The current edition of Answers in Genesis' weekly e-mail exemplifies the innate anti-intellectualism of Christian fundamentalism. I say "innate" not because fundamentalism is senseless, though it is, but because fundamentalism teaches that man's mind is inherently valueless.
Taking-up that business of Adam naming all the animals, and the objection that it must have been a big, time-consuming job, AIG answers, in part, "We also need to understand that just because you or I couldn’t do it, that doesn’t mean Adam couldn’t. Adam had a perfect brain. Our brain has suffered from thousands of years of sin and the Curse."
I've been unable to locate the weekly e-mails at AIG's Web site, but a longer piece addressing the same subject is available at the site which explains the issue thusly: "A secondary meaning includes such things as man’s mental powers, reason, and capacity for articulate, grammatical, symbolic speech. In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today."
Thanks to Adam and Eve's nibbles on that bad piece of fruit, that is, your mind is innately corrupt, defective, untrustworthy.
Nor, alas, is it the case that the folk at Answers in Genesis are mere oddities. Albert Mohler, the mightiest of the Southern Baptist theologians and the inspiration for the annual (and annually rejected) convention resolution calling upon Southern Baptists to remove their children from public education, has written much the same thing.
"The corruption of the race involves the corruption of our cognitive abilities. Confirmation bias is just one more evidence of the Fall; one more reminder that we are fallen creatures whose minds are not only finite, but corrupted."
This is no mere summons to humility, to the healthy recognition of the (current) limits of our knowledge. No. Understand it clearly: Christian fundamentalism teaches that man's mind was ruined by Adam and Eve's disobedience and is innately incompetent to apprehend reality.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
Good and thoughtful writing.
I couldn't agree more. Religious fundamentalists of any stripe disavow the value and ability of the human mind. Our minds, our ability to reason, to judge, to partake of cognitive thinking, is THE major difference between us and the rest of the animal world. I have received arguments against such a statement, claiming that many other animals have proven to be capable of reasoning and making judgments. I don't disagree, but I would suggest that their cognitive skills relative to ours are rudimentary.
Of course, fundamentalist leaders do not want their adherents to engage in any serious thinking. Many who do quickly find themselves at odds with the church elders, and many ultimately leave their faith behind.
If you read any blogs of those who have left the church, many recount a grueling and painful experience. For some, it was emotionally and/or physically damaging.
Religious people, those who lay claim to a belief in any god and/or an afterlife do so with not one iota of evidence to support their position, thereby leaving logic and reason, again man's greatest possession, in the dust. (I chose not to say man's greatest GIFT because I would then be obliged to attempt to identify the "giver." Although, an adequate and likely accurate answer would simply be "natural selection.")
Baritone
2 - Jonathan Scanlan
I think the best way to read genesis is as a metaphor. Adam naming the animals is symbolic of the invention of language, and eating a forbidin fruit represents a rejection of natures traditional diet. Perhaps it is a metaphor for the emergence of the cromagnons.
Religion is merely stagnant science. It served a purpose to make sense of the world and proved useful in that respect. But appeals to tradition and faith are logical fallacies.
3 - D'oh
Sorry to disagree on a trifle here, Jonathan, but religion cannot be science by definition.
Since religion is based around a belief in the unprovable, and science is only about the provable.
With that being said, I do have a fun link to provide that should be remembered anytime some literalist tries to get into a rational discussion...
the Tao of D'oh
4 - troll
Here is the difference
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Nice link, troll...
6 - Baritone
Troll,
Is it possible, that with success, string theory could ultimately answer the questions regarding the origin of everything? Why there is something rather than nothing?
That would be good. Very good.
Baritone
7 - duane
Wow. You go, Mr. President (#3).
D'oh, I think Jonathan (#2) isn't so far wrong about the origins of religion. I'm no expert, but I think that religion sprung from magic and superstition, much of which was 'invented' as an attempt to account for the workings of the natural world. As JR pointed out to me some time ago, monotheism was a response to questions concerning godly intervention in the affairs of man, which replaced polytheism, which was a response to questions concerning godly intervention in the workings of Nature.
Early religion could be called 'early science' to the extent that some of its tenets were dedicated to explaining Nature.
8 - Baronius
from Wikipedia’s article on “Mind”:
‘Pre-scientific theories, which were rooted in theology, concentrated on the relationship between the mind and the soul, the supposed supernatural or divine essence of the human person. Modern theories, based on a scientific understanding of the brain, see the mind as a phenomonon of psychology, and the term is often used more or less synonymously with consciousness.’
Read that carefully, and you’ll see that modern thought is anti-mind.
