By Mark Owen - © 2010
Chapter 18 - The clash of science with faith
'He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers,
which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed and let out to warm the air in warm,
inclement summers.' - Swift: Gulliver's Travels.
The 19th century was one in which tremendous material progress was made on every front. But chiefly it was the century of Charles Darwin, who in the year 1859 published a work which is proving to have as massive an impact, long-term, on the human race as the Bible itself, and with far greater justification. And, interestingly, this book was written by a man who had trained for the ministry of the Church of England, a man from the Establishment, one of 'God's Englishmen'. But by the time The Origin of Species had been written, Charles Darwin had lost all orthodox belief. One who had penetrated the secrets of the world order as had Darwin must inevitably lose most of the old certainties.
Poor Charles. This quiet, thoughtful, English naturalist never intended to be a revolutionary. He set out on his journey of scientific discovery without the slightest hint that his work was to unleash almost single-handedly such destructive forces against the old order of things. True, he was not alone in working this revolution but it was Darwin's name and writings that proved to be among the catalysts for the flood of unbelief that has poured from the liberated minds and pens of thoughtful people ever since. Christendom has since that era been assailed from without by rationalism (which was already hard at work before Darwin's time) and partly destroyed from within by the Higher Criticism. Christians may be slow to recognize the truth - that their faith is already dead, shown to be the unfounded superstition that it is - but that does not change the harsh reality of Darwin's world view.
Religion generally went through a time of mixed fortunes in the 19th century. While ever-advancing scientific knowledge was eating away at the very vitals of the faith, especially at the concept of the literal truth of the Word, all manner of new religious movements flourished, especially in the USA, as we have observed. Perhaps the one was a reaction to the other; more often than not, though, the pedlars of new faiths had little or no science. Or, like Mrs Baker Eddy, had a smattering of pseudo-science.
But some of them could preach. My, how they could preach, messages of fire and brimstone, hurled forth from pulpit and platform at credulous audiences. As good a way as any of diverting folk from examining the scientific evidence that all the while was destroying the very foundations of the faith from beneath their feet, leaving a mere husk, an empty shell, that continues with us to this day. But do not get carried away by the 'certainties' of the preachers. Be the prophets of the Christ-god ever so vocal, their television audiences ever so vast and the pile of contributions ever so great, the heart has gone out of it. The signs are plain enough for those with eyes to see, that is, eyes that understand history.
Even as the ranters and ravers thundered at their naïve audiences, the earth itself was beginning to testify. There were lots of skulls and bones and other interesting things being unearthed. People were peering into rock faces and digging in sandy creek beds here and there. Awkward Questions were being posed. Hear the anguished cry of the man of letters - and believer - John Ruskin, writing in 1851: 'If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses.' But the geologists would not stop and as the century advanced the challenges thrown out by the sciences sent religion reeling - for a time, at least. Geology, Biology, Archeology, Astronomy, Anthropology, Paleontology, Psychology, Philology; the list goes on and on. Each science chipped away at the 'rock' of the Scriptures, until today that rock has been reduced to a heap of rubble.
What to do? How to save the sinking ship? Christians soon fell into two broad and opposing groups. At least this was nothing unusual; they had been dividing among themselves since the days of Peter and Paul. In one corner were the Modernists, dreadful people in the eyes of the second group, the Fundamentalists. These Modernists espoused liberal theology and attempted to accommodate their faith to the new climate of opinion. The Genesis record and similar Biblical passages could be regarded, they thought, as allegorical, or a sort of spiritual mythology to instruct the faithful.
The debate that followed at times raged furiously, with Liberal Christians, Fundamentalists and Rationalists engaged in a three-cornered contest of words. Now Liberal Christians and Rationalists may have won the day in point of scholarship, but it has always been the Fundamentalists who have come off best in the end. The Fundamentalists at least are consistent. The believer in the Christ-god can do nothing else but accept the literal truth of Genesis and, indeed, of the whole Bible, cover to cover. It is surely significant that we see the decay of organized Christianity most clearly within those churches that have opened the door to liberal ideas (which began happening with bewildering rapidity within the Church of Rome after Vatican Two). But while the old churches languish, vigorous growth is seen among the Pentecostalists, revivalists, televangelists and neo-Christian sects where a fundamentalist (and unthinking) approach to the Scriptures is adopted.
