The Wisdom of the World

The following article is from *The Skeptical Review*, 1995 March/April:

by Farrell Till

Have you ever thought about the implications of Adam's and Eve's sin? They ate of the tree of knowledge (Gen.3:6), an act that opened their eyes (v:7), and so God drove them from the Garden of Eden, because "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (v:22). In other words, their sin was the acquisition of knowledge. It was a sin so great that the petulant Yahweh not only banished them from the garden but pronounced an everlasting curse on them and all their descendants.

The condemnation of knowledge implied in this story established a policy that was generally--but not always-- followed by the other biblical writers. That policy was to discourage and even sometimes to condemn the acquisition of knowledge. Perhaps no single biblical writer ridiculed knowledge any more than the apostle Paul, who is considered by many scholars to be the real founder of Christianity. His strongest denunciation of knowledge was made in his first letter to the Corinthian church: 

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and the base things of the world that are despised has God chosen, yes, and things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence" (1:18-29).

Ever since Paul penned this statement, Bible believers have used it to justify every form of ignorance imaginable. If anyone dares suggest that the idea of a human sacrifice for the vicarious atonement of the sins of mankind is ridiculous, the Christian will merely see this as proof that his belief is right. "Yes," he will say, "that is exactly what Paul said. It pleased God to save the world through the foolishness of preaching. You can't understand it because you seek after worldly wisdom, but God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and this is exactly what has happened to you. You have allowed the wisdom of the world to blind you to the truth. God's wisdom is greater than man's wisdom, and when you understand that, you will understand why the sacrifice of his son for the sins of mankind was necessary."

Yeah, right. And if the Christians who parrot such nonsense as this ever learn to recognize circular reasoning, they might begin to see the foolishness in their own "wisdom." With that type of reasoning, one could justify any kind of belief. Flat-earthers--and believe it or not, there still are some--dismiss all scientific evidence for the rotundity of the earth as just "the wisdom of the world." Creation-scientists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) reject as "man's wisdom" all scientific findings that dispute their young-earth, creationist views. Just cite any kind of scientific or scholarly information that conflicts with what the Bible teaches, and bibliolaters will pooh-pooh it as "the wisdom of the world."

In the "Mailbag" column of this issue, we are publishing the letter of a subscriber in Texas, who boasts of having a faith that is stronger than ever after having read "all issues of TSR, plus other publications, debates, etc. of Mr. Till and other skeptics, current and past." [This Mailbag letter and Till's response immediately follow this article, kwh] Readers will see that he takes refuge in the wisdom-of-the-world bastion of Bible fundamentalism. He dismisses Till and the other skeptics who write for TSR as "wisdomolaters," who have "sold their souls for a mess of pottage--man's wisdom." A detailed response follows this letter in the "Mailbag" column, so here we will merely note that history has proven repeatedly that this "mess of pottage" that skeptics have sold their souls for is superior to the "wisdom of God" that bibliolaters have put their trust in. Presumably by the wisdom of God, Jesus attacked human illness by casting out devils, but the wisdom of the world invented microscopes, discovered microbes and viruses, and then conquered diseases with vaccines and drugs. The wisdom of God rebuked Galileo, but the wisdom of the world has long confirmed that he was right about the heliocentric nature of our solar system. The wisdom of the world discovered that smallpox could be prevented by vaccination, but through the wisdom of God, preachers opposed it as witchcraft and the work of Satan. Whenever the wisdom of the world has clashed with the "wisdom of God," the wisdom of the world has had a consistent way of proving itself right.

So let bibliolaters scoff at the "wisdom" of the world all that they want to. In this controversy, we will put our trust in the side with the better track record. Flat-earthers, for example, are absolutely right when they say that the Bible teaches a flat-earth cosmology, but one would have to be hopelessly naive to accept that view over the compelling scientific evidence that proves the earth is spherical. Bible fundamentalists are also right when they say that the Bible teaches that life on earth resulted from acts of special creation that God performed over a period of six days about 6,000 years ago, but geology, archaeology, paleontology, microbiology, chemistry, astronomy, and various other branches of science indicate an entirely different scenario. According to Richard Dawkins, whose scientific credentials are known worldwide, "Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist" ("The Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 130). To Bible fundamentalists, however, this is merely "the wisdom of the world" speaking, and no matter how many world-class scientists like Dawkins say that Darwin's theory is supported by all the available scientific evidence, they are going to continue pressing to have their nonsense taught as "science" in our public schools. Ron Patterson pegged them right when he said, "So-called scientific creationism is really nothing more than an attempt to give credence to an ancient Hebrew myth by trying to prove that virtually all the world's biologists, geologists, and paleontologists are a bunch of incompetent buffoons" (The Freethought Exchange, September/October 1994, p. 50).

