Knowledge vs Faith

A discussion of potential conflicts between the information presented in this course and the student's religious beliefs and how you might deal with them.

Students often endure quite a bit of conflict in this class because of perceived contradictions between what scholars have concluded about human history and what they have been told in Sunday School or Seminary and Institute classes.

Here are two likely points of conflict. First, the contrast between the version of human origins from the book of Genesis (e.g. Adam & Eve) and the view from the theory of Natural Selection (Darwinism, Evolution). Second, Egypt figures prominently in the earliest history of the Hebrews as depicted in the Bible. However, there is no corroborating evidence either in Egyptian texts or in archaeology for this early history. The earliest direct correlation where Biblical history and the (researched) history of Egypt coincide is with the reign of the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonq (Shishak in the Bible).

My personal opinion on this conflict is as follows. First, I believe that it springs primarily from ignorance. Out of fear, many high school teachers skip over coverage of human origins and life on the planet earth prior to the evolution of humans. Likewise, even when it is "covered," students may, like the three monkeys, cover their eyes, ears and mouth. The more one understands modern scholarly views of humans, the more comfortable people are with keeping the realms of science and religion "separate but equal."

And, they must be kept separate because using science and archeological investigations of the lands of the Bible to determine what of the Bible is "fact" will surely undermine one's faith and, vice-versa, trying to "prove" the veracity of the Bible using scientific methods is a contradiction in terms (see, for example: http://www.wyattmuseum.com/ronwyatt.htm). Science sets out to test theories not to prove them. The "theory" of evolution has been accepted by scholars in virtually every scientific discipline for at least 50 years, yet it's still referred to, appropriately, as a theory.

Another reason for the conflict rests with the assumption many make that scholars who accept results or theories that fail to support Biblical or scriptural accounts of the past are themselves anti-religion, or atheists. False assumption. Personally, I believe in the absolute necessity of science and religion.

Our planet and, by definition, our species, is threatened by a number of trends, some man-induced, some independent of human intervention. Only through the rigorous and increasing application of scientific research and the uncensored dissemination of results gives us any hope of averting what are sure future disasters. But, I am just as certain that we need a higher power or deity for guidance and mercy, we need faith to strengthen our resolve to do the right thing and organized religion to act as a counterbalance to the forces of political ambition and economic greed.

My understanding of human evolution, human civilization and human psychology tells me that, while humans are not necessarily all inherently evil or sinful, they sure aren't inherently good, either. Nor are humans always committed to acquiring the knowledge necessary even when they are motivated to do good. In short, we must have religion in some shape or form to provide us with the moral compass that nature failed to give us. Our faith should be strong in guiding us to cherish and preserve this beautiful planet, whatever the process of its creation, because surely we must feel chosen and blessed by a higher power for the privilege of living on it.

Dr. David F. Lancy