Conservative Christians, such as those among whom Frank Schaeffer used to operate (see previous entry), claim that the Bible is the supreme source of authority. But this is not really the case at all. I will explain three ways in which this is so.
First, there is no clear “revelation from God” as to which books should be included within the New Testament “canon.” For centuries after Jesus, there was dispute among different factions concerning which books should be included. “The New Testament” consists of 27 books that one of these factions eventually chose for inclusion. But even in this faction, which eventually became “The Church,” there was a little disagreement. The first list that has all 27 books, and only those books, that was “universally” accepted was the list prepared by Athanasius in 327 CE. Athanasius was one of the men chosen by Emperor Constantine to help resolve disputes within the church that Constantine had joined and which became the official religion of the Roman Empire. (See Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted for more information.) Therefore, the authority of this list largely depends on the authority of Constantine. While he was far from being the worst Roman emperor, he was by no means someone who would be considered godly by today’s self-appointed Christian leaders. For example he had his wife Fausta and his son Crispus executed as political opponents. Before he was emperor he had vanquished Frankish kings and troops fed to beasts as entertainment. He had the decomposing body of a challenger, Maxentius, fished out of the Tiber and decapitated, and then had the head sent to Carthage. At about the same time that he was building the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he also built a pagan monument, the Arch of Constantine. He was not baptized until just before he died. Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” but the life of Constantine was not particularly holy—not enough to give him the authority to have established by decree which books should be in the New Testament. So conservative Christians apparently accept Constantine as the supreme authority, since he (as Emperor) determined the canon.
Second, there is no clear “revelation from God” as to which exact wording should be accepted for the canonical books. There are several versions of each of the New Testament books, and it is not clear which, if any, is original. It is difficult to believe in “the exact words of Jesus” when the gospels that are in the Bible today, and the ancient variations of those gospels, contain words that are not exactly the same. Many fundamentalists solve the problem by simply declaring that the 1611 King James Version is the true Bible. What about all of those years before King James? Well, I guess those people had no hope of being Bible-believing Christians. King James I was not a particularly bad king, but he was not someone whom modern conservatives would consider to be a good one either. He initiated the first formal series of witch hunts in Scotland. Conservative Christians believe his version of the Bible but not, apparently, his book Daemonologie. Perhaps most astonishingly, conservative Christians embrace his version of the Bible yet overlook the clear possibility of King James’ homosexual relationships. Conservative Christians consider homosexuality to be the worst thing in the world, worse even than murder and torture and rape. There were rumors throughout James’ life of his affairs with male courtiers such as Esmé Stewart, later Duke of Lennox; Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset; and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. A restoration of one of James’ palaces in 2004-2008 revealed a previously secret passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers. Perhaps, to conservative Christians, James’ homosexuality is made up for by his affair with Anne Murray (not the singer, but Lady Glamis). King James was most likely a practitioner of a lifestyle that conservative Christians consider most despicable, yet they base their faith on the Bible translation that he commissioned. James’ express purpose in having this translation done was to establish the divine right of kings. James was particularly bothered by egalitarian Presbyterians; he said of them, as I recall reading someplace, that “every Tom, Dick, and Harry tell me and my council what to do.”
[But you have to grant that King James got one thing right. He considered smoking to be morally bad and unhealthy. Here is a quote from a treatise he wrote in 1604: “Have you not reason then to be ashamed and to forbear this filthy novelty, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossly mistaken in the right use thereof. In your abuse thereof sinning against God harming yourselves both in person and goods, and raking also thereby the marks and notes of vanity upon you by the custom thereof making yourselves to be wondered at by all foreign civil nations and by all strangers that come among you to be scorned and held in contemp; a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.”]
Third, there is no clear guide as to how the Bible should be interpreted. Each conservative Christian leader considers himself or herself to be the ultimate authority on how to interpret them. I do not have time here to mention the numerous ethical offenses of leading Christian Right preachers of the present day.