The right course to take in controversies like these can easily be determined by application of a principle that Bob Hypes stated in a recent TSR article: "No reasonable person can believe that the guesses of preliterate man, upon which the myths of gods and the supernatural are based, were true" ("Religion and How I Lost It," Winter 1995, pp. 11).

This, of course, is a difficult worldview for Bible fundamentalist to accept, but perhaps they should be more attentive to something that the apostle Paul said in the passage quoted earlier: "For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh... are called" (1 Cor 1:26). Sociological studies have confirmed the truth of what Paul said here. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to practice orthodox religion. Religious orthodoxy, therefore, depends on ignorance. Many beliefs of today's most radical Bible fundamentalists would have been considered rank heresy by the most educated Christians of a thousand years ago. Knowledge caused the change and will continue to change religious thinking, because not even the most fanatical Bible fundamentalist can live in our scientific era without absorbing at least some of the "wisdom of the world" that is so despised in fundamentalist circles.

Meanwhile, knowing the threat that knowledge poses to them and the institutions from which they derive their livelihood, clergymen will continue to ridicule the "wisdom of the world" in order to cultivate the colossal ignorance that is necessary for fundamentalist religion to survive.

                                         ***************

Mr. Davis begins his comment:

Having read all issues of TSR, plus other publications, debates, etc. of Mr. Till and other skeptics, current and past, I find nothing to move me from holding to a strong belief that the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired, inerrant Word of God. Indeed such writings have made stronger my belief that the Bible is the only revelation in which we may have absolute confidence and trust, and the Bible will survive any attacks of its critics. To me, such a belief in its inspiration is much more "logical," "sane," and "reasonable" rather than rejecting it as such because man's "wisdom" and "logic" cannot prove the Bible to be inspired. Too often man has thought by his "logic" and "wisdom" that he has proven or also disproven things only for another generation to have to "rethink" what man thought he once knew or was more logical. In every field, man is constantly "rethinking" what previous generations held. One example is how many skeptics have gone to their graves thinking certain people, cities, etc. found "only in the Bible" did not exist, because such were found nowhere else, and man's wisdom could not logically prove the existence of such. Thus, many "freethinkers" and "seekers of truth" were denied wonderful facts because they trusted in man's logic and wisdom.

These skeptics and atheists have sold their souls for a mess of pottage-- man's wisdom. Mankind's God-given means to advance, grow, and progress, have vastly benefited us. Wisdom, properly used, makes a good servant, but it is a cruel master. While these skeptics bow before the altar of wisdomolatry and worship it as their god with all their pomp and ceremony, their so-called logic is shattered with the passing of time, and the Word of God endures. Now Mr. Till plays a prophet and predicts the personal computer will be the downfall of belief in Bible inerrancy. How simple minded! I do not have to be a prophet to believe such an instrument can only confirm our belief in Biblical inerrancy. It seems each past generation of skeptics since the Bible was completed in the first century A. D. has boasted they were more "modern" than past "primitive" generations and would predict the demise of Christianity. Ho-hum, what else is new? The Bible still endures. Bless the Lord, o my soul!

Wisdomolaters ignorantly refer to us as Bibliolaters, not realizing we worship and bow to what the Bible points us to, the Living God, and indeed never before the altars of science falsely so-called nor any of man's ever-changing wisdom. So as Mr. Till would ridicule us for believing something "just because it is in the Bible," a book that for centuries still endures despite so many attacks, both from unbelievers as well as "alleged believers" who would have us believe the Bible to be no more inspired than the works of Shakespeare, we confidently believe merits our trust. So "just because it is in the Bible"? A million times, yes! "Which Bible or version?" skeptics would reply. What a blessing to have "many" to confirm the word.

To show how wisdomolatry has dulled and warped the minds of skeptics, one needs to read, as a small example, Mr. Till's reply (TSR, Summer 1994) to Nikki Kaley or an article, same issue, entitled "Evidence that Doesn't Demand a Verdict" by Mark Smith, both of which twist scripture and reasoning. Does Mr. Till, in publishing TSR, think he is in the college classroom and the world should humbly accept the professor's teachings as "truth" or "probabilities" he and cohorts have discovered via Mr. Occam's razor and such like? Lump all such skeptics of all centuries together into one "brain," and we still affirm the inspired Word of God is sharper and [more] reliable.

