Many years ago I married a girl whose father was a Baptist minister in Northern Illinois.  His religious philosophy was very much that of the fundamentalist.  He even went so far as to argue that the earth was no older than approximately 6,000 years old, because, he argued, that was all the years that were accounted for in the Bible.  Obviously he believed the Bible to be an accurate recounting of actual historical events, and those events given in an actual timeline.  So, even though the Bible may say that to God a day is as a thousand years, to my father-in-law, if the Bible said something was created in one day, then it was literally created in one day.  God’s creation, as recounted in the first chapter of Genesis, therefore, actually took only six days to occur.

            Of course this stance met up with some hard to explain factors.  Such as the archeological record of plant and animal life that science has determined to be well over 6,000 years old.  Some, these scientists believe, are literally millions of years old.  I wondered what my father-in-law’s response would be to this fact.  This, however, was not a problem to him.  He gave both plausible and implausible reasons for these so called facts.  One plausible response was his unwillingness to believe in the accuracy of the carbon-dating method used to determine the age of these “pre-historic” discoveries.  Not being a scientist myself, I found it hard to argue for this method.  As a matter of fact, I could almost accept that the scientists could be wrong about how carbon-dating works.  After all, can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a chemical’s half life still holds true after a certain number of centuries? 

I believed the scientist, but was unwilling to argue with him on this point.  But it was not because I was unprepared to argue; rather it was because I knew he was not willing to hear anything that contradicted his fundamentalist beliefs.  This was evidenced by his other, far less plausible, yet more revealing explanation.  His other explanation, or theory, was that God placed these bones, fossils, and other signs of pre-historic life in the earth to confound humankind; to make them think that they are wiser than they actually were.  Of course I did not believe this theory at all, but it made me realize early on that I would not be able to convince him that the earth was older than 6,000 and some odd years.

What I did learn from my father-in-law, however, was a desire to actually study the Bible, rather than merely read its many passages.  I knew I could not refute his theories, interpretations or theologies.  But I also knew that if I did not have a good knowledge of the Bible I could possibly find myself believing some inane ideas that have nothing to do with the actual purpose of the Scriptures.  As I learned to study the Word, however, I gained a greater appreciation for scientific approaches to history in general, and specifically to its approach to biblical history.

I too believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.  Yet, I feel my own philosophy falls somewhere between the strict fundamentalist and the secular humanist.  Before taking this class I was not able to define where my beliefs stood in relationship to the extremes of the strict fundamentalist and the strict secular humanist.  Though I have often heard both terms used, I never really knew what their position on Biblical passages were.  This course has given me a renewed desire to continue searching the Scriptures through Bible study. 

I have since divorced the Baptist minister’s daughter, but I have often missed the sometimes heated discussions we would get into about our differing religious philosophies.  I knew even then that these discussions were a wonderful and enlightening way to get me to explore and fine-tune my own philosophy.  Though at the time I did not call it a philosophy, merely a belief.  Many of my beliefs were challenged as a result of these discussions, and some were even changed.  Though I do not believe any were totally discarded.

As I have said, I’ve always known of various religious philosophies, but have never been challenged to study those philosophies.  I’ve never been able to actually compare them to my own religious beliefs.  This course has not only renewed my desire to pick up that discourse I left behind so many years ago when I lost my father-in-law, but it has challenged me to learn these other religious philosophies.  I am certain I will not discard my own beliefs, but hope that I am still willing to enhance those beliefs through this kind of study.

What I have already learned is a greater ability to understand the secular humanist point of view.  I do not believe, as they do, that the Bible does not show the existence of God.  I do believe, however, that knowing what their religious philosophy is gives me a greater understanding as to why they propose the many things they do.  It is their belief, for example, that the Bible is nothing more than good men trying to get other men to believe as they do.  The implication behind this is that they believe that man is basically good.  This of course contradicts my belief that the Bible presents man as basically sinful, and therefore in need of the saving grace of God.

Thus the secular humanist will propose societal remedies based on the philosophy that man is basically good, and therefore can be trusted to do the right thing if only given the power to do so.  Many, who would never admit to being a secular humanist, have bought into this belief.  Although this is a commendable approach I believe it is doomed for failure precisely because it is based on the premise that man is inherently good.  And yet, with a better understanding of their philosophy I feel I am less apt to totally disregard their ideas as foolish.  Instead I feel I can better incorporate their ideas into what I believe to be better solutions to society’s ills.  Of course, I am not saying I have all the solutions and am about to drop them into society’s lap.  What I am saying is that I feel I have a better understanding of both sides of these issues, and therefore have a greater appreciation of the person or persons who try to bring both philosophies together to come up with a workable solution.

I believe the secular humanist to be wrong about the Bible.  It is, in my opinion, the inspired Word of God.  But, on the other hand, I believe the fundamentalist opens him or herself to much ridicule because of their dogmatic insistence that the Bible is to be taken literally from Genesis to Revelations.  Believing each spoken word the actual words of those to whom they are attributed.  Each event recorded as it actually happened.  This dogmatism, I believe, causes them to come up with some bizarre statements as the one my former father-in-law made about how God planted pre-historic bones to confound the scientist.

Admittedly I’ve taken a kind of middle of the road stance with my personal philosophy.  I do not feel, however, that it is an attempt to avoid taking a controversial position.  I still believe in God, and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  I believe the Bible reveals to us God’s plan of salvation; through His Son, Jesus Christ.  That, of course, takes a lot of faith on my part, as it does for anyone who believes in this way.  Yet, I wonder at the secular humanist who does not see God in any of the Bible.  How much faith does he or she need to maintain that philosophy?  It seems to be such a cynical approach to the experiences of humankind.  My biases obviously show here, but it seems sad that someone could go through life without a philosophy that holds on to the belief in a loving and very real God.