Evolution is in danger of becoming extinct. It ceases to be science, and instead becomes a rallying point for fundamentalist dogma.
The New York Times today published a series of letters to the editor regarding the ongoing debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools. The obvious hostility in some of the letters was as astounding as the hypocrisy.
There are many people who do not believe in God, or, to put it another way, they believe that God does not exist. Is that a testable idea? Do atheists have libraries of data, or even a single verifiable fact? No.
Fundamentalism is dangerous. But fundamentalism is not confined to established religions. You see, there is such a thing as secular fundamentalism: that is, the belief that religion is fraud and that all people of faith are either sadly duped morons or have willfully deceived themselves. The very things that secularists despise most about religious fundamentalists -- arrogance, self-righteousness, judgmental attitudes and a stubborn unwillingness to consider new ideas -- are their own hallmarks.
One letter in today's Times lamented "this sad turn toward anti-intellectualism that is infecting our educational system." You know the nation is in trouble when a presidential candidate can be accused of being a member of the "intellectual elite" and vast swaths of America nod their collective heads, instead of laughing uncontrollably. I mean, of all the jobs in the world for an "intellectual" to have, don't you think President of the United States is a good one? Without an intellectual in charge, you get food on your family and increasing amounts of imports coming from overseas.
The cause of anti-intellectualism is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the fear of new ideas. People who have been "educated" with a narrow, highly-selective range of information and indoctrinated into belief systems of incontrovertible truths are easily manipulated. It is not a coincidence that the Republican party leadership, increasingly indistinguishable from radical religious fundamentalists, dismisses even the most timid questions about policy as "un-patriotic." In America, patriotism is becoming orthodoxy, as evidenced by the recent "filibuster against faith" nonsense.
The result is that radical secularists become even more entrenched in their "religion = bad" beliefs. Secular fundamentalists are every bit as paranoid that their children might be exposed to ideas that would lead them to become Baptists as Baptists are that their children might become Unitarian.
Secularists are often so ignorant of religious beliefs and ideas that they make outrageous statements like this letter writer: "Buried in the faulty rhetoric of intelligent design theory is the presumption that the human mind should be able to comprehend everything about the world." Actually, just the opposite: science seeks to provide an explanation for all things, while proponents of intelligent design are comfortable with the idea that some things are beyond knowing or explaining.
Religion should be taught in the public schools. Secular fundamentalists who would decry this as a form of Constitutional heresy aren't any more enlightened than religious fundamentalists who deprive their children of basic information about sex and sexuality. I can guarantee that Jesus never said, “Blessed are the willfully ignorant.”
There is a way, believe it or not, to teach religion without preaching or proselytizing. You just do it the same way you'd teach a philosophy course. Make students read a little of this, a little of that, have an in-class discussion, assign a paper. Done. Sure, those discussions might get a little heated. But honestly, what is wrong with that? America was founded as a place for people to discuss various ideas.
When a teacher or professor assigns Macchiavelli or Adam Smith or Hobbes, no one expects everyone in the class to agree with the material. Some students will strongly identify with it, and others will reject it wholesale. Most will be somewhere in between. But that open exchange of ideas is a component that has all but been eradicated from American public education, as we strive to water down the curriculum to appease the P.C. police and get students to pass the standardized tests. I'm all for standardized testing as a general diagnostic, but life is not a standardized test.
Just as secularists think religious people should study science, secularists should study religion. The Bible is, after all, the most widely read book in the history of mankind. Some people might scoff at anyone who hasn’t read Virginia Woolf, but they think people who are wholly ignorant of religion have made good use of their time. You cannot hope to understand western art, culture and history in any substantive way unless you also understand the role that religion has played. You don’t have to believe it, but you’ve got to understand it.
Having an understanding of and appreciation for religion is also a crucial skill in today’s ever-shrinking world. There are no permanent or long-term or even temporarily tenable solutions to ancient conflicts in the middle east and south Asia to be found that aren’t sensitive to the religious needs of the cultures involved.