But the conservative dogmatists make a serious mistake if they think their growth and prosperity flow directly from some great truth they espouse. It is not that the liberals have abandoned the Christ-god; it is rather that they have abandoned the only basis upon which Christian faith is sustainable - the leap of faith. Never mind the awkward facts. The message is faith, faith, faith! First, last and always. And the message works; it certainly swells the number of the believers. But belief in the inerrant Word of the Lord is a two-edged sword; and faith lives - and dies - beneath its blade.
Make no mistake - the whole doctrine of the Fall of Man, the very reason for the Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection and promised Second Coming of Christ, stands or falls on the Genesis account. Any fundamentalist preacher worthy of his stipend should agree with this. If the Genesis story is not accurate history then you remove at a stroke the proclamation of the Christ-god and with him, the rest of the New Testament claims. Let us be clear about something here. The New Testament itself is emphatic in proclaiming the Fall of Man, and it does so on the basis of the life of the First Man, Adam. The fall of Adam (and Eve) leads to the necessity of Redemption, the message of the Cross.
The liberals are not, however, fazed. 'Adam' is, they say, an allegorical figure, not a particular individual. Or else the reader just glosses over Genesis and the problems raised by that book. But the liberals are wrong, a thousand times wrong. This is not what their New Testament says. In one reference after another the New Testament speaks of Adam as an individual human being. One man Christ (for there were not more) is contrasted with one man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21). Christ is not a generic term here, nor some sort of allegorical figure; neither is Adam. Yet again, observe the words of Romans 5:12: 'Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world . . .' Moreover, in verse 14 this same man is linked historically with Moses: 'Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses.' Do the liberals tell us that Moses also is an allegorical figure? Almost certainly he was not a historical personage, rather a figure of mythology, but the fundamentalists, at least, will never agree to this.
And the genealogies of Genesis, too, treat Adam as a historical figure (Genesis 5:1-5). We are even informed that Adam died! It would be some curiosity indeed if an allegorical figure were to die! And he had children and his children's children went on to produce the Chosen Race. The line of succession is clearly spelt out: Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Moses. Christians, if they are to claim for themselves that sacred name, must accept that Adam and Eve are actual historic persons, with all the very awkward implications flowing from such acceptance. If they don't then the Christian teaching of the Fall, and everything that follows logically from such a belief, lies broken in shards. If the First Man is banished from history, what then of the Last Man?
But let us move on in our search for elusive truth. I have no hesitation in claiming that the passage in Genesis in which we read of the Fall of man is one plucked straight from the never-never land of fairytale. Indeed Genesis itself is marked as a book of lies if for no other reason than the fact that it carries two conflicting accounts of 'creation'. Read the rival accounts in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and in Genesis 2:4-25 and then choose the one you prefer. Your choice hardly matters, for both are wrong! The differences are dramatic. In the first account man appears on earth on the sixth day, after the creation of animals, plants and, presumably, the rain needed to sustain such life, yet in the rival tale we are informed that man was formed before all these creations. In the first story male and female were created as distinct beings 'in the image of Elohim' ('the gods' note carefully, a plural term). In the second history we are presented with the laughable story of woman being formed out of a rib taken from Adam's body. Need I say that medical science knows of no such missing rib in the male? Does not this second account, obviously from a different source to the first, indicate the concept of male supremacy so strongly held within the patriarchal society of the Jewish people?
The Adam and Eve fairytale is all of a piece with a whole series of tales of similar ilk coming out of Babylon and nearby areas. In fact, it can be traced back further, from deep within the heart of the ancient civilization of Sumer. And who knows from where the people of Sumer conjured up the tale? All this some two millennia before little Moses was found floating about in his ark. Ah, that beautiful ark story so often told to children. Well, there's a fancy tale for you! But almost exactly a thousand years before this amazing story of baby Moses, there lived in Mesopotamia, or so the story goes, a gardener named Sargon. He served the king, U-Ilbaba, and was soon promoted to cup-bearer. But ambition resided in Sargon's heart; he was not content with his lot, he wanted to become king himself. And so it came to pass. Sargon seized the throne of his benefactor and went on to gain his place in history as Sargon the Great of Akkad. The annals of his exploits are scattered far afield and are, as is often the case, encrusted with legend. One such story excelled them all and was a great favourite, often retold. The story? That Sargon's mother had set him as a babe upon the 'river of fortune,' floating in an ark made of bulrushes and stoppered with pitch!
