I haven't mentioned the Clergy Letter Project or Evolution Sunday events before. They're nice ideas—it's an effort to get clergy to acknowledge good science, and encourage discussions about the subject on Darwin's birthday, this Sunday—but I have to admit it's rather orthogonal to my point of view. While I appreciate the sentiment and think it's a positive step on the road to reason, I prefer to cut to the chase and jettison all the old religious baggage altogether.
I may have to take a more positive view towards it, though, since I ran across this weird wingnut site (well, maybe not too weird…he fits in well with a lot of Christians.) The author is greatly incensed at the temerity of these radical pastors.
Beginning with the Bible, it is simply impossible to arrive at evolution.
I have to agree with him on that. I'd counter it by noting that beginning with the world, evolution is simply inevitable and inescapable.
These 10,200 pastors arrogantly or ignorantly deviate from Christian tradition and orthodoxy by claiming their opinions trump the thousands of years of tradition and the plain reading of the Bible. The relativistic language, "forms of truth," confirms that this is an appeal to pastors duped by the cultural influence of tolerance.
Heh. I've rarely seen anyone admit that they oppose tolerance, but there you go.
On the 197th anniversary of the birthday of Charles Darwin (February 12), 412 churches in 49 states will celebrate "Evolution Sunday." Created in the imagination of University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh professor Michael Zimmerman, "Evolution Sunday" celebrates the "harmony of evolutionary science and faith". Dismissing the Biblical accounts of creation as "beloved stories found in the Bible," and as, "a different order than scientific truth," Zimmerman and these churches proclaim that when science contradict the Bible, science wins.
Why, yes. Yes it does. The physical world does seem to trump religious delusions most effectively, doesn't it?
After reading that twisted rant, I find myself viewing Zimmerman's project much more charitably.
- Log in to post comments
I'm shocked by the admission that Christianity is intolerant. WOW!
Science does win because we have evidence on our side!
I think you hit the nail on the head. The ultimate divine revelation is not the first 5 books of the Bible (which are the only supposedly "word of God" ones in the first place). The ultimate revelation is the Creation.
"While I appreciate the sentiment and think it's a positive step on the road to reason, I prefer to cut to the chase and jettison all the old religious baggage altogether."
While, as a life long athiest, I agree, I think that many people need a segue between belief and the realization that we don't know exactly what is happening. Or, more to the point, that no one knows exactly what is happening.
I too appreciate the sentiment. I just can't get into it very much, that's all. Yes, I read about evangelicals also becoming concerned about global warming--fine. Good! But for me, I'm concerned about global warming because I'm concerned about the earth, not about how hurting the earth "hurts Jesus." It's the same with Evolution Sunday--wonderful. Great. But I'm still sleeping in late that morning.
Nice work at the "Urban Funk" show! I really enjoyed the dancing :). Hope your classes are going well, I miss neuro a lot but so far it's been a good semester. See ya!
But what about when the Bible contradicts the Bible..?
PZ:
I believe that you and I (and Mike Zimmerman, though I don't want to put words in his mouth) all agree 100% with Dawkins statement as quoted by the "wingnut".
HOWEVER, it is a matter of tactics.
DI has their Wedge document. We need to have an effective counter strategy - and we don't have one, so we must rely on short term, stop gap tactics.
I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma - the Buckle of the Bible Belt, as they say here. In the Yellow Pages section headed CHURCHES there are something like 4 to 5 THOUSAND entries. Many of these are Bible churches. They are literalists. There is nothing that can be done with them.
But, there are many old, established, traditional, mainstream Protestant groups that are amenable to the concept of separate magesteria (bow to SJG).
If you think that Dover was bad and Kansas is worse, note this: In Oklahoma there are now 3 (three) bills filed in the legislature (dueling Creationism) that would require that ID be taught in science classes. We need whatever support we can get to put pressure on the legislators to defeat those bills. If that means saying that Ev and Religion deal with different things, then that is the tactic we have to use.
Actually, it is even worse than that here. Even without a legal requirement to teach ID, many biology teachers already do that, and do NOT teach whatever Ev is presented in their textbooks. Can they be doing that without the knowledge and implicit consent of their school authorities?
