My default position with all conspiracy theories is one of extreme skepticism.   This is because there are common features of conspiracy theories that render them unreliable.

1. Almost all conspiracy theories rely on confirmation bias.   The conspiracy theorist is always sensitized to the slightest bit of evidence that supports their conspiracy theory, yet they ignore, downplay, or dismiss any evidence that doesn’t fit well within their conspiracy.  Confirmation bias is a common flaw in human reasoning, as we are all prone to selecting evidence that supports our beliefs.  Yet conspiracy theorists tend to wallow in this flawed form of reasoning.

2. What makes the confirmation bias so bad is that it is also linked to emotional thinking.  That is, most conspiracy theories are rooted in an emotional approach to reality.  The most common emotion is fear.  You’ll notice that most conspiracies are nefarious.  The conspiracy is “out to get you” in some form or fashion.  Fear feeds into confirmation bias because the conspiracy theorist thinks the best  defense against the nefarious conspiracy is knowledge/information.  To become aware (“woke”) of the conspiracy means you can try to position yourself in a safer place. Conspiracy theories also tend to portray the conspirators as extremely clever and powerful.  In other words, more reason to be afraid.

3. The third problem I have with conspiracy theories is they tend to be rooted in the sin of Pride.   When you begin to see yourself as among the select few who truly understand what’s happening because of your efforts to dig up the conspiracy, this feeds your sense of pride.  In some ways, you are better than the average person because you have this special insight. You have seen “behind the curtains.”  If only more would listen to you.

Confirmation bias, fear and pride don’t make for a good foundation for reliable beliefs.  What’s  more, the  conspiracy theorists I have known in real life lead me to suspect that conspiracy theories are often addictive and destructive.  A huge waste of time. 

1. Monotheism.

2. The reality we live in came into existence.  God created it all.

3. God’s creation was originally good.  It all proceeded according to His will.

4. Humans, like plants and animals, were brought into existence, but differ in that humans were created in the image of God.  We are special.

5. That specialness allowed humans to have a choice – to conform to God’s will or not.

6. Humans ultimately chose to rebel against God (a violation of His will), resulting in the Fall – separation from God.

7.We don’t live in the Best of All Possible Worlds.  We don’t live in a Perfect Creation.  We live in a Fallen reality – “Cursed is the ground because of you.” 

As I have pointed out before, a literal interpretation is not only unneeded, buy doesn’t really add anything of great significance.  

The Fall fundamentally and deeply changed everything.  And it is precisely this that needs to be explored. But before going there, let’s next consider the evidence

First, we have the trees: “In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

I think it makes more sense to interpret this symbolically rather than being a part of literal history.  There were no magical trees that could impart moral knowledge and eternal life simply by eating their fruit.  Instead, as two features of Creation placed at the very center of the garden, they symbolically represent central events of our larger reality.  The tree of the knowledge of good and evil will come to represent the Fall.  By eating from this tree, after God forbids one from eating from it, one becomes directly aware of what it is and what it means to choose against God (to sin).  If Adam had not eaten from this tree, he would have no knowledge of evil since he would have no experience with it.  And without such knowledge, he does not recognize good as good.  It’s simply how things are.  Thus, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As for the tree of life, that is symbolic of Christ’s crucifixion.  On three occasions, Acts refers to Jesus’ crucifixion as ‘hanging on a tree.’  And eternal life comes from embracing what happened on this tree and all that it means. 

Put simply, the two trees symbolically represent the Fall and our Salvation. 

As I see it, there is no compelling reason to believe there once existed two literal, historical trees that had the ability to convey moral knowledge and eternal life.  In fact, most Christians have long recognized the symbolism of these trees I describe above.  The literal interpretation really doesn’t add anything to the account.  It’s not “the point” of this narrative.

An even more clear example of symbolism comes next in Genesis 3.  Genesis 3 describes the Fall and yet there is not one mention of Satan.  Instead, it is simply a clever snake that tricks the woman into eating from the tree:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

If we must interpret Genesis 3 literally, it was one of the animals that used its ability to reason and speak to get the woman to eat from the tree. 

Yet as all Christians know, the “serpent” is a symbolic representation of Satan even though Genesis only talks about a wild animal that was more crafty than the rest. 