The Jews were clever at purloining other people's stories - and they are not the only ones. Now somewhere in the oral transmission of the story of Moses (for that is how most of the Old Testament was passed on) this legend concerning Sargon was incorporated into the Jewish leader's curriculum vitae. If this part is mere legend, what then of the rest? What can we believe? The Genesis fantasy-story is so familiar; most of us grew up with it. Alas, familiarity has so blunted our senses that the story is rarely questioned. Worse, it is still taught as truth to innocent children. We should be ashamed for corrupting them in this manner. (Religion is ever taught to children, a significant fact; one to which I have alluded before. Children are not naturally religious.)
But all this is fantasy, pure and simple. For where, in all our experience, do we encounter anything remotely resembling the actions that took place in that ancient garden? A talking snake? A god wandering about 'in the cool of the day' unable to locate his creatures? The horror of one's own naked body (still perpetuated by religion today)? And that amazing fruit-eating test? Only in mythology will we find imagery such as this. And that is precisely where this tale comes from, moulded, formed, changed, but forever linked to the dreamtime of the human race when all such sagas began their long journeyings into the holy books of the world. (Incidentally, it is curious to behold the way in which the religions of the world interchange good and evil creatures. Thus the snake or serpent, thought of as evil in the Hebrew religion, is reverenced as a god elsewhere, in parts of Africa and Asia; the cat worshipped by the Egyptians is the wicked familiar attached to the witch in later times, while devils and devil-like creatures get mixed up with gods in many very strange ways.)
The earliest form of the story that passes for creation history in the Bible seems to be a tale told in ancient Sumer, a nation that was great long before Israel was even thought of. The Sumerians were a productive and clever people, with a highly developed society, an educational system and a legal code. It is to these Sumerians that we owe the invention of the wheel, among many other useful contributions to human progress. And it is these people we must thank for giving us that wondrous thing, writing. They left behind a vast deposit of clay tablets, some dating back to 5,000 or more years ago. Among this huge body of literature there is found a particularly interesting poem, Enki and Ninhursag. This work became available to us in an English translation by Professor Noah Kramer, of the University of Pennsylvania, in 1945. This precious and exceedingly important document (i.e., the tablets) containing 278 lines of poetry, resides in the library of the university. And in it we read the earliest known record of the Paradise Myth. There is no need to go into detail; here but, suffice it to say that Professor Kramer in his 1956 book, From the Tablets of Sumer (Indian Hills, Col.: The Falcon Wing Press) clearly demonstrated the links between the Sumerian story and the later Genesis account, dating from a thousand years or more later.
The clash between science and faith is still with us; superstition is a persistent weed. Regrettably unscientific religious notions continue to exercise powerful influences on people who should know better. As Christians of every shade and hue have involved themselves, sometimes deeply, in the politics of countries, too often they have brought the simplistic unscientific understanding of human life and social interaction into their work, with disastrous consequences, e.g. the persecution of homosexuals, the criminalization of prostitution, the intrusion of the law into the bedroom.
Many such people would, I suspect, prefer a theocracy, as was established by Calvin in Geneva or the Puritans of America, or something near to the same thing - the Holy Roman Empire. But failing such a happy situation Christians actively engage in promoting their distorted view of life in the political arena, indeed in modern Europe we still have parties tagged with the epithet 'Christian', even if their actions sometimes belie that name. 'Christian Democrats' is almost a contradiction in terms.
A perfect example of the way the Church meddled in politics in the historic context is seen in Canada under French rule where Catholic priests embroiled themselves deeply in politics. Loyalty to God was treated as being synonymous with loyalty to the King of France. The actions of the priests reached a high peak in the matter of the territory known as Acadia, now Nova Scotia, together with New Brunswick and adjacent areas. Conquered by General Nicholson in 1710, Acadia was formally and legally transferred by France to British rule under the Treaty of Utrecht. The people of Acadia could choose to remain or go. If they remained they were required to swear allegiance to the English King, George 2nd. However, they were guarantied the free exercise of their Catholic faith - not always reciprocated on the other side, one might add. In fact, the Britishers bent over backwards to allow Catholic priests to work among the Acadians and for the latter to be allowed to worship without hindrance. The priests, thus given free access to their flocks, continually stirred up strife among the people, not directly on issues of doctrine but more concerned with loyalty to the French king.