In traditional Christian thought, man is more than a body. The mind is the immaterial side of human nature (I wouldn’t have said “divine”, but Wikipedia does). The mind contains the higher functions of our nature, most especially the will. The mind-brain problem is a classic debate, but the essence of it is that man exists beyond the physical.
In modern thought, man has no eternal nature. The mind is relegated to the brain, a complicated but natural structure. Acts of will are psychologically motivated, ultimately biochemical. The naturalist puts a lid on human potential. The trend line may be upward, but humanity is limited by the skull, every bit as limited as you find the Christian version to be.
This is the paradox of the naturalist: how could a meat sack comprehend its nature? It’s Russell’s paradox (which is far older than Bertrand). If my consciousness is an illusion, then how can I be conscious of it? If I cannot, then I have no right to clam that my consciousness is an illusion.
9 - Driveby
Bob, when Moses ate of the forbidden apple in the garden was that the reason he was casted into the sea and swallowed by a giant shark? Was that before or after Noah parted the sea galilee?
10 - Baritone
Baronius,
What a mishmash of gobbledygook! Any notion that there is anything beyond our physical being, that our minds, our consciousness is some great mystical "something" beyond is wishful thinking based on nothing but wild imaginings.
Our minds have great potential to be sure. They have made great strides, but there are yet mountains to climb, horizons to view. And it is NOT an illusion. It's all a part of the chemistry of the brain. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. That, in itself, is a wonder. Why reach for pie in the sky? All that we will ever need to know is within us.
Baritone
11 - nugget
well done, Baronius.
12 - Baronius
"All that we will ever need to know is within us."
Nonsense. All that's in us is electrons, protons, and neutrons. If there's nothing more than the physical, we're nothing more than physical. We're made of the same stuff as stars, and we're just as stupid. Right? How can it be otherwise? Why are you talking about 'strides'?
'We' don't have mountains to climb, because 'we' are an illusion. There are chemical piles on this planet that move on their own and register pleasure in their brains when something touches their genitals. Don't romanticize the piles as 'we'. Face the consequences of your beliefs.
13 - Baronius
While I'm here, let me add one thing: there is a big split in Christianity on the question of our fallen nature.
Calvinists, and many evangelicals, emphasize the damage done by original sin. They see man as incapable of comprehending the Good. Sorry for putting this in Platonic terms, but it's the easiest way. I disagree with the theology behind it, but also the philosophy of it. This emphasis is what you perceive as anti-intellectualism. That's not a bad label for it, actually.
Most of Christianity sees man as prone to evil, but capable of goodness through God's grace. This prevents intellectual fatalism. Man can perceive truth and understand God through His creation.
Remember that the roots of science are in monotheism. Only three societies have ever developed science: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. Polytheistic and atheistic religions have had no reason to look for answers. If there's thunder, Thor must be angry. A disordered universe makes sense. Monotheistic societies see the order of the universe, and seek to understand it. If there is one Truth, all means of identifying truth must point to the same thing. That's why universities and seminaries grew up together, and the medieval society began the systematic study of nature.
I got a little off-track, I know, but I hope this helps explain what I meant.
14 - Baritone
It is untrue that no polytheistic societies have delved into science. There were elements of science in any # of pre-judeo, muslim and christian societies including but hardly limited to Greece, Rome and Egypt. Much of their science was destroyed by christians and muslims.
Your so called "chemical piles" are exactly the source of all that "is" including our consciousness and intelligence. We ARE indeed nothing more than the physical. The spiritual realm is a ludicrous myth maintained by patronizing, brainwashing clerics whose agenda such mind control it serves. We are apes with less hair (excepting perhaps Robin Wiliams,) and a few more folds in our brains.
Atheism is not now nor has it ever been a religion. Atheism is antithetical to religion.
I believe you are mis-informed.
Baritone
15 - D'oh
Baronius Aquinas says: "Remember that the roots of science are in monotheism."
Thus spake Zoroaster?
Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Pythagoras, Socrates and a host of other dead Greeks might differ.
And how about the sciences involved in gunpowder, movable type, the arch, noodles as well as the most accurate astronomy until telescopes...wait, that's those blasted Chinese, and they got a lot of gods, and even more hells!
Get the point?
Science is much older than monotheism, it's there in the first forges and when a shaman mixes things up for a tincture or potion, when midwives first shared tips to aid in birthing based on observations.
duane touched upon it earlier, and I think I might have some thoughts on why so many think as the quote from Baronius.
I think so many take "science" to be something solely out of western European culture...where a lot did come from, during a thousand years when the Church was all. So much so that only they knew how to read, kept ALL the books, and education was by their leave and theirs alone.
