Hard Head Meets Immovable Object (Part II)

Tags

Alan Bloom, bible, biblical inerrancy, evolution, fundamentalism, God, open/closed minds, Q, Synoptics

A good many years ago, more years than I care to think about, I read Alan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind. Lauded by the right as  a correct indictment of the liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment forward, it made an impact on me for an entirely different reason.

Please note that I am paraphrasing here badly, but the gist of what Bloom said, was that one mind that he found amazing was that of the fundamentalist. He was boggled at the energy required to retain blinders to the realities of the world, all the while operating within it, meanwhile maintaining a rigid and irrational mindset about how the world functioned. That never the two met and created a crisis (reality and the constructed fantasy world) was simply almost beyond comprehension. 

I never forgot that. Indeed, here the closed mind is not that of someone who has an intuitive belief about social issues in the world, and can back them up with a plethora of rational proofs. No, here we have a mindset that is supremely against the great weight of the evidence, and which refuses to consider the possibility of error.

For indeed it cannot. The fundamentalist has created a worldview that tells him that God either dictated the bible to writers (if he can do that, why not just write it yourself I say) or that he at least embedded in their minds exactly the information he wished transmitted. In either case, the bible is error-less and it  is God’s own work for all practical purposes.

Most everyone knows that one of the most oft heard statements of biblical literalists is that “if there is error in any part, then the entire bible is suspect, and my faith has no meaning.” That my friends is an immovable object.

The fact that evolutionary theory has been around more than 200 years, and serves as a working paradigm for disciplines as diverse as evolutionary biology, medicine, astronomy, geology, paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, and no doubt more, has no impact. When the human genome project was completed, many thought that the issue would finally be put to rest. Alas it was not, it was simply ignored.

Two examples will suffice to explain this concept further.

I once had a discussion with a poster at CA. I was talking about Q–short for Quelle, German for source. Most scholars agree today that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke had copies of Mark and a now lost source called Q. Positing of Q solved many of the “synoptic problems” otherwise inherent in the texts.

A poster ridiculed me, reminding me that “everybody knows that Matthew was written first–open your bible.” Of course, everybody doesn’t know that, the majority of scholars argue otherwise. But to a fundamentalist, as this poster was, any error could not be tolerated. Thus, he followed the view that upheld his viewpoint although it was not supported by most scholars. (It’s not so much I deny the right to follow the minority, but honesty is required and ridicule is not at all appropriate.)

A similar incident occurred revolving around the exact issue, but on a blog. Sadly the blog was co-written by a Catholic “theologian” and a grad student in theology at the same conservative Catholic college. Again, Matthew was stated as being the first Gospel. I indicated that I was aware that the majority of scholars said differently. I was advised they were wrong, although the “theologian” agreed that his position was the minority one. I suggested that he owed to his readers to state that in all fairness. He didn’t reply.

My point is simply, that if you have already decided what must be, you only look for what supports you. I, as I said, am prone to do the same regards the Republican party, finding nothing much ever good to say about them. Yet I hope I am still willing to at least look at one’s source, and I do find a conservative pundit here and there whom I respect and who causes me to think.

Fundamentalists consider the game too serious for that consideration. Salvation is at stake. The earth was created to “look” old, presumably to separate those who would believe in the book as opposed to those who would follow their faulty senses. The former are saved, the latter in dire straits. Carbon dating is ridiculed, except when used to date the Shroud of Turin–then it is okay.

My faith is not tied to the bible being inerrant. My vision  of God is far bigger than any book. If tomorrow science informed me that evolution was an error, and science once again had no real clue how we came to be empirically, I would be shocked, but it would have no effect on my faith. It is unlikely it ever could, because by definition science has no means to evaluate empirically the metaphysical.

Similarly, if it were to turn out that Matthew indeed was written before Mark that too would not change much for me. It would cause me to re-evaluate my understanding of how the bible was created, insofar as the tools used to make these judgments, but it would in no way alter my faith in any way.

 That in a nutshell is why efforts to hold the conversation is worthless. You are talking to a person who has his eyes closed, his ears stopped and is humming. He hears not a word. It is simply too dangerous. Otherwise the sheer avalanche of evidence would bury him and he would “see the light.”

Some of course do. But mostly it is that group of kids, brought up in fundamentalist homes, who get off to college where they are invited to open their minds and think. Sadly, since they have been trained that if the bible is found faulty in any respect, it is worthless, they often become new atheists. That is why most atheists attack Christianity through a fundamentalist lens.

With that, I have ended my willingness to argue these points with the closed minded, whether they be fundamentalist Christians or their nemesis the “new” atheists. Both are desperate to be right, to the point of denying the nose on their face.

Such does not mean that I won’t discuss evolution per se. There are always fascinating issues to discuss and learn from. You might want to take a look at this which I found yesterday. It is not a rehashing of proofs about evolution but discusses the new “accommodationists” science and religious banding together to show the basic lack of tension between science and faith. An excellent article and worth a good discussion.