Heh. I've rarely seen anyone admit that they oppose tolerance, but there you go.
I guess you've never heard Marlin Maddox in full voice. He has a radio show called "Point of View", which I won't attempt to describe. I happened to tune him in by accident one day when he was discussing tolerance, and made no bones about how Xians should have none of it. Totally reality impaired...
For many Christians, a "plain reading" of the Bible includes a recognition that a) the texts are historically-conditioned in their understanding of the natural world, and b) such historically-conditioned texts can still speak valuably, albeit figuratively, about God's nature and relations to the world and to people.
I don't wish to argue for that point in this forum, but come on, these are voting, tax-paying Christians who know that they're part of an ecosystem and care about science. I agree with PZ that these days, science-literate atheists and people of faith should be working together instead of picking the same old "religion is stupid, no atheists are stupid" scabs.
Me, too, for myself. For others, if and when they are interested.
Hmmm. What can no longer be understood literally must be understood allegorically -- as an important truth surrounded in metaphor. Seems workable, more or less.
Then I suspect you will take pleasure in viewing the rightwing papers and blogs over the next few days: you are going to see plenty of fundies having seizures in published print!
Might want to get some soda and popcorn....
I find it amusing that someone so obviously Protestant can talk about orthodoxy and not appreciate his/her own hypocrisy. Waitaminute, I forgot who we were talking about.
The head chaplain of my campus chapel isn't on the list, but then again he'll talk about evolution whenever he pleases, so I don't really mind.
It is the first time I see the intolerance mentioned as a value (or tolerance as an anti-value). However, after recovering from my surprise, I remembered that the word heresy comes from haireisthai which means "to choose" in ancient Greek. Being able to choose was also an anti-value for Christians.
One wonders how many of the Evolution Sunday churches and their congregations already accept evolution. My guess? If not all of them, then virtually all. The list for my own state reads like a menu of the far left of Christianity from the gay-bishop Episcopalians to the gays-in-commercials United Church of Christ to the not-really-a-church Sunday morning social club, the Unitarian-Universalist fellowships.
I don't see this as making much of a difference.
I think most Christians need to read a few books by Bart Ehrman. He is a historian who specializes in studying the origen of the books in the bible, and books that didn't make it into the bible. Fascinating reading.
But, back on topic, I am not quite a christian anymore, but rather more theistic. I must say that from a theistic point of view, Father Coyne's recent ideas do have merit if one must stay with christianity.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504
Actually, many self-described fundamentalists--such as Robertson and Dobson--have been condemning tolerance for many years. The justification cited is that tolerance undermines the truth of their delusional beliefs.
Can anybody track back the "tradition" of Biblical Literalism any further than the late 19th century? My impression is that it was, at least in part, a reaction to Darwin, and originating in the US. As far as I know, the correct word for it is not "Orthodoxy", but "Heresy".
As others have noted, it's very silly for these people to talk of "tradition" in the same breath as dismissing an allegorical reading of Genesis. The idea that the Bible has different kinds of truths (four of them, in fact) is at the very heart of mainstream Christian exegesis and goes back at least to Aquinas.
Ah, but the current batch of Christian fundamentalists are too ignorant to know that. It's their extremely wide-ranging ignorance which is the underlying problem.
BoingBoing reported about the hot new intolerance a while back. E.g., one reader described:
I was commenting on how much I liked Sesame Street, and one woman (a very vocal Christian conservative) said, "Oooh.. Sesame Street is too tolerant for me". To my horror, several other women nodded their heads in agreement. I guess I didn't even think there was such a thing as too tolerant.
I think the old buzzword with negative connotations was "permissive".
Tolerance and diversity have long been fought by certain religious groups as merely a way of devaluing right and wrong. "They want us to be accepting of sin!" goes the outraged complaint.
It's an incredibly popular sentiment among anti-gay groups.
All very interesting.
I put the link to the Clergy Letter Project on a evangelical christian blog and this is the reply I got: "Scrolling down through the list of clergy members signing this statement, I see the following repeatedly: United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Presbyterian Church-USA, Unitarianism, Unity Church, United Church of Christ. Most of these are mainline denominations well known for taking theologically liberal stances. We would not expect them to uphold the evangelical Christian position. Two of the "churches" mentioned--Unitarian and Unity--aren't even Christian by historic definition."