I also think that apples are apples. Science is NOT religion and religion is NOT science. Have the two been mixed over the course of human history? Of course.
But if the apple is the science of knowledge, then just because religion was working on pears doesn't make them apples.
Or to put it better, religion is based on faith, and deal with what can never be known or proven. Whereas science is only about what can be proven and disproven from empirical data and logical, reasoned extrapolation...so that can be proved or disproved, over and over again.
Now, the bit about the Mind, that is something worth getting into...next comment.
the Tao of D'oh
16 - Baronius
D'oh, I don't know how many people think like me. I hope a lot do, because I'm right.
There were advances in understanding before the mono's. Every ancient society had advanced calendars, for example. But that was part of their worship. Likewise, the classical Greeks did what we call math, but they would have called it mysticism. Before Descartes, geometry was an intellectual/spiritual exercise that had some practical applications.
There's a difference between discovering bits of knowledge and approaching a problem with scientific rigor. *Of course* other societies discovered stuff. The Romans figured out that water runs downhill, and they thought big enough to build amazing irrigation systems. Practical science, or I should say battlefield science, drove architecture and medicine.
The turning point is the realization of the connection between truth and Truth. That a single God exists, a single reality exists, and that reality has meaning.
Must go. Will post more later. Wasn't movable type Sumerian?
17 - D'oh
Baronius says: "Likewise, the classical Greeks did what we call math, but they would have called it mysticism."
Bullshit..mathematics was NOT considered "mysticism", and the very word philosophy was coined by those olde greek dudes.
I really don't understand where you get some of what you are putting forth, so I am eager to read more to try and understand.
Yet again, I must insist on keeping your definitions straight...science deals with repeatable, empirical data...religion deals with the unprovable...and never the twain shall meet.
Now, I can agree in the past of european culture, the two werre mixed, as I stated earlier...but that doesn't make them the same....ever.
18 - Baronius
D'oh, I don't know what to say. Read about Pythagoras, whom you cite. He founded a cult that worshipped the number ten. He believed that music, planetary motion, and ethics were based on integers. His religion had a big influence on Plato. I'd prefer that you not use profanities, but if you're going to use them, don't call something "bullshit" if it's correct.
As for your definitions of religion and science, well, if you define two things as diametrically opposed, of course you're not going to see the link between them.
19 - D'oh
Baronius, my bullshit call stands, merely because Pythagoras, out of all the folks I cited had some mystical tendencies, it doesn't change the statements veracity.
As for the definitions, check Webster's and I think you will find all english dictionaries agree with me.
My point is not to denigrate what you are trying to say, but to keep things in perspective. The scientific methodology of theorize, test, prove , adjust theory, test more...on and on is vastly different from the authoritarian pronouncements of that which can NEVER be proven, which is the domain of religion and metaphysics.
My problem is with your assertion that science comes from monotheism, and to that I do call bullshit. Science and the scientific method predates it by far since the gathering of empirical data is NOT a facet of religion, but is indeed as old as Man.
Not trying to harsh you, Baronius, but I do hope my reasons for contention are a bit more clear.
20 - Baritone
Baronius, a number of your assertions tend to trivialize the scientific achievements of ancient civilizations. Various feats of architecture alone found in any number of pre-judeo/christian civilizations and/or later civilizations having no significant contact with monotheistic cultures, are a wonder. Much ancient architecture including Stonehenge demonstrate an obvious understanding of basic astronomy. Watch the History Channel, for gosh sakes.
And who was it that brought an end to many such societies - in particular the Incas, Aztecs and perhaps the Mayans as well? Was it not the "good christians" from Spain who brought their arrogance, their disease and their greed to the new world, which brought a quick and violent end to these cultures?
It wasn't even until the late Renaissance that anyone thought to put a name to "science," and it was not the church that did so.
The rise of higher learning did come out of the catholic seminary system, but only through pressure from the more secular society. For hundreds of years nothing was taught in monasteries but religion and matters of the church.
The teaching of secular literature and the scientific disciplines did not emerge until the late Renaissance and then only by fits and starts.
And yet today, it is the church - the catholics who still bar women from the priesthood and demand priestly celebacy, and the protestants who now harken back to the puritan era in their insistence that women are to be seen but not heard, and that science - mainly evolutionary, biological and medical science - should be thrust assunder so as not to offend their precious and jealous god?
By the way, I repeat here an H.L. Mencken quote which I love and find totally apropos: "A puritan is someone who is afraid someone else is having a good time."
Anyhow.