If we are to accept Constantine, or King James, or Christian preachers as authorities for what to believe about the Bible, then their lives should (as Jesus said) be exemplary. They were not and are not. Instead, Christian preachers merely enforce their own preferences about the Bible by sheer force—the cannons of canonicity.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Church of Hopeful Uncertainty: A Message from Frank Schaeffer
In the 1970s and 1980s, Francis Schaeffer was an iconic figure among evangelical Christians. He popularized the intellectual underpinnings of religious and political conservatism. Perhaps his principal sidekick was his son Franky, who wrote his own books, including one that defends capitalism as the Christian system by which the world should run. Franky now goes by Frank and visited Tulsa yesterday to tell us about the changes that have emerged in his thinking since the 1980s. He is now appalled at the monster that political evangelical Christianity created.
Schaeffer and many others describe the political right, today, as the American Taliban. It is no joke. The religious right does not want democracy; they want to establish a religious dictatorship, and they are accumulating caches of weapons to do so. Polls repeatedly show that a large minority of Americans actually believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. There is no more opportunity for dialogue or compromise with this position than it is possible to have meaningful compromise with Al Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban. Schaeffer pointed out that the conservatives among whom he grew up, such as his father and William F. Buckley, would not recognize the monstrous form of conservatism that now dominates the political scene. Schaeffer said that Barack Obama represents our last and best hope to avoid a religious dictatorship in the United States; if his presidency fails, a religious dictatorship is nearly certain. The motivation of the religious right is not godliness—an astonishingly large number of the leaders of the religious right lead immoral lives—but power, and they have no more esteem for truth than they do for godliness. He also pointed out that conservative leaders would publically talk about Christianity but in secret they would laugh at the Christians who played into their hands. Schaeffer changed his views when he realized that he would not want to live in the world he was trying to create, and that the secularists whom he publicly opposed were better people, personally and morally, than the leaders of the religious right. Schaeffer said that if Obama fails, this nation is screwed for the next hundred years.
Schaeffer also talked about what he now considers to be true religion. To the American Taliban, all that matters is that you assent to certain religious doctrines and are willing to use any and all means to oppose those who disagree with them. But to those who are truly religious, the right way is openness to the beauty and awe of the universe. The American Taliban fantasizes that it fully understands the truth; but we can never know the full truth. Our brains are biological structures that evolved within a physical universe; we are “stuck in” the universe and cannot objectively observe it or ourselves. Schaeffer opposes fundamentalist atheists as much as he does fundamentalist Christians, although, of course, the former are not dangerous like the latter. He describes his religious affiliation as “the church of hopeful uncertainty.” We cannot understand the universe any more than an infant can. We can never be certain but there is reason for us to believe that goodness and love are fundamental truths. Theology just gives us a rationalization for what we already know is true and good. In saying this, Schaeffer echoed the views of evolutionary psychologist Michael Gazzaniga, although Schaeffer may never have heard of him.
Schaeffer said nearly everything that people like me are saying, but much more powerfully—and from a position of being a former insider in the religious right.
Schaeffer and many others describe the political right, today, as the American Taliban. It is no joke. The religious right does not want democracy; they want to establish a religious dictatorship, and they are accumulating caches of weapons to do so. Polls repeatedly show that a large minority of Americans actually believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. There is no more opportunity for dialogue or compromise with this position than it is possible to have meaningful compromise with Al Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban. Schaeffer pointed out that the conservatives among whom he grew up, such as his father and William F. Buckley, would not recognize the monstrous form of conservatism that now dominates the political scene. Schaeffer said that Barack Obama represents our last and best hope to avoid a religious dictatorship in the United States; if his presidency fails, a religious dictatorship is nearly certain. The motivation of the religious right is not godliness—an astonishingly large number of the leaders of the religious right lead immoral lives—but power, and they have no more esteem for truth than they do for godliness. He also pointed out that conservative leaders would publically talk about Christianity but in secret they would laugh at the Christians who played into their hands. Schaeffer changed his views when he realized that he would not want to live in the world he was trying to create, and that the secularists whom he publicly opposed were better people, personally and morally, than the leaders of the religious right. Schaeffer said that if Obama fails, this nation is screwed for the next hundred years.