Even the cursing of the serpent has symbolism -“he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”  Here the crucifixion is the striking of the heel of Jesus, but the Resurrection is the crushing of the head of Satan.

As far as I can tell, Genesis 2 and 3 are not retelling some literal, historical account that depended on trees that impart knowledge and snakes that can reason and talk.  Instead, these are symbolic accounts trying to convey key and core features of our history. 

The symbolic message is the key; a literal interpretation is not needed and adds nothing of importance. 

Are there any conspiracy theories that you reject and if so, why do you reject them?

But first, there is a big problem.  Genesis 1 and 2, as literal history, contradict each other.

Genesis 2:5-7 points out there is no plant life on the planet because a) there was no water and b) no one to work the ground.  So God brought forth water.  Then a man to work the ground.

Genesis 2:8-9 has God planting the Garden of Eden and putting the man in it.  This is where we find the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:10-14 focuses on the rivers that supply the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:18 has God saying it is not good for man to be alone and He would thus make a helper for him.

So immediately after we are told how God created various animals, brought them to the man, and had the man name them.

And then we read, “But for Adam^[f] no suitable helper was found.”  As if the man was to find such a helper among the various animals as he went about naming them.

Then God creates the woman:  “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs^[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. ²² Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib^[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”

Clearly, a literal reading of Genesis 2 has God bringing forth water and the man so that plant life could exist.  Then He creates the animals.  Then after naming them all, He creates the woman.

This literal narrative contradicts Genesis 1.  In Genesis 1, God created the waters and plants on the 3rd day, animals on the 5th day, and man and woman on the 6th day.  In Genesis 2, God creates plants along with man, then animals (to find a helper for man), and finally woman.  Since the literal narratives contradict, perhaps they are not meant to be literal.

We saw this to be the case with Genesis 1.  Let’s next turn to some of the evidence that points to Genesis 2 and 3 likewise being symbolic history.

Here are some pics:

Also, from Google AI: Autism diagnoses in the U.S. have significantly increased between 2011 and 2022, with an overall rise of 175%. The diagnosis rate increased from 2.3 per 1,000 people to 6.3 per 1,000 people during this period.

Have you heard of the logical fallacy where one confuses correlation with cause? Well, I don’t see even a mere correlation between vaccinations and autism. Vaccination rates have remained constant with recent dips, while autism rates have skyrocketed at the same time. Don’t see the link.

One more time with Google AI: Since the rise of early online platforms in the late 1990s, social media use among kids has dramatically increased. ….social media truly took off with the advent of sites like MySpace and Facebook in the early 2000s. By the mid-2010s, social media use became nearly universal among youth, with a large percentage visiting sites almost daily.

While there is no positive correlation between vaccinations and autism rates, there does seem to be such a correlation between rising rates of autism and social media use among kids. Hmmm.

Second, consider the structure of Genesis 1. 

And God said, “[……] And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, “[……] And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.  And God said, “[……] And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.  And God said, “[……] And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. And God said, “[……] And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. And God said, “[……] And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

This rhythmic structure makes Genesis 1 come across more like a poem or song than a historical account. 

Third, we get to the contradiction.  On day 1,  God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

Yet on Day 4, And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,  and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. 

On Day 4, why does God have to create “lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night” when on day 1 He “separated the light from the darkness,  calling the light “day,” and the darkness night?”  What’s more, there is the incoherent aspect of creating days and nights on day 1 without creating the sun until day 4. 

Finally, it’s not clear to me that the days of Genesis 1 are supposed to be interpreted as chronological markers.  Instead, they may be serving more as “bullet points” in an outline.  Why would I say this?  Today we read Genesis 1 in the context of a world where monotheism and secularism are the dominant worldviews.  But if we were to read it at the time of its writing, the world would have been dominated by polytheism and paganism.  As such, perhaps Genesis 1 is more of a declaration of monotheism than a time line.  We just don’t see it clearly because such a declaration is take for granted in our time.

There is support for this view.  Consider that the days of week are named after Roman and Germanic/Norse gods.   Wednesday is Woden’s day, Thursday is Thor’s day, and Friday is Frigg’s day.  More importantly, such naming did not poof into existence and instead derives from  naming the days after the gods much further back in time..  According to Google’s AI:

The Babylonian seven-day week was named after seven prominent celestial bodies: the Sun, the Moon, and the five planets visible to the naked eye. These celestial bodies were, in turn, associated with Babylonian gods. Thus, each day was named after a specific deity.