Hard Head Meets Immovable Object (Part I)

Tags

critical thinking, evolution, fundamentalism, God, open/closed mind, Politics

It is commonly claimed that two subjects that should be avoided at all costs are politics and religion, and this blog specializes in both, so controversy is no stranger here. That of course is tempered by the fact that people who don’t agree with me, seldom bother to stick around for long. And much the same may be said when I travel the blogosphere as well.

You may have noticed a rather strange comment to a post I did Thursday on the Ascension. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, and was rather hostile to me personally and to the idea of evolution as well as same sex unions.

Tim jumped to my defense, and I am so grateful of course, but, I received a couple of other distressing e-mails from folks who were unhappy that such a post which was intended to uplift, was rather doused with such an unfriendly comment. And so, alas, I concluded that further explanation was due, since certainly it is hard for anyone who has not been privy to the entire episode to understand what was going on.

If you are interested you can go to Answer the Skeptic, especially to these two posts and more specifically, the comment section to both. The links are here, and here.

You should note that this topic will take two good posts, and I’ll do my best to finish it off when I return from church tomorrow.

Now a bit of history. I have no hidden agendas about what I believe. You can read it in all its long and perhaps boring glory under the autobiography category, I believe the last ten posts. In any event, many of  those who have been with me now for some time know that I used to frequent Catholic Answers. I did that after giving up on discussing issues with unchurched fundamentalists. I, (don’t ask me why, I have no rational reason) assumed that I would receive a more thoughtful response from Catholics, both by having been one, and having been taught by some extraordinary nuns and priests whom I to this day regard as highly educated and highly logical.

Alas, I learned that I could not rationally discuss evolution or biblical study with them either. Most of the fundamentalist Catholics turned out to be converts from fundamentalist denominations, and they brought their thinking with them I found.

Ironically, I often told those Catholics that I found most atheists rational, thoughtful, and considerate debaters. So, when I could take it no more, I went to atheists blogs to have some conversations there. Alas, I found that they are as closed minded as fundamentalists in their views. Not all of course, but the Internet does bring forth the extremes more than the middle. Most atheists online who blog seem to view Christianity only through the lens of fundamentalism, and I usually agreed with their criticism if not their broad brush of inclusion of all Christendom.

Next I went to conservative evangelicals, mostly to get their theological take on social justice issues, of which I had never received a good explanation. And that is where I ran into John from Answer the Skeptic and “Mark” who left the comment.

Although Tim has suggested to  me more than once that I am barking up a futile tree, I guess I believed otherwise. I was wrong. I have a hard head about some things.

There is no basis for discussion with the mind that is closed to other possibilities. And I know, for I have some familiarity with the subject. Let me explain.

My politics is informed by my faith certainly, but it also goes the other way as well. I have had deep internal beliefs about justice issues since I was at least in college, maybe even before. They have of course grown and filled out over the years.

I am a believer in climate change, and although I agree that we may be entering a cycle of normal weather change, the human has added significantly to it, and may well have made it exponentially worse.

I believe in the basic equality of all humans, and I believe in concepts such as institutional favoritism otherwise known as affirmative action to redress past wrongs. I believe that the “developed” world owes much to those who have been exploited by us all, in terms of assistance and debt forgiveness.

I believe in universal health care. I believe in the ending of the death penalty, and a serious revamping of our penal institutions. I believe our educational system is rotting, and that most of us got little more than an education in how to be a lawful and voting citizen, and a hard worker.

I believe that religions serve people in ways that are valuable even though some, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have strong minority fundamentalist groups that are prone to violence and desire to impose their worldview on us all. I believe strongly in separation of church and state.

I believe that a free market economy, in a global sense is dangerous and if left unchecked will end up being our real rulers. The increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer suggests this most strongly. There is no such thing historically speaking, in the concept of “trickle down economics.” Is has been gloriously proven not to happen. Greed supersedes all.

I believe that immigration was of little concern to anyone until the brown population grew to levels that now threaten to become the major voting block in some states, threatening the white Republican power base. As far as I can remember, not a single “terrorist” has crossed the Mexican border into the US, while a few at least have entered through the Canadian, and not a whimper is heard.

I admit, that I look for articles, blogs, books, and so forth that substantiate these views. I have little in the way of an open mind since I believe these issues essentially proven to my satisfaction by competent evidence. Those of you who followed this blog during the last election know that I was relentless in attacking John McCain and Sarah (that woman is an idiot!) Palin.

The Contrarian would freely tell you that he has said to me more times than I can remember, “If George Bush discovered a cure for cancer, you would reject the treatment!” And he is probably right.

Yet, I do read critically, as best I can. I am careful that my sources are accepted as reasonable by moderates at least. I stopped following the Daily Kos during the election when it became apparent to me that they were unfairly bashing Hillary Clinton because they favored Obama. I distrusted their coverage and stopped reading them.

So I have some familiarity with closed minded thinking. I confess to being thus to a degree as to political issues.

What has this to do with evolution and fundamentalists? Stop by tomorrow.