Schaeffer also talked about what he now considers to be true religion. To the American Taliban, all that matters is that you assent to certain religious doctrines and are willing to use any and all means to oppose those who disagree with them. But to those who are truly religious, the right way is openness to the beauty and awe of the universe. The American Taliban fantasizes that it fully understands the truth; but we can never know the full truth. Our brains are biological structures that evolved within a physical universe; we are “stuck in” the universe and cannot objectively observe it or ourselves. Schaeffer opposes fundamentalist atheists as much as he does fundamentalist Christians, although, of course, the former are not dangerous like the latter. He describes his religious affiliation as “the church of hopeful uncertainty.” We cannot understand the universe any more than an infant can. We can never be certain but there is reason for us to believe that goodness and love are fundamental truths. Theology just gives us a rationalization for what we already know is true and good. In saying this, Schaeffer echoed the views of evolutionary psychologist Michael Gazzaniga, although Schaeffer may never have heard of him.
Schaeffer said nearly everything that people like me are saying, but much more powerfully—and from a position of being a former insider in the religious right.
Monday, May 17, 2010
A Graphic Warning
Fundamentalists (Christians, maybe Muslims too) get carried away by their own imaginations. They think they have figured out the key to Biblical prophecies, and they rush forward convinced of the inerrancy of their own interpretations. How many of you remember Edgar Whisenant’s “88 Reasons Jesus Will Return in 1988”?
I just wanted to publicize this drawing, which appeared in an Adventist book in 1917, entitled, Our Day in the Light of Prophecy. As you can tell from the date, the author was expecting World War I (still at the time called The Great War) would be the final conflict. He was so sure that Imperial Russia and the European Allies would be fighting (on horses) against China. Before the year was out, Imperial Russia was gone.
Fundamentalists predicted that the Iraq War was the beginning of the final conflict. (Perhaps some of them were in the Bush Administration, which originally called the war “Operation Infinite Justice” before they changed it to “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”) Being limited to only occasional contact with fundamentalists, I cannot say what they think right now.
The graphic warning is not just to fundamentalists but to any of us who think we can accurately predict the future in all but the most general sense. We have a good scientific understanding of the general course of global warming, but the specific geopolitical consequences are all the more frightening because they are not precisely predictable.
I just wanted to publicize this drawing, which appeared in an Adventist book in 1917, entitled, Our Day in the Light of Prophecy. As you can tell from the date, the author was expecting World War I (still at the time called The Great War) would be the final conflict. He was so sure that Imperial Russia and the European Allies would be fighting (on horses) against China. Before the year was out, Imperial Russia was gone.
Fundamentalists predicted that the Iraq War was the beginning of the final conflict. (Perhaps some of them were in the Bush Administration, which originally called the war “Operation Infinite Justice” before they changed it to “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”) Being limited to only occasional contact with fundamentalists, I cannot say what they think right now.
The graphic warning is not just to fundamentalists but to any of us who think we can accurately predict the future in all but the most general sense. We have a good scientific understanding of the general course of global warming, but the specific geopolitical consequences are all the more frightening because they are not precisely predictable.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Church: Not a Place to be Convinced
Many religious people invite non-believing friends to church, hoping to convince them of the truth of religious doctrine. But that is not what church is about. It is not—or at least should not be—a place for people to become convinced of Christian theology.
This is because church services are deliberately designed to circumvent the reasoning process. For me, the strongest effect is the music. Songs that I have heard and sung for decades, for which I know the bass lines and sometimes the inner harmonies, songs that can bring tears to my eyes if they are associated with a particularly beautiful event or time. The recitation of creeds, group prayers, etc., has much less effect on me. But just the fact that everybody is doing it together sweeps me along. It is hard to not join in. For reasons described in a previous post, I do not try to resist completely. The use of music and ritual recitations can be considered psychological manipulation, going directly to the deep emotional centers of the brain, circumventing any careful thought.