In country after country we have seen over the years the Church of Rome endeavouring to dominate the political situation. France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Poland, Ireland, and especially the countries of Latin America and many others have experienced the heavy hand of Vatican intrigue. Even today the Church continues to meddle in the politics of free nations, a very recent example being the activities of the Church resulting in the successful overthrow of legislation enacted by Australia's Northern Territory for voluntary euthanasia, done in the face of clear public support for euthanasia, a shameful chapter in Australian political history.
Fortunately the reactionary forces of religion are being rolled back in once deeply Catholic countries like Ireland and Poland. France has long since turned its back on the faith; in one recent visit there the Pope was actually jeered and heckled. And in a later visit numbers were alarmingly down on expectations. And the grip of Rome on Spain, Portugal, Italy and many of the Latin American nations is now weak. Even deeply Catholic Ireland and Poland are wavering, while surveys show ever-declining support by Catholic laity for the Church's official stand on issues such as marriage, birth control and abortion.
When the British set forth from their island nation as explorers, conquerors and traders politics and religion went hand in hand. The ships that bore them carried also chaplains and curates, mostly Anglican, but occasionally Catholic and Other Denominations (as they were known). Many adventurers penetrated the vast Pacific, among them Captain James Cook who had discovered Australia for Britain (there had already been incursions by others over the years). Everywhere the Christian missionaries went, whether Africa, Asia, the Americas or the islands of the Pacific, they set to work to 'reform' the native cultures, which in their eyes were degraded and wicked. In the end they succeeded in many places in destroying forever much that was beautiful in the indigenous way of life. Of course, it is perfectly true that there were aspects of these societies that were deplorable, especially cannibalism and forms of slavery and other abuses, but there was much that was good, for example, the natural approach to human sexuality that so shocked the prudish Christians, who forthwith sought to impose their guilt-ridden restrictive moral code on the new converts.
In August 1991 the Anglican Church of Papua-New Guinea celebrated its centenary. One hundred years of the White Man's Moral Burden was marked with ceremonies not wholly unfamiliar to pagan worshippers. In fact, as with the early Church, when the Anglicans invaded New Guinea with their strange message, they built their lofty cathedrals on pagan groves, the very sites of tribal holy places. The god is dead, long live the god! Anglican missionary endeavour was very much caught up with English colonial enterprise. In fact it is hard to distinguish between them in many places. In Australia the Reverend Samuel Marsden employed convict labourers to build his churches. The buildings were later duly sanctified, so as to remove any taint from such a source.
Samuel Marsden - there's a name to conjure with. Official Chaplain in the colony of New South Wales from 1795 to 1826, he was appointed a magistrate at Parramatta, west of Sydney, where he soon established a reputation for the cruel sentences he handed down. He ordered many brutal floggings and following his harsh judgment on some Irish convicts in 1800 he became known as The Flogging Parson. He had ordered the use of the whip to elicit confessions, thus employing flogging as a form of torture rather than punishment, a notion never officially countenanced in the British judicial system. The colony's convicts hated him and even Governor Macquarie avoided his company, and complained that his punishments were more severe than those of any other magistrate. J. D. Lang referred to Marsden when he wrote in 1853:
Under so preposterous and so enormous a system, well might the miserable wretch, whose back was still smarting under Saturday's afflictions, join in the oft repeated prayers of the Litany, 'Lord have mercy upon us,' and well might he add from the bottom of his heart, 'For his Reverence has none.'
Since 1814 the maximum penalty had been set at 50 lashes, which limited the parson somewhat, but certainly he meted out sentences of 50 on occasions. It is interesting to note that Marsden belonged to a class of persons from whom were drawn many of the flogging headmasters of English schools, also commonly Anglican clergymen. In 1818 Macquarie dismissed him from the magistracy.