In order to solve the great problems facing our planet, we have all got to be open to new ideas. That’s a lesson fundamentalists of every stripe are reluctant to learn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"There are many people who do not believe in God, or, to put it another way, they believe that God does not exist. Is that a testable idea? Do atheists have libraries of data, or even a single verifiable fact? No."
With all due respect, I think that you, as well as many other religious people, miss the point about secularism/atheism. And on the flip side, I think it is secularists/atheists who actually understand religion more than we're given credit for.
We're not dealing with two different sets of belief systems here, or two versions of faith. Yes, religion requires faith. I understand that. It requires faith, for one thing, because there is a severe lack of evidence for many of its far-out ideas and mythology. Fine, I understand that.
But I do not go along with it.
The big thing about atheism/secularism is a lack of faith. The ability to have faith, not some sort of quibble over 'belief' or fundamentalism, is key.
Let's say that I told you a bunch of dragons on the planet Rigel 7 controlled the universe and, indeed, our lives here on earth. A secularist's reaction would be: "Show me proof that these dragons and, indeed, their planet, exist. Until then, I can't believe this." The religious person's answer would be, "Yes, Dear Dragons, we worship thee. What happens to us here is your doing. You love us so."
I use this as an example, because to those of who are secularists/atheists, it is just has hard to believe in dragons on Rigel 7 as it is to believe is a supreme being out there somewhere in this vast universe who manages our existence here on earth (or beyond). Not without evidence.
And, having things occur which we can't explain does not constitute evidence of religious belief. That's one thing that irks me the most when someone who's religious will point to certain unexplained things, and then proceed to explain them, as either miracles, or 'proof' of God's existence, etc.) I mean, if it's unexplained, then it's unexplained, right?
So, when you say that secularists, etc. don't have libraries to prove that God doesn't exist, you're absolutely right. But then again, you don't have proof that dragons on Rigel 7 don't exist, either.
The big difference here is that a person's belief in the dragons on Rigel 7 is harmless, whereas people's faith in religion has proven not to be. Religion continues to have itself foisted upon those of us who do not have faith, to the point where it is becoming deafening.
Religion - any religion - for which there is no proof or evidence for, btw - has been used to wage wars, construct social policy, imprison people, and a whole host of other things.
Well, Matthew in several respects you've missed my points. First of all, the reference to libraries of data and verifiable facts comes straight out of one of the Times letters, which used this particular statement to argue that because religious beliefs are not testable in a laboratory sense, they are somehow inferior to scholarly work like evolution.
Point number one is that secularists believe there is no God or other divinity, despite a total lack of evidence to support their position; yet you justify atheism because I have no evidence to support my beliefs. Bottom line: we both hold beliefs for which there is no "scientific" evidence.
But then, if the existence of God could be "proven" somehow, it would utterly negate the need for faith, then, wouldn't it? I mean, that is the essence of religion, to have courage to believe in the untangible. As Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."
Secondly, I charge that there is in fact widespread irrational fear of and discrimination against religious people by secularists. When you say that crimes have been committed in the name of religion, true as it certainly is, you're implying that religion is a negative influence on society. Because of their association with the current criminal regime in the White House, "faith-based" organizations have gotten a bad rap. But you know, you're really closing your eyes to reality if you ignore the incredible charity work that is done by people of all faiths across the globe; religion can be perverted for evil purposes, to be sure, but just look at all the religious-based organizations out there that sponsore medical care, counseling, housing, education, legal advocacy, etc. By ignoring the good work that people of faith do and concentrating on those that are corrupt, you follow exactly the same line of thinking that leads to racism and other forms of discrimination. Secularists like to think of themselves as enlightened, but they often fall prey to the same narrow, ill-founded assumptions as the people they most like to criticize.
Ok, Andy...
Once again, let me reiterate that I understand the whole faith thing.
Second, atheists aren't so much holding a belief as they are simply unwilling to have a belief in something of which there is no proof. The only way to really satiate you would be for me to be painted into what I call The Agnostic Trap, which basically means that anything which can not be disproven must be given the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't matter if it's God, or my Dragons of Rigel 7. We can literally throw out hundreds of things which can not be disproven, and then scold people for not believing in them.