Speaking of clergy who don't necessarily hate science, PZ, did you see the story about the evangelical Christian pastors who decided to support action on global climate change?
They may not be doing it for the most scientific of reasons, but it's a positive development nonetheless, I think. They can still mobilize a lot of people (and hopefully their "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign against SUVs will have an impact).
This response is a bit long. My apologies. I will try to keep anything else I write on this topic much shorter.
Samnell wrote:
Undoubtedly 400 churches (or so) is a tiny percentage of all the churches in the United States. Undoubtedly, the good majority of these churches are fairly left of center. As for the 10,000 clergy, I suspect most are left of center, although by a smaller degree.
However, the 400 churches will bring attention to the 10,000 clergy -- which is a considerably longer list than that of "scientists who doubt Darwin" or even "Project Steve." It demonstrates that not all Christians march under the banner of Fundamentalism when it comes to the issue of evolution vs. creationism, despite repeated attempts by the other side to make this a "simple, clear issue" of atheism (which the majority of americans have difficulty identifying with) vs the belief in God (which they tend to find more sympathetic). I suspect that a fairly large percentage of clergy don't agree with creationism, but their congregations? The polls I have seen suggest that even among Democrats, creationism (or at least the thought that creationism should be taught alongside evolution) is quite common.
In any case, I too seriously doubt that this will change things overnight -- but I certainly believe that it undercuts the case for the argument that this is simply "God-fearing creationism" vs. "atheistic evolutionism."
In one essay I have written ("A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents"), I finish my description of the proponents of intelligent design with the following:
Then I contrast them with what I personally think of as the "Enlightenment Christians":
The point is to get people to understand that those who are actually advocating the teaching of creationism or creationist criticism of (propaganda against) evolution are extremists, to show that they do not speak for all Christians, and that by giving-in to them one will be violating the rights of other Christians, at least on this particular front.
In my view, it is always easier for a small minority to argue in the defense of their rights by arguing for the abstract principle of justice, showing that the rights of many others (besides themselves) will be violated if their own rights are violated, especially if the others whose rights will be violated are people who large parts of the population more easily identify with. (Not a particularly pretty aspect of human psychology, but it deserves recognition.) As such, this emphasis upon rights and justice, even for those who are religious but pro-evolution, helps to make the issue not simply one of reason for our side, but of passion, too -- and in a way that makes it easier for broader parts of the population to "understand."
Karl said in Oklahoma many biology teachers teach ID instead of evolution. I'm sure there are other states with the same problem. Teachers will avoid evolution either because they don't believe in it or because they don't want to get complaints from the christian parents. It doesn't matter anyway because the christian students are already hopelessly brainwashed before they get in high school.
As an atheist myself, I have no problem with Christians promoting evolution as being compatible with their beliefs. In fact I would encourage it, even though I believe it does contradict much of what it is the bible.
The reason? I have yet to come across a religious fundamentalist who believes in evolution. Atheists are in agreement with these fundamentalists in that when you accept evolution then you are more open to the questioning of other tenets of your faith. That is what the fundamentalists fear, and what gives atheists hope.
Of course, belief in evolution doesn't always get you all the way there. The Catholic Church still clings to some very ancare and harmful doctrines (condom use for one) but even so, many in the Catholic laity and even in the rank-and-file priesthood are more open to change than the leadership.
We may be fighting the ID wedge, but the fundamentalist fear the wedge of evolution much more.
There is no seperate magesteria. One is the world as it is and the explainations that go with it, the other is not. There is no overlap.
This man speaks the truth.
This is again exactly correct. It is absurd to think of Genesis as allegory, you can but to me it seems a dishonest attempt to rationalize a childhood belief in a text with the world as it really is.
A more honest answer is simply to say that is how the people of that day/age thought the world was created. In this day we know better. But people for whatever reason have to hold the bible out as infallible. In essense it makes the fundies liars for refusing to accept science and those who bend and twist an obvious story taken for millenia as an origin theory equally so.