For christians to take any significant credit for the advancement of science is at best a flimsy claim, and at worst total hypocrasy. Was it not the church that forced Galileo to recant his claims regarding his assertion that the sun orbits the earth and his support of Copernican astronomy, on pain of death?
Baritone
21 - Baritone
Whatever happened to Bob, the guy who wrote the article we're all responding to?
I guess he felt he said his piece and moved on. That's probably best. After you read through all these rantings and ravings you suddenly think to yourself, What was this all about in the first place?
I still think Bob wrote a good article that stands quite well on its own.
Thanks Bob.
22 - Bob Felton
Hi, y'all.
I rarely participate in online discussions (any more), because they usually degenerate quickly into cartoony caricatures of street riots. But since you ask ... well, here I am.
And, thanks for the kind remarks, Baritone.
I am e-mailed a copy of all comments, and have followed the discussion closely. I share the view that much of what passes today for religious thinking probably had its origins in the "science" of its day. Early men recognized what we now call "cause and effect," and would doubtless have assumed that a lightning bolt's "cause" was an unseen personage -- a god. It surely seemed reasonable -- then. To believe that gods live above the clouds today, though, and fling lightning bolts at the wicked or, at least, the displeasing, is dispositive evidence of childishness.
Recall all the folk who ran around insisting that the Christmas tsunami of 2004 was in reprisal for abortion, and that God sent Katrina to drown poor black folk in order to wreck a gay street party scheduled for the next week; children, all of them. Yes. Children. And pathetic.
There is one distinction I wish I'd made in the original piece, and I'm a little bit surprised nobody has called me on it. I said that anti-intellectualism is a signature of Christian fundamentalism. Actually, it's the logical end of belief in The Fall; nominally, all Christians believe in The Fall, and all Christianity is -- again, nominally -- anti-intellectual.
Most, however, think about it too little to see that inevitable end of the story of The Fall, and most of those who do have too much sense to be influenced by it in their decision-making. I singled-out fundamentalists because they actually *do* take it seriously.
Bob
23 - Baritone
Bob - By "The Fall" I assume you mean man's fall from grace, eatin' the old apple?
Of course I find that to be as much baloney as everything else connected with religion. It is another devaluation of our worth; a means to instill in us a sense of inferiority and shame designed to keep us humbly in line.
You know what that is? It's doo doo. The notion of original sin is such crap. "Let's figure out a way to place our newborns behind the eight ball before they even dirty their first little diaper.
I know; we render them sinners fallen from god's grace from the get go right out of the old placenta. That'll pop their prideful balloons."
Yes, man's first attempt to put an explanation to all of the happenings around them that were otherwise a befuddlement was no doubt a god or gods. A belief in gods was man's first venture into what we now call science.
But most people who place a value on intelligence and cognitive thinking have left god behind, or at least rendered him (her,it) to a less all emcompassing role in our existence - a more disinterested presence, one that may have set all this in motion (ie - the "big bang," perhaps just for kicks, but has moved on to other more interesting endeavors. I would think such an entity would be profoundly bored by us and our trivial existence.
If not for the sake of an over blown ego what possible interest would an omnipotent and omniscient being have in our travails? Would it really need our groveling adoration to satisfy its need for aggrandizement? Such a notion is so ludicrous.
Personally, I don't believe in any of the above scenarios. Obviously, I can't say how all this began, as no one can at this juncture. But that does not put a god in the default position. It just means we haven't figured it out yet. Given enought time, opportunity, resources and desire, who knows, we may ultimately crack the code. If not, so be it.
24 - Christopher Rose
So he wasn't talking about one of the most exciting and original bands of all time, The Fall?
25 - Baronius
Baritone " I think you missed my point. I mentioned the architecture and astronomy of ancient cultures specifically. They’re useful sciences. Pre-monotheistic cultures did develop technological skills, but not systematic sciences. That step requires a belief that there is a system to the universe. As for the pre-Columbian civilizations, the Spaniards did bring disease to the peaceful heart-eating Aztecs. But you can’t really blame them for that. It was a few centuries before devout Catholic Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease.
If I’ve gone too far on a tangent here, it’s because I’m trying to both refute the original article and argue that the opposite is true.
Another tangent: Copernicus was a priest. Galileo wrote a book defending Copernicus and mocking the Pope. His trial had more to do with the enemies he made than any scientific theory he was espousing. Another tangent: you mention evolutionary science. While Darwin broke theoretical ground, the mechanics of heredity were discovered by Father Gregor Mendel.
By the way, what do you care if Catholic priests are celibate, and Catholic women aren’t priests?