The first missionaries to New Guinea were an odd couple - two single men, the Reverend Copland King, 28, an Evangelical, and the Reverend Albert MacLaren, 38, an Anglo-Catholic. Chalk and cheese, almost preaching two different Gospels, but never mind any confusion in the natives' minds; they were there to convert the pagans to the Christ-god. They bravely landed from a boat in eastern Papua, at Kaieta, where they set about their holy work, not without some threat to their lives. The local natives took them to their village; fortunately not to the cooking pot. Curious, no doubt, if nothing else. The divine hand was none too evident in the venture. McLaren had nearly drowned en route to the new work, having carelessly fallen overboard! He was spared to serve the Lord but soon was in trouble again. Collapsing with a fever, along with other helpers, he was packed off to Cooktown for treatment, only to die along the way. It was barely four months since he had set foot on New Guinea's coast. Doubtless he had been 'called' to his work; the ways of Providence are truly inscrutable.
The English people are noted for their eccentrics and the missionaries included many among their number. The Reverend Wilfred Abbot has a scholarly man with an MA from Oxford University. He maintained the trappings of his lifestyle under the tropical sun, arriving in New Guinea complete with straw boater, gaiters, evening dress and a bicycle. He even wore his Oxford gown and mortarboard around the village of Wedau where he laboured to improve the natives. Mind you, he was deficient in one respect - temperance. He was known to run up some large bills at the local Burns Philp store - for imported liquor. He brought with him English notions of discipline, too. Native wives who offended their husbands were whipped on the orders of the good reverend, who must have found none too repelling the sight of a bare-breasted female bound to a tree while receiving the lash upon her back. The local natives might well have taught Mr Abbot better moral behaviour, rather than the other way around; they thought him quite mad and demanded he be returned to the country from whence he had come.
There were worse scandals. Single priests could easily succumb to the delights of the flesh, especially with so many half-clad native lovelies around. And, dare I say it, little boys, for homosexuality was not uncommon among the single male servants of the Christ-god. We do not get to hear much, though; any transgression was soon swept under the carpet (seems passing familiar!). Even the home supporters rarely heard the unsavoury details. After all, they might have flagged in their financial support had their Victorian sensibilities been stirred by anything sordid coming to light! But many men and women among the missionaries had to be 'invalided' home for one reason or another - through physical, psychological - or sexual - breakdown.
The missionaries often arrived in the strange land with romantic notions, fostered by reading travel and adventure books or fired up by the speeches of mission leaders back home. The work was rarely romantic or glamorous. There were physical dangers, especially in the early days labouring among people accustomed to eating one another, or engaging in spirited physical battles. Health was probably the most serious problem. Strange climes brought strange diseases and afflictions and many a missionary never saw his or her homeland again.
And still in our own age missionary endeavour continues. On 15 August 1989 self-elected Australian missionary, Jackie Hamill, 36, was killed when soldiers stormed a Philippines prison, ending a two-day siege. Hamill, originally from Tasmania, went as an independent missionary to the Philippines. She was a member of Christian City's Girraween (NSW) Pentecostalist church. Pastor Gary Dench said groups of 30 or 40 from his church had been going to the Philippines godbothering [my phrase] for the past three years. Hamill had gone without official church financial support. She had been teaching prisoners at Davao Metrodiscom Detention Centre, about 1000 km south-east of Manilla, when taken hostage, with others, by prisoners, lead by a convicted murderer, and was gang-raped and murdered.
But the godbotherers never stop bothering. In March 1988, Australian Pentecostalist missionary Ian Grey, 28, was jailed for 10 years by the Mozambique government for having contacts with a resistance group. In August 1989 Grey was released under an amnesty and returned to his home in Queensland. In Saudi Arabia two Christian missionaries from the Philippines faced execution for daring to preach the Christian religion in that benighted land. Oswaldo Magdangal and Renato Posedio were typical of those Christian enthusiasts who rush into foreign parts with their 'inspired' messages. While Australians rush to convert Filipinos and Filipinas, Christians in the Philippines rush to other countries to convert people. The two Filipino zealots were arrested carrying Bibles and 'prophecies warning of hard times ahead for the Islamic world'. They were sentenced to be beheaded on - ironically - Christmas Day, 1992. A nice touch on the part of the Islamics who, curiously, always claim that Jesus, while not being divine, is a prophet like Muhammad! I do not know whether these two suffered the martyrdom they so eagerly embraced (well, they must have been eager, to go preaching Christ in Saudi Arabia).