To bash fundies for their science stance is one thing, but their take on Genesis is correct.
One has to ask why? Whats wrong with honesty? Wouldn't God approve of that more?
CGM wrote:
If I had to locate myself somewhere in the space of religious belief, while sometimes refering to myself as a quasi-Spinozist, technically, I suppose it would be correct to refer to myself as a pantheist -- who believes in an impersonal god which is nothing more or less than the unitary, lawful nature of existence. This has been my position since I was thirteen. But sometimes it is just easier to call myself an atheist -- some religious people find this less confusing. But it is a position which some non-religious people have difficulty with as well.
CGM wrote:
From what I know of him, I am fond of Father Coyne, as well as Ken Miller and Reverend Barry Lynn (founder of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State), and I am also rather fond of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. A bit of an odd combo, I suppose. Then again, I am fond of both Winston Churchill and George Orwell, so what do you expect?
A question for the sake of argument: What is there in this ineffable entity called God that which would preclude such a deity from manifesting via Evolution? Anyone? If the Bible is inerrant it queers the pitch so sharply that the sine qua non of the religion (Yahweh-God) has no elbow room at all. God cannot be different from my understanding of God: the bible tells me so. Methinks their concepts come with straps, to bind their creator and keep in captivity their proclaimed beloved.
In the poetic game of "as if" Christianists can only see the lines and none of the grass.
+++
I don't take seriously any bible literalists who still has their right eye; I can't believe that it's never, ever offended them. Unless, of course, they keep it closed much of the time, but that would really wreak havoc with their depth perception. Though it does seem that they all go about their lives with both eyes closed, doesn't it? Perhaps I need to rethink my position...
Hello again, Timothy.
"The point is to get people to understand that those who are actually advocating the teaching of creationism or creationist criticism of (propaganda against) evolution are extremists, to show that they do not speak for all Christians, and that by giving-in to them one will be violating the rights of other Christians, at least on this particular front."
This is what I'm getting at. I understand the goal of the exercise. But given the fairly liberal stances of the churches in question, one would imagine the average parishioner therein is already of such an opinion or something comparable to it. It's not a bad thing. It just strikes me as superfluous.
These are two seperate thoughts. They are not on the extremes of the religion. But they do not speak for all Christians.
No, and deism and other religions do just that.
MJS:
"A question for the sake of argument: What is there in this ineffable entity called God that which would preclude such a deity from manifesting via Evolution? Anyone? If the Bible is inerrant it queers the pitch so sharply that the sine qua non of the religion (Yahweh-God) has no elbow room at all. God cannot be different from my understanding of God: the bible tells me so. Methinks their concepts come with straps, to bind their creator and keep in captivity their proclaimed beloved. "
Very good point. If God is who He says he is, why should we be surprised that there is more to Him than we think there is?
It always strikes me as amusing when an atheist supporter of evolution is perfectly willing to accept a creationist's arguments that the Bible and evolution are incompatible. I mean, when a creationist makes such obvious mistakes about science and evolution (as they pretty much universally do), it seems to me that their claims on theology should be similarly suspect.
Which is not, of course, to say that they actually are wrong about that, of course.
For this unbiased, completely objective, audience, a question:
Is it inconsistent to suggest that intelligent design should NOT be taught in science class but evolution SHOULD be taught in church?
Samnell wrote:
No problem.
Off the top of my head:
First, when you state, "one would imagine the average parishioner therein is already of such an opinion or something comparable to it," I have to wonder, as polls suggest that, "... even among Democrats, creationism (or at least the thought that creationism should be taught alongside evolution) is quite common." So in this respect, it certainly isn't superfluous. However, at this level it is still quite insignificant given that only 400+ churches are involved.
Second, the fact that 400+ churches are involved in this event should bring a fair amount of publicity to the 10,000+ clergy who have personally signed a letter stating that they regard evolution as foundational to modern science. This is far more individuals than those who are either a part of the Project Steve or "Scientists Who Doubt Darwin." Of course, by itself, this would simply mean some sort of appeal to authority.
