Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 12:56 PM Feb 2014

New Atheism’s big mistake: Debating creationists solves nothing

Fundamentalism isn't really about the Bible; it's about politics. So attacking religion doesn't fix the problem

Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 10:30 AM EST
Sean McElwee and Abigail Salvatore

Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be debating creationism on Feb. 4, and it’s a bad idea for both scientists and Christians. Ham’s young-earth creationism represents the distinct tendency of American Christian fundamentalists to reject science and use their religion to defend economic ideas, environmental degradation and anti-science extremism. But these views aren’t actually inherent in Christianity — they’ve been imposed on the biblical text by politically motivated and theologically inept readers. The solution is not anti-theism but better theological and scientific awareness.

The vast majority of right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are evangelicals, followers of an offshoot of Protestantism. Protestantism is based on the premise that truth about God and his relationship with the world can be discovered by individuals, regardless of their level of education or social status. Because of its roots in a schism motivated by a distrust of religious experts (priests, bishops, the pope), Protestantism today is still highly individualistic. In the United States, Protestantism has been mixed with the similarly individualistic American frontier mythos, fomenting broad anti-intellectualism.

Richard Hofstadter’s classic, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” perfectly summarizes the American distaste for intellectualism and how egalitarian sentiments became intertwined with religion. He and Walter Lippmann point to the first wave of opposition to Darwinian evolution theory, led by William Jennings Bryan, as the quintessential example of the convergence of anti-intellectualism, the egalitarian spirit and religion. Bryan worried about the conflation of Darwinian evolution theory and capitalist economics that allowed elites to declare themselves superior to lower classes. He felt that the teaching of evolution challenged popular democracy: “What right have the evolutionists — a relatively small percentage of the population — to teach at public expense a so-called scientific interpretation of the Bible when orthodox Christians are not permitted to teach an orthodox interpretation of the Bible?” He notes further, “The one beauty of the word of God, is that it does not take an expert to understand it.”

This American distrust of experts isn’t confined to religion. It explains the popularity of books like “Wrong” by David Freedman (a book that purports to show “why experts are wrong”) that take those snobbish “experts” down a peg. The delightfully cynical H.L. Mencken writes,

The agents of such quackeries gain their converts by the simple process of reducing the inordinately complex to the absurdly simple. Unless a man is already equipped with a considerable knowledge of chemistry, bacteriology and physiology, no one can ever hope to make him understand what is meant by the term anaphylaxis, but any man, if only he be idiot enough, can grasp the whole theory of chiropractic in twenty minutes.


http://www.salon.com/2014/02/01/new_atheisms_big_mistake_debating_creationists_solves_nothing/
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New Atheism’s big mistake: Debating creationists solves nothing (Original Post) rug Feb 2014 OP
I think I would start out this debate exboyfil Feb 2014 #1
Yeah, they're not realy debates at all. rug Feb 2014 #2
It won't be a debate TrogL Feb 2014 #3
If the problem is not solved by debating Creation? Then how about teaching "critical thinking?" Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #4
It doesn't take an expert to understand the word of God Fumesucker Feb 2014 #5

exboyfil

(17,863 posts)
1. I think I would start out this debate
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 01:08 PM
Feb 2014

with a wheel barrow filled with just some of the textbooks that would have to be rejected to accept the claims of YECs. It would be difficult to find a branch of science that would have to have basic facts rejected to accept YECs.

OECs are a little harder because their claims are more difficult to test. They can keep finding gaps in which to insert God.

Ken Miller has a similar conclusion about debating creationists. One admitted to him that, despite whatever evidence existed, they could not change their basic belief.

TrogL

(32,822 posts)
3. It won't be a debate
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 01:28 PM
Feb 2014

Ham will go straight into a Gish Gallop. Unless they allow Nye to roll back the tape and attack each individual point one at a time, Ham will bury him in bullshit.

Brettongarcia

(2,262 posts)
4. If the problem is not solved by debating Creation? Then how about teaching "critical thinking?"
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 01:40 PM
Feb 2014

Or teaching more science. Or Logic.

To get around the endless stalemate of all-too-well known and predictable debates.

In 15 years of debating with the religious right, I found the best approach was to simply avoid all too well known subjects. Like women's rights, gay rights, and so forth. And simply teach a rational approach to anything else.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
5. It doesn't take an expert to understand the word of God
Mon Feb 3, 2014, 08:45 PM
Feb 2014

It takes a freaking contortionist with the moral flexibility of a rubber eel.

Philosophy is useless theology is worse



Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»New Atheism’s big mistake...