If TSR and such is the best skeptics, atheists, etc. can do to shatter our belief in Biblical inerrancy and inspiration, then perhaps mankind would benefit more if Mr. Till and cohorts put their "massive" wisdom to use helping solve man's physical problems and leave Biblical matters to us country folk. Yes, skeptics have the right to their missionaries, publications, etc., as Bible believers do, but while skeptics ridicule our zeal, surely they can offer something far greater to mankind than by spending their labor, time, and monies in attempting to refute something as primitive as Christianity. But we wait in vain for something better, and these wisdomolaters, at best, despite all their "hot-air" can offer us only "a choice," no factual proof, and not a very good choice at that. We offer, by faith, what we believe [is] a better choice and confidently, joyfully, still sing, "Give me the Bible.... Holy message shining...." Bless the Lord, o my soul!

Such is my conclusion after reading all published issues of TSR. Enclosed is a check for another year.

(Mr. Davis, address removed by Is It God's Word Blog)

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Davis and I have conducted a private correspondence for over a year, which began when he wrote to me after viewing the tapes of my debate with Buster Dobbs. I have always appreciated Mr. Davis's cordiality and willingness to read the views that are published in TSR. Needless to say, these qualities are often absent in other Church-of-Christ members, as evinced by letters that we have published from Dobbs, Mitchell, and others. I am happy to give him a forum to express his opinions.

Unfortunately, Mr. Davis did not make very good use of the space that we have given him. Like so many other fundamentalists, he seems to believe that asserting is equal to proving. For instance, he cited the article by Mark Smith ("Evidence That Doesn't Demand a Verdict") and my response to Nikki Kaley's letter as examples of how we had twisted "scripture and reasoning"; however, he made no attempt to analyze either of them to show exactly where the twisting of scripture and reasoning had occurred. I fear that Mr. Davis has spent so many years listening to sermons filled with unproven assertions that he now thinks that mere belief claims constitute proof. He wondered if I think that the world is a college classroom in which everyone should "humbly accept the professor's teachings as 'truth,'" but he fails to apply the principle to himself. Must we humbly accept his mere word as truth? Apparently, he thinks that we should, because he made no attempt to prove his assertions. I honestly believe that I make a serious attempt to support the major points of my articles with clearly delineated arguments. In fact, some have criticized me for being too thorough or technical at times, but my goal is to leave the opposition with no room to quibble. In contrast to this, Mr. Davis says essentially nothing to prove his assertions and then accuses me of expecting the world to accept humbly whatever I say. I urge him, then, to heed his own advice and give us some kind of proof that the Bible is "the Holy Spirit inspired, inerrant Word of God." Ipse dixit just won't do.

Mr. Davis could make a much better impression on me and most TSR readers too, I'm sure, if he would write an analytical response to just one article that we have published and show us how that the reasoning in it is "twisted." To assist him, I'm going to suggest that he respond to "Jairus's Daughter: Was She Dead or Wasn't She?" (Autumn 1994, pp. 2-4). During the week of the Moffitt-Till Debate last May, I sat through several lectures that were supposed to explain "fancied contradictions in the New Testament," and none of the speakers who were assigned Matthew, Mark, and Luke even mentioned "fancied" problems in the three versions of the raising of Jairus's daughter. I sent advanced copies of my article to all three of these speakers and others who had "unraveled fancied contradictions" during this lectureship, but none of them accepted the offer of equal space to publish simultaneously a response to this article. I now make the same offer to Mr. Davis and urge him to accept it. It is easy to say that he has found "nothing to move [him] from holding to a strong belief that the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired, inerrant word of God"; it is quite another to respond logically to the evidence that disputes that belief. I contend that the three accounts of the raising of Jairus's daughter are irreconcilably contradictory, and I invite him to prove me wrong in this claim.

Like all good Bible fundamentalists, Mr. Davis expressed his contempt for "man's wisdom." Since this subject has been adequately discussed in the front-page article of this issue, we need not comment on it again. Suffice it to say, that the comforts that we enjoy in our society are entirely the benefits of "man's wisdom." They did not come from people who sat around reading the Bible and praying for God to cure our diseases and invent radios, telephones, air conditioners, automobiles, airplanes, printing presses, computers, etc., etc., etc. All of these resulted from the work of scientists who used dedication and "man's wisdom" to make our lives much better than they were when people believed that praying for the sick, anointing them with oil, and casting out demons were ways to cure diseases. In some of his letters, Mr. Davis has mentioned personal health problems, which I hope have since improved, so I wonder if he has at any times sought the wisdom of man to help him with these problems. If so, how can he conscientiously ridicule "man's wisdom" as he did in his letter?