However, writers on the creationist side realize that the good majority of Americans regard themselves as Christians, and therefore, these writers continually try to reframe evolution vs. creationism as atheism vs. religion, arguing as if to be a "good Christian," one must necessarily support creationism. This publicity stunt (and this. is largely what this is) greatly undercuts their argument. Additionally, it gives us something fairly monumental to point to as needed in order to refute the view that all good Christians support creationism, and that the argument between supporters of evolutionary biology and supporters of creationsim is essentially a religious one between atheists and theists.
Third, even for people who are not parishoners of the churches which are involved, it should get them to take a second look at the issue of evolution vs. creationism. They may very well wonder why there are so many clergy who are convinced that the case for evolution is scientific, and that there is essentially no case whatsoever for creationism.
Fourth, it calls attention to the fact that by bringing religion into the classrooms under the guise of intelligent design, one violates not only the rights of atheists, but the rights of theists who believe that their belief in God is and should be a matter of faith. (Incidentally, this is a fairly traditional view that many Christians who support bringing creationism into the classrooms probably still believe, but seem to have forgotten when they lend their support to the teaching of creationism.)
Fifth, it gives those who are non-religious the ability to point to people whose rights would also be violated by the introduction of intelligent design, people who the good majority of americans are likely to find more sympathetic -- simply given their own religious beliefs and the fact that those religious beliefs are largely shared by those involved in this exercise. (Of course, they shouldn't have to point to anyone else whose rights are being violated, but I believe the need is a political reality.)
'creationist's arguments that the Bible and evolution are incompatible'
They aren't unless one pretends a fellow in a cave 6000 years ago knew more than our modern science offers. Even allegorically.
PS to response to Samnell...
Sixth, it illustrates the principle of religious interpretation that when a literal interpretation is no longer possible, one should resort to an allegorical interpretation. Religion should adapt in the face of advancing scientific knowledge.
Samnell:
We beg to differ.
- Rieux (UU, atheist, and proud of both)
JimC wrote:
Allegorical interpretation is best based upon and best illustrates an understanding of the human condition and the presumed relationship between the creator, the creation, and the individual as the individual stands in relationship to the creator and the creation. These, presumably, are left more or less untouched by the advance of scientific knowledge. However, this is a matter in which I have neither the expertise or inclination to go into any further -- as I am not religious.
Correction (sorry -- odd formatting issue)
JimC quoted:
JimC then responded:
Allegorical interpretation is best based upon and best illustrates an understanding of the human condition and the presumed relationship between the creator, the creation, and the individual as the individual stands in relationship to the creator and the creation. These, presumably, are left more or less untouched by the advance of scientific knowledge. However, this is a matter in which I have neither the expertise or inclination to go into any further -- as I am not religious.
Hmm.... I'd like to attend one of these Evolution Sundays. The site has a list of what churches/priests have signed onto it, but the churches' sites don't mention it anywhere...
Stop tarring all Christians with the spittle of ignorant, fundamentalists. They are heretics - plain and simple.
PZ you are unfamiliar with progressive Christians because we don't bring religion into the discussion. We don't try to change the way people think. We believe in freedom of thought and religion and act accordingly.
You are also completely ignorant of several hundred years of Biblical scholarship. No one with half a brain in the Christian community reads the Bible literally. The message of Genesis one is that "God" is the force of creativity. The natural world is "good" and we are like God when we are creative.
The "truth" of the second creation story is that people begin life innocent and pure, naked as little children. But as they grow up, the learn the difference between good and evil, discover shame and must eventually move out into the world and work by the sweat of their brows and give birth in pain and make their way in the world.
You gotta problem with that truth? It's mythology and there is no good reason to jettison it for science. What for?
Side note to commentor who derided recent evangelical call to work on global warming: they didn't do it because it hurts baby Jesus. They did it because they believe that global warming will effect the poor disproportionately - and despite the jackasses you see on tv - evangelicals have a long history of caring for the poor.
You guys are completely ignorant of contemporary, progressive Christianity and centuries of Biblical scholarship. As academics, you wouldn't accept comparable ignorance from your students. Try Googling the "Jefferson Bible" and read what TJ has to say about the Bible - and that was over 200 years ago.
