Doublethink

[puddleglum]

The word “doublethink� was first used by George Orwell in his novel 1984. It means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Orwell invented the word but the practice existed long before he was born. First Kings 18 describes the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal to determine who is the true God. Here is what Elijah said to the people.

And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.�
1 Kings 18:21 ESV

Some of the people practiced doublethink by worshipping both Baal and the LORD. God condemned this practice and demanded that they choose one side or the other.

There is a form of doublethink that is widely practiced today.

Most people believe the world came into existence as a result of impersonal natural processes and the life that exists on it came developed over a long period of time by a process of evolution. Others reject this and believe the Bible’s account that God created both the earth and the life that exists on it. And some accept both explanations as being true.

I wonder what Elijah would say to this third group if he were on earth today? Perhaps it would be something like this: “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Bible is true believe it; if evolution is true believe it.�

The usual method of reconciling evolution with the Bible is to say that the first eleven chapters of Genesis aren’t literal history. The days of creation are really long periods of time and the story of Noah was a myth or an account of a flood that was local and not world wide.

This belief is often justified by claiming it will make it easier to convert unbelievers. People will be more likely to believe the gospel if they aren’t required to abandon their belief in evolution.

Here is something an atheist said on an internet forum that leads me to doubt the effectiveness of this strategy.

Using reason & logic, I have to reject the story of Noah as a truth. If I reject Noah’s ark as a truth, I cannot accept the genealogy of Jesus Christ as a truth. According to Luke’s gospel, both men are DIRECTLY linked via REAL people.

IF I reject the genealogy of Jesus Christ, then I cannot accept any other historical record (in the bible) about Jesus. I cannot be sure who he was, because the historical “records� are not be based on FACTUAL information.

Here is a comment by another atheist:

I can’t say it’s no longer used, because it is still used heavily – but the concept of “bible as the literal word of God� seems to be falling out of favor at a rapid pace in exchange for a much more liberal allegorical take in christian circles.

The problem here for Christians is that while at the moment it helps make their position seem more reasonable to those who don’t know better, down the line I see this as the loose thread poking out of the sweater… just begging someone to come over and pull.

I don’t think science will be the eventual undoing of this particular faith… I think they can manage it just fine for themselves once they have voided their own authority on their own beliefs.

Even atheists recognize the foolishness of trying to believe the Bible and also believe in evolution. The only way anyone will be able to convert either of these two is to prove to them that the theory of evolution is false and the Bible is true. Jesus said something that applies to this subject:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:12 ESV

If we don’t believe what the Bible says about how the earth was created how can we expect others to believe what it says about how to get to heaven?

The reason so many people try to reconcile evolution and the Bible is the widespread belief that evolution has been scientifically proved to be true. Bible believers think they must either find a way to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary beliefs or abandon their faith in the Bible.

The claims made by evolutionists can’t be scientifically tested because they involve things which allegedly took place in the past. Most scientists begin their research believing that everything that exists came about by natural processes and without any kind of divine intervention and this influences their interpretation of the evidence they examine. When they find evidence against evolution they ignore it or interpret it to fit what they already believe.

There is scientific evidence against evolution and you can find some of it here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evidences

Here are two good sites where you can find more evidence:

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

[YahDough]

This is a very nice study. I might also add that "doublethink" is mentioned in the Bible as "double minded". It is not a good trait to have.

Jms:1:8: A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Jms:4:8: Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

[Wissing]

You'll consider me a fence-sitter then.

I'm not a biologist. I'm not a theologian. I'm not a historian. I have absolutely no way of knowing the details of the past few million years. All I can do is listen to those who specialize in those fields of study. Trust me, there are plenty of wrong ways to interpret the bible. I cannot lean on my own understanding of a text with such enormous historical/cultural context behind it, much of which I can't possibly comprehend. I must lean on the church for my understanding of the Bible. And I can't lean on my feeble understanding of archaeology, biology, and history, to understand the reasons why people believe humans evolved. But I can't believe that it just so happens that scientists tend to believe in evolution by coincidence. I can't believe that God's master plan is for everybody to be really well-read and good in cosmology debates. If it were an even split, with half of biologists being young-earth creationists, that would be different. But the way things sit right now, God would be condemning people not by merit of their faith, but their field of study.

Fortunately, I don't need to know the details. All I need to know is that God is the creator. I was created. God make a conscious, intentional decision to create humans. I have consious, intentional decisions to make, and they're not going to happen by accident. The passages in Genesis take all of, maybe, a page at the most, to make their point. This may be the truth, but it's not the whole story. Why should it be? God's point is not to describe nature in detail. His point is to tell us his plan, and who he is. He is creator. He made humans. He gave them a choice. They made the wrong choice. He spent the rest of the old testament giving every generation the same choice. He even gave us help along the way, in the form of law, judges, and prophets.

So I think God created us, but all the facts of nature are likely to be true as well. Okay - we didn't evolve by accident. But we could have evolved intentionally. Maybe God took his time for a reason. Maybe it's the same reason he didn't just plop Jesus onto the scene right there in Eden.

My degree is in engineering. My interest is in technology. I know for a fact that technology evolves. Look at the airplane. Look at the car. Look at emerging technologies, like the 3d printer. Look at software programs. They evolve, but they are simultaneously created. Every single nut and bolt is placed with care by an intelligent designer (in this case, a human - or, you could say it's ultimately God's influence over that human). It sometimes takes me hours just to place a handful of bolts into a design - because if I don't consciously think through every possibility, they could break, and that would be bad.

It's just not as simple as you make it out to be, and you're writing off millions of people for no other reason than that they happen to be good in school. Is that really what all this is about?

[Wootah]

When I came to salvation I accepted the Bible literally. Either it happened or it didn't.

You only have to scratch the surface of current beliefs and see that they aren't as certain as they are made out to be.

http://creation.com/ is my site of preference. My understanding is that all early church leaders accepted creation as true and it is only in the light of the current scientific paradigm that creation and the Bible is questioned.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Wissing]

My degree is in engineering. My interest is in technology. I know for a fact that technology evolves. Look at the airplane. Look at the car. Look at emerging technologies, like the 3d printer. Look at software programs. They evolve, but they are simultaneously created. Every single nut and bolt is placed with care by an intelligent designer (in this case, a human - or, you could say it's ultimately God's influence over that human). It sometimes takes me hours just to place a handful of bolts into a design - because if I don't consciously think through every possibility, they could break, and that would be bad.

You are using evolve in a very different sense to the evolutionary paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.

[Wissing]

That is correct. I don't think it happened randomly.