Davis ridiculed the constant revisions that "man's wisdom" has to make as new generations make discoveries that prove past generations wrong. "In every field," he said, "man is constantly 'rethinking' what previous generations held," but he is wrong. There is one field where this is not done, and that is the field of Biblical fundamentalism. This perhaps is the only field where people take the stubborn position that they don't need to "rethink" their positions, because they have the truth and couldn't possibly be wrong. As the little ducklike character in a political cartoon by Oliphant said last summer, "Blessed are the self-righteous, for they are always right." Now Mr. Davis may consider such an attitude as this a virtue, but I consider it both deplorable and dangerous. How many people have been executed by religious zealots who just knew that they were right and couldn't possibly be wrong? The fact that scientists and freethinkers are willing to review their ideas and revise them if necessary is a quality that has brought mankind to its present state of technology. So Mr. Davis is a beneficiary of the very thing that he claims to despise.

And speaking of "Ho-hum," I know of no better response than "ho-hum" to all of Davis's talk about the endurance of the "Word of God." The 2,000 years that Christianity has existed is nowhere close to how long some religions have flourished. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism are older by many centuries than Christianity, and so is Judaism. Does their longevity prove that they are "truer" than Christianity? The pagan religions and the ancient religion of Sumer thrived for several millennia. Does this prove that they were "true" religions? Since when does the age of an idea prove its truth? Actually, the older an idea is, the more likely it is to be untrue, because it originated in superstitious, unscientific times.

Mr. Davis said that he and other Christians have waited in vain for skeptics to give them something better than the truth of "God's word," but who can give something better to anyone who stubbornly insists that he doesn't need to examine his beliefs because he knows he is right and couldn't possibly be wrong? If, however, he wants skeptics to give him something better than Christianity, I will certainly accommodate him. What about the self-respect, intellectual integrity, and personal confidence that comes from facing reality and accepting obvious truth no matter how stark and unflattering it may be? We have filled our "Mailbag" column with the testimony of those who once wallowed in the superstition and guilt of Bible fundamentalism but are now free of it, and they all agree that their lives are much better than they were before. Mr. Davis, of course, won't believe this, but at least we can say that we offered him a better alternative.

To set the record straight, I want to assure Mr. Davis that I have no illusions that the demise of Christianity is imminent, because I know that religious superstition is deeply ingrained in human societies. I have never been so rash as to predict that within 50 years or 100 years belief in the Bible will be nonexistent, because religions die slowly. However, they do die, just as surely as institutions, empires, and people die. In "The Legendary Triumph," Joseph McCabe cited the widespread ridicule of paganism by its own thinkers and philosophers as one of the major factors that enabled Christianity to supplant it (The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, p. 126). Paganism had become so illogical for the times that, as McCabe noted, "(a) very large number of people were ready for alternatives" (Ibid.). Let's compare the status of Paganism then with the present situation of Christianity. It too has lost the respect of our best scholars. No serious biblical scholar believes in the inerrancy doctrine any more, and the findings of higher criticism are being openly taught in most seminaries and even some Bible colleges. Just recently, a group of biblical scholars published The Five Gospels, a work that concluded that probably as many as 80% of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels were never said by him. These were not wicked old atheists saying this to discredit Christianity but clergymen and Bible scholars who were willing to put scholarship above Christian traditions. In "The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew," Michael D. Cougan discussed the widespread disparity in what is generally known by the clergymen in the pulpits and the people sitting in the pews (Bible Review, June 1994, pp. 44-48,55). The clergymen understand that the Bible is not inerrant and that many stories in it are not historically accurate and in many instances are even legendary or mythological, but they can't teach such things openly because of the intellectual gulf between them and their audiences. So they tell them what they expect and want to hear.

With time, that gulf will narrow and religious leaders will have more freedom to teach facts about the Bible that present church audiences wouldn't tolerate from their preachers. When the knowledge in the pew more or less equals the knowledge in the pulpit, profound changes in Christianity will have to occur. It is my belief that personal computers will be instrumental in the dissemination of information that will narrow the gulf between pulpit and pew. However, I would never be stupid enough to believe that this is going to happen overnight. For Mr. Davis and me to argue whether any scenario like this is going to happen would be an exercise in futility, because no one could ever prove that it will or will not happen. We can only wait and see. Computers, however, obviously facilitate the dissemination of knowledge, and knowledge is no friend of religion. I wonder if this could be why Bible believers are so quick to ridicule worldly wisdom.