Hi again, Timothy,
Your points are good ones. The combination of publicity stunt, church activism, and the drop of water in the sea of American Christianity is what's turning me off here. No amount of pointing at Ken Miller has dramatically moved the public, moderate or otherwise, on evolution. I can't see this as any different.
"No one with half a brain in the Christian community reads the Bible literally."
Can I quote you on that? I don't know many denominations within Christianity who, for example, consider the Resurrection a neat allegory that never happened. On the contrary, my experience is that most Christian denominations consider belief in a physical resurrection absolutely mandatory.
There are certainly theologians who disagree, but how much of this theology, how much of the learning you fault PZ for not being up on, is actually communicated to the flock? My experience even with members of fairly liberal denominations has been that it's about zero. "It's ok not to take things literally, if you really want to," seems to be as aggressive as it gets on the front.
For all I can tell, your average Christian knows about as much about theology as they do about quantum mechanics.
I disagree that the language of the Bible does not represent evolution. If taken in the original meaning of the words, it clearly has no other explanation other than evolution. The ancients did not have an equivalent word for "evolution" but they used their language to explain a concept that is essentially the same. A complete explanation is available at:
http://www.stochasticism.org/creation.htm
But as they grow up, the(y) learn the difference between good and evil, discover shame...
Because shame is something their Volcano God left lying about for them to partake of? Shame, as a given, the shame of their own bodies, which were created by their God? Too many (according to me, arbiter of all that is fair and good) Christianist arguments end with some self-negating, self-debasing and self-abusing bizarre judgement, and all of it based upon the writings of Semitic temple priest from over twenty-four hundred years ago (roughly). It is a freakish religion, one that inherits the brutish tribalism of hunter-gatherers and then morphs it into the Dionysian/Mithraic "dying and resurrected god" myths, and then two thousand years later its latest adherents ashcan the Prince of Peace for the Pope of Paranoia. Do True Believers know the building blocks of their own beliefs, the history that cobbled their sacred works, the precedents, the various inflections of the universal themes of the Hero's Journey?
The reference to a Volcano God comes from Freud's speculation about the early Hebraic creation stories, and of a Midianite Volcano cult (complete with a hot-hot-hot deity) who Freud thought was probably the nascent Yahweh, an angry and irrational monster who killed and blah-blah-blah. I myself would be embarassed to be tugging at God's cloak all the time, asking for favors, asking for guidance, asking for spare change: give him a break, for savior's sake. And insisting that a literal deity, the one and only true god, had a special relationship with one particular Middle Eastern tribe, over and above all others: please, it's over. Those who will kill the god will be those who claim him. And they're doing a terrific job of it. You want shame? Start there.
+++
Samnell wrote:
Well, I agree about the "drop in the bucket" -- that is why I immediately criticized it myself. As for the "publicity stunt" aspect, you have to have something to get people's attention, and last I checked, setting someone on fire is illegal. But I tend to put things in ascending order. However, if you or anyone else here has an alternative (which, incidentally, doesn't involve alienating more than nine tenths of America), I would certainly be interested. What exactly would you offer that could have as positive and as great of an effect as Zimmerman's project -- other than trials like Kitzmiller vs. Dover (which I also hold in great esteem)?
No, I kind of doubt that Ken Miller has dramatically moved the public into the pro-evolution camp. But I figure he has had an effect, and that it has been a positive one. Likewise, I have little doubt that when someone rants against Christianity or religion in general (and no, I most certainly am not thinking of you), this has an effect, too, although I somewhat doubt that it is at all positive. The funny thing about history (past or future) is that we are dealing with a very complex system, and it is oftentimes very difficult to identify exactly what caused what, or the relative weights of various causal factors.
At the same time, there are principles of human psychology and principles of human action. For example, complementary schismogenesis is a very common phenomena in human action, at the level of a married couple, in a neighborhood, an intellectual movement, a nation, between nations, or even between civilizations.
There are those who define themselves not in terms of what they are for, but in terms of who they are against, and beyond a certain point, their opposition is all that matters to them. Those who show that moderation and cooperation is possible between two seemingly-opposing camps, that there is another way, stand in the way of that which such extremists desire: the destruction of those who they are against, those who they define themselves in opposition to, whatever the cost.
Anyway, it has been a long day.
Take care.