AIG Says: We Must Reject Greek Philosophy

One of our favorite posts is Did Science Originate with Creationists?, in which we concluded that we owe science and the Enlightenment to the Greeks — the world’s first scientists — such as Aristotle, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, and Eratosthenes. It was Eratosthenes who determined the circumference of the Earth using geometry.

Today, for the first time that we can remember, we see a creationist outfit urging us to reject the Greeks. Who else would it be but the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

AIG’s new essay is How Do Some Among You Say There Is No Adam? It was written by Simon Turpin, a name we haven’t encountered before. He’s described as “the general manager and speaker for Answers in Genesis–UK.” Most of his essay consists of scripture quotes. We can ignore those and most of his scripture references. We’ll give you only what we regard as the interesting stuff, with bold font added by us for emphasis. He begins like this:

The Apostle Paul often found himself in a cultural context in which he had to deal with many objections to the Christian faith. In 1 Corinthians 15, for example, the Corinthian congregation was questioning the future resurrection of believers: “How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” The Corinthians struggled with the idea of a bodily resurrection because it did not fit into their cultural worldview. The city of Corinth was permeated with Greek philosophy.

Egad — Greek philosophy! How horrible that must have been for Paul. Then Simon says:

The Greeks loved speculative philosophy and were proud of their intellect as they sought after and trusted in the “wisdom of men.” In their own wisdom, some of the Corinthians rejected the resurrection from the dead because of the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul apart from the body. Many saw the body (matter) as corrupt and not worthy of any form of immortality, and therefore mocked the idea that it would be resurrected.

Well, physical resurrection is a difficult idea to accept. Let’s read on:

Two thousand years later, not much has changed. Just as the culture in Paul’s day was permeated with Greek philosophy, so it is today. The worldview that undergirds Darwinian evolutionary thought is essentially Greek at its core. Many Christians are still integrating Greek philosophy into Christianity; however we have just given it the name science rather than philosophy.

They’re not synonyms. Science was originally called natural philosophy, because it was (and still is) limited to what we can observe in the natural world. Simon continues:

Whereas Paul specifically asked how the Corinthians could say there is no resurrection, today’s Christians must ask, “How do some among you say there is no Adam?” Because Greek thinking has been synthesized with biblical thinking, it is becoming increasingly popular among many evangelicals to reject a historical Adam.

Then Simon gives us several paragraphs and loads of scripture quotes explaining why Adam is an essential belief. We’ll skip that. Well, this paragraph is worth mentioning:

It is important to keep in mind that atonement involves a blood sacrifice, which implies violence and death. However, this surely makes no sense in a theistic evolutionary worldview where violence and death have been a part of God’s process of creation over millions of years. Accepting millions of years of human and animal death before the Creation and Fall of man undermines the teaching of the atoning work of Christ. Theistic evolution does not just undermine Genesis and the supernatural creation of Adam, but it also undermines the doctrine of the atonement.

Yeah, you gotta have blood atonement. Here’s one more excerpt:

If we reject the biblical revelation that God created Adam supernaturally, we have to reject that physical death came about because of his disobedience. Then there really is no need for the Cross, atonement, or a new heaven and earth.

It all makes sense — unless one has been corrupted by the philosophy of the Greeks. Skipping a lot more, we come to Simon’s conclusion:

Those who reject a historical Adam do so because they have elevated the wisdom of men over the revelation of God. However, Paul reminded the Corinthian church that human wisdom cannot benefit us before God, as He rejects all that rests on human wisdom. Instead, Paul reminded them that Christ, who is the wisdom of God is far superior to that of any philosophy. The wisdom of the Greeks could not recognize the most profound wisdom of all when they were challenged with it. The truth of the creation of the first man, Adam, embodies true wisdom — the wisdom of God, not the wisdom of the age.

So there you have it , dear reader — AIG makes it very clear. They want us to reject what we learned from the Greeks. But if we follow their advice, we’ll be tossing out everything of value in Western Civilization. That’s exactly what they want — it’s the ultimate goal of creationism.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “AIG Says: We Must Reject Greek Philosophy

  1. Well, I reject the largest part of Greek philosophy as well, with the exception of some parts of atomism. I rather have Descartes (for deduction) and Hume (for induction). Methodological naturalism is the synthesis of both. But I doubt if Turpin thinks it an improvement.

  2. Pete Moulton

    “But I doubt if Turpin thinks it an improvement.” FTFY, mnbo.

  3. AiG UK is based in an industrial unit (warehouse) in an industrial estate in Leicester. Its neighbours are a powder coating company. It would appear to only distribute AiG propaganda.

    For a moment there I was afraid that the Ayatollah Ham was invading!

  4. “If we reject the biblical revelation that God created Adam supernaturally, we have to reject that physical death came about because of his disobedience.” Nothing died before mythological Adam? Where did all those fossils, like the pre-Cambrian ones (missing rabbits), come from?

  5. Well dude you and your fairy tales had over 2000yrs to produce something of value to all people. YOU have accomplish NOTHING!!!!! POSITIVE!!!! WHere science has extended my life well beyond the ancient average of 45yrs and made it easier and fuller. Even if you gawd was real or the buyBull true you have done nothing so you & your gawd know where you all can go!!!

  6. Turpin wrote: “Accepting millions of years of human and animal death before the Creation and Fall of man undermines the teaching of the atoning work of Christ.”

    Creationists don’t seem to understand the argument from consequences fallacy. Or maybe they do but simply don’t have a valid argument.

    Pointing out that two beliefs conflict and that therefore one of the beliefs must not be held in order to preserve the other as a consequence is asinine.

    One can play this game with all manner of nonsense. For instance: accepting the validity of physics undermines the belief in real superhero powers; therefore if we are to maintain fidelity to the true aspects of Superman, we cannot accept most of physics.

  7. If one is to reject thought which is in conflict with the plain teaching of the Bible, then one is a geocentrist.
    If one rejects any science which is inconsistent with Adam & Eve, then the science which fails is genetics.
    And then there is the concept of apoptosis, death of cells in the process of development.

  8. That makes no sense. Christianity is founded upon Greek theology. Most of the New Testament documents were written in Greek, by Greeks.

  9. If we reject the biblical revelation that God created Adam supernaturally, we have to reject that physical death came about because of his disobedience. Then there really is no need for the Cross, atonement, or a new heaven and earth.

    What, if Adam wasn’t created supernaturally there was no sin in the world for which the blood sacrifice, er, substitutionary atonement of Christ would have been necessary? Gee, then what about all those punishments God was always laying on in the Old Testament? Were they just acts of divine sadism?

  10. I’m pretty sure 90% of Christians believe in some sort of Neoplatonic afterlife involving immortal souls, and not bodily resurrection.

  11. The old testament doesn’t say anything about greek philosophy as far as I know. However it is chock full of prophets expounding upon all sorts of subjects, so it makes sense that if Greek philosophy was so vile, God would have inspired a prophet to rail against it.

    Either God did not view Greek philosophy as troublesome, or he thought his chosen people were unlikely to understand it.