So again,  if we were to read Genesis at the time of its writing, the world would have been so dominated by polytheism and paganism that even the days of the week were tributes to them.  And it is from this context that we can appreciated just how radical Genesis 1 is.

Genesis 1 takes those days and instead of paying homage the gods, uses them as a mere placeholders for the one, true God’s creative acts.  For example, Tuesday is NOT the day of the Babylonian war god, Nergal.  It is the day God filled the land with vegetation.  Wednesday is NOT the day of the Babylonian god of wisdom, Nabu.  It is the day God made the sun.  Genesis effectively declares there are no gods in the heavens, in the oceans, or in the forests.  There is only one God who is the Creator of all that exists.  From this perspective, there is no need to read Genesis 1 as literal history that treats the days as 24 hour periods in succession.  Instead, it’s just a radical way of taking the dominant polytheism of the day and thoroughly, exhaustively deny it while boldly asserting monotheism.   If I wanted to read current approaches into past authors, we might even suggest the author of Genesis 1 was trolling the polytheists. 

This interpretation then nicely explains the immense tension of creating light on day 1,  the days before the sun, and the sun (the proximate source light and day) on day 4.  The author of Genesis did not want to have God creating the sun on the first day, given Sunday was the day that homage was paid to the Babylonian Sun god, Shamash.  Shamash was not only the Sun god, he also the god of law and judgment.  He was a god who pronounced judgments.  If the author of Genesis 1 had God creating the sun on the first day, it might have been too easy to misinterpret this as an homage to Shamash.  Instead, light itself is made on the first day, and the sun isn’t made until the 4th day.  The same goes with Monday, the day of the moon/harvest Babylonian god, Sin.  The moon is also moved to day 4 and, like the sun, is now just the source of light in the sky.

There is one more clue that supports my interpretation.  We know that God rests of the 7th day, which is clearly symbolic as God does not need to “rest.”  From a literal, chronological perspective, we all know that the days cycle, and the 7th day is followed by a return to the first day.  Yet Genesis says nothing about an 8th (1st) day in relation to God.  Did he go back to creating?  Unlikely, as the account says God was finished.  But if not, and He continues his creative rest since the7th day,  even up to this day, then day 7 has to be longer than a 24 hour day.   And that would mean the term ‘day’ is indeed a metaphor. 

So to summarize, when I read Genesis 1, I don’t get the sense that this is some literal, historical account that describes things as they happened.  I read it as symbolic writing intended to convey deep, historical truths.  And the truth is simple – monotheism is truth and God is Creator of all. 

But two other truths also fall out – all that was created was good.  This is boldly proclaimed as a summary at the end of Genesis 1 and will become to focus in the second chapter.

Second, there is Genesis 1:27:  

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

This dives deeper than the rest of Genesis 1 by focusing on the essence of what was created – humanity was created in God’s image.  What’s more, this is the only part from Genesis 1 that Jesus quotes. 

To close, I do not argue that every Christian should agree with me, nor do I insist anyone abandon their literal, historical interpretations.  For me, the symbolic interpretation makes more sense  and it delivers the essential truths – God is Creator of all, Creation, once made, was good, and humans are created in the “image of God.”  I just don’t see why the literal, historical interpretation is needed, nor do I see what important truths it adds to the account. 

I think there is a rough analogy between the early chapters of Genesis and the parables Jesus taught.  We can read the parables and decipher the truth behind them without demanding the parable is a literal, historical account.  What’s more, just because the parables are not literal historical accounts does not give us reason to dismiss and thus ignore them. 

Here’s my plan.  First, I want to lay out some of reasons I think Genesis is meant to be interpreted as symbolic history.  Second, consider some of the truths that Genesis is conveying.  Finally, consider what would be the historical truths.  

To be more specific, 41% were raised a Protestants, while 28% were raised as Catholics.

What’s going on?

These data suggest a good chunk of atheists are reacting to their religious upbringing. But it also suggests a lot of religious families are unintentionally pushing their kids toward atheism.

4