How about this: I am unwilling to say that God (or a God) exists, because there has been no evidence brought forth of his existence. Now, I won't say that He doesn't exist, but I won't have faith that He does, either. There... you've painted me into the Agnostic Trap.
As for what I said regarding the evils which religious faith has wrought, you missed my point there (I think). Yes, religious works have done much good in this world, but what I was trying to say was that it is preposterous to construct entire societal law upon wisps of something which can't be proven (i.e. religion). I mean, much of the legal inequality which you and I face because we're gay is based in part of people's beliefs in religions which can not be proven.
Given that, I find it odd that you're attacking atheists.
I don't think the issue is religious fundamentalists vs. atheists; I think it's religious fundamentalists versus those who believe in science. A belief in science does not in and of itself preclude a belief in God.
That said, I think fundamentalists have the burden of proving their beliefs, simply because their beliefs are so very specific. Scientists have disproven so many fundamentalist beliefs - the sun does not revolve around the earth, geological history is much longer than 6,000 years -whereas fundamentalists have not disproven atheism.
Is the essence of religion really to have courage to believe in the intangible? In my opinion, religion came about because most people need something to explain why they're here.
Still, while I largely agree with Matthew, it's not just religion that "has been used to wage wars, construct social policy, imprison people, and a whole host of other things." Soviet Communism was responsible for these things as well, while being largely anti-religious.
As Homer Simpson said of alcohol, religion is "the cause of, and the solution to, all of life's problems."
No, no, no. You're both still totally missing the thrust of my argument. I'm not criticising secularism or atheism at all. I'm pointing out that there are hysterical atheists out there who are every bit as irrational as their ideological opposites. Did I say all secular people or agnostics? The touchstone for all this is the non-debate of evolution vs. intelligent design. I.D. accepts that evolution exists and occurs; those of us in the I.D. camp feel that evolution is harmonious with our religious beliefs, and the fact that the very nature of our existence is so perfect and so miraculous seems -- to us, at least -- to more than imply the presence of a master creator. Evolution and I.D. are not 'rival' theories. Does intelligent design need to be taught in schools? No way! Students of faith will probably reach this conclusion on their own, as I did. But secular fundamentalists need to stop freaking out over the mere suggestion that our existence is not the result of an incalculable number of lucky coincidences.
OK. I get your point that there are extremists of both religious and non-religious types.
But while I think it's possible to believe in both God and evolution, I don't think intelligent design is compatible with evolution, unless we have different notions of the meaning of "intelligent design." Evolution says that change occurs because one particular mutation is better to a particular environment than another mutation, and I don't see how ID is compatible with this, unless you're saying that God is micromanaging the occurrence of those particular environmental/genetic matchups. but in that case I don't think the concept does very much work.
And I don't think our humanity is the pinnacle of evolution or was preordained, so I guess we disagree there.
And I haven't read this yet, but in this week's New Yorker (just released today, in fact) there's a piece about intelligent design. Maybe it will be relevant.
I will concede that IDers see evolution as part of "the plan," and not just "survival of the fittest," where a genetically superior organism wins out. But intelligent design is not at odds with science; we just have a slightly different take on what the data is saying. It's a far, far cry from the Creationists, who believe that the world was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago and there's not a creature alive today that wasn't alive in its present form then. That's a little scary. And personally, since Jesus didn't go around quizzing people on creation theory, I find the whole discussion utterly irrelevant in matters of faith. He was far more concerned -- no, let me revise that -- EXCLUSIVELY concerned with how we treat our fellow man.
Also, Matthew: re the "agnostic trap," I don't think anything I wrote implies that you have to give one idea or another the benefit of the doubt. In my mind, you are absolutely free to be agnostic or atheist or whatever. It's just that so many atheists utterly fail to recognize the irony of their own unsubstantiated beliefs. Don't take all this so personally, sweetie. I'm talking about people on both sides who've got such ideological blinders on that they willingly ignore the obvious. I don't think you fall into that camp.
i think that something important to understand about science is that while a few seriously undereducated science educators may cling to science with blind faith, that's incredibly unhealthy. To my mind, the whole point of science is to doubt everything you think you believe, even if you think it's been proven. This is why there aren't really any scientific "facts" per se about large issues. While it's clear what a cell is and how they reproduce, gravity is still a theory (no one has seen it; you can't really prove anything "true" but you can certainly prove something "false").
