclude that we know for sure that there is no God is simply not scientific.

Next: The last two big ideas (1) the problem of irrational faith and (2) the misunderstanding of authentic faith.