Religion
Related: About this forumNew 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 its a bad idea for both scientists and Christians. Hams 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 arent actually inherent in Christianity theyve 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 Hofstadters 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 isnt 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,
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/01/new_atheisms_big_mistake_debating_creationists_solves_nothing/
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)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.
rug
(82,333 posts)They're strutting exhibitions.
TrogL
(32,822 posts)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)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)It takes a freaking contortionist with the moral flexibility of a rubber eel.
Philosophy is useless theology is worse