Nothing is more exciting for a scientist than the time when her most cherishly held theories are proven wrong. It is this mindset that evangelicals lack, to my mind. Tell an evangelical protestant that Jesus loves gays and doesn't think gay sex is a sin and you won't get very far. Tell a scientist you have a better theory than gravity and you'll pique her interest.
That's a big difference.
I'm not talking about scientists or science, I'm talking about secular people who are so rabid in their distaste for religion that they fail to recognize their own irrational fanatacism.
The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. So is with Intelligent Design, The Seeded Planet Theory, and Creationism. If God, or any other being, created the world, universe, multiverse, he had to do it according to scientific law. But what is scientific law? The Theory of Relativity is still just a theory, and I think it, along with Newton's Laws, Einsteins work on the limitations of the speed of light, and Evolution will all fall prey to man's(mankinds) incessant hunger for TRUTH. We all want to find the end of knowledge, to know everthing there is to know. Some among us will keep searching, experimenting, testing, until we have achieved, what we believe, to be ultimate truth. The point of that was to say that from a certain point of view, athiests have as much faith as those who believe in divine guidance. All the science we know and believe in is constantly being changed as we understand our world, our bodies, the universe better and better. So whether you trust an omnicient being to guide you, or a bunch of men who tell you that they have "proven" this theory or that theory, you are still acting on faith.
With that in mind I submit that anyone who is unable to identify with a different ideology, whatever it is, is a fundamentalist of their paticular brand of religion/science and therefore, as far as their fundamentalism is concerned, irrational.
Well, I think we have to be very careful with our words here. Evolution is much more than just a theory; it's based on decades of serious research. Genetic studies prove human migration patterns and our relationships to apes and other mammals, etc.
What IS just a theory is "natural selection." Darwinists and Intelligent Designers look at the same set of facts -- and I mean facts -- but we reach different conclusions. Darwinism says evolution has no goal, no purpose, just that one genetic mutation has a natural advantage over others and becomes dominant, etc. They are comfortable with the idea that the world we live in is the result of a series of fantastic coincidences beginning with a completely random origin of the universe. People like myself look at the way life has evolved, and find it a reasonable assumption that the hand of God has been right there all along.
I mean, science can tell you "how," but it can never tell you why. Darwinists believe there is no "why." I say otherwise. But this is where the discussion stops being scientific. And that's fine. That's why this particular issue has no place in a science class.
The threat to Creationists is not only the timetable, but the idea that if we are "evolving," that life was not "perfect" at Creation. Nonsense. God's work is always perfect. That doesn't mean it doesn't change.
re: bohica
You're actually quite incorrect. Evolution is a "scientific theory," Creationism and Intelligent Design are theories in the sense that "I think I might win the lottery today" is a theory. It's a theory, but it's not necessarily supported by all or most of the facts, scientifically speaking.
Gravity is a scientific theory (you can't prove it, after all, since you can't see it or touch it) but ID is really just an idea which hasn't been thought through with a decent amount of scientifc rigor.
JWC, on the contrary, Intelligent Design is absolutely fact-based. ID'ers do not dispute the available scientific evidence; in fact, we think it strengthens our positions.
You are confusing the research on evolution with evidence of Natural Selection. Natural Selection is no more scientifically valid than Intelligent Design; both rely on exactly the same data, they just disagree on whether the data results from absolutely random mutations or whether said mutations are guided by Higher Purpose.
Intelligent Design is not at all the same thing as Creationism, which is religion which remains defiant in the face of overwhelming scholarship and evidence.
Also I think your analogy comparing religious beliefs to the wishful thinking of gamblers is perhaps a *tad* insensitive.
Post a Comment