“Evangelical” churches are those that want to get other people to join them by scaring them with Hell; so-called “mainstream” churches want to draw people in as members of a community. Both kinds of churches use psychological manipulation. In mainstream churches, this psychological manipulation is, in my opinion, often benign. People go to mainstream churches because they want an emotional reward and a community of altruists; this is what they get. They don’t come to hear a logical argument. The sermons they hear are not intended to answer theological questions, but to tell people how to live in such a way as to make the world better, as Jesus would want it. Mainstream churches use psychological manipulation, but use it to facilitate altruism.
People often go to evangelical churches, however, because they hear what is purported to be a logical argument about how everybody else is going to Hell. These sermons are psychological manipulation masquerading as reason. The sermons are battlements of assumptions and errors, delivered so fast and loud that the listener’s faculty to reason is beaten down. Evangelical churches use psychological manipulation to trick people into joining them, in order to get money from them and to get them to become Republican activists.
During church services, people’s minds are vulnerable. I believe it is unethical to try to convince people of theology during church services. Anyone who wishes to think carefully about theology should do so outside of church—many churches use classes or small group meetings to do this. But because many evangelical churches use their services as propaganda tools, I believe it is best to stay away from them. You walk in and get barraged by advertising techniques that are illegal in the business world.
There is a message here for skeptics also. It is not valid to walk into a church service and pass judgment upon it as illogical. Of course it is illogical. It should be censured only if a propagandistic sermon is masquerading as logic. The “militant atheist” crowd is sometimes too quick to attack.
This is because church services are deliberately designed to circumvent the reasoning process. For me, the strongest effect is the music. Songs that I have heard and sung for decades, for which I know the bass lines and sometimes the inner harmonies, songs that can bring tears to my eyes if they are associated with a particularly beautiful event or time. The recitation of creeds, group prayers, etc., has much less effect on me. But just the fact that everybody is doing it together sweeps me along. It is hard to not join in. For reasons described in a previous post, I do not try to resist completely. The use of music and ritual recitations can be considered psychological manipulation, going directly to the deep emotional centers of the brain, circumventing any careful thought.
“Evangelical” churches are those that want to get other people to join them by scaring them with Hell; so-called “mainstream” churches want to draw people in as members of a community. Both kinds of churches use psychological manipulation. In mainstream churches, this psychological manipulation is, in my opinion, often benign. People go to mainstream churches because they want an emotional reward and a community of altruists; this is what they get. They don’t come to hear a logical argument. The sermons they hear are not intended to answer theological questions, but to tell people how to live in such a way as to make the world better, as Jesus would want it. Mainstream churches use psychological manipulation, but use it to facilitate altruism.
People often go to evangelical churches, however, because they hear what is purported to be a logical argument about how everybody else is going to Hell. These sermons are psychological manipulation masquerading as reason. The sermons are battlements of assumptions and errors, delivered so fast and loud that the listener’s faculty to reason is beaten down. Evangelical churches use psychological manipulation to trick people into joining them, in order to get money from them and to get them to become Republican activists.
During church services, people’s minds are vulnerable. I believe it is unethical to try to convince people of theology during church services. Anyone who wishes to think carefully about theology should do so outside of church—many churches use classes or small group meetings to do this. But because many evangelical churches use their services as propaganda tools, I believe it is best to stay away from them. You walk in and get barraged by advertising techniques that are illegal in the business world.
There is a message here for skeptics also. It is not valid to walk into a church service and pass judgment upon it as illogical. Of course it is illogical. It should be censured only if a propagandistic sermon is masquerading as logic. The “militant atheist” crowd is sometimes too quick to attack.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Creationism: Selective defense of Bible literalism
Creationists defend a literal interpretation of just certain parts of the Bible, while ignoring others. Here are a few examples that demonstrate this inconsistency.
Creationists defend a literal reading of Genesis 1 as referring to 144 hours (6 consecutive days of 24 hours). But they skip over the word “firmament.” As anyone who consults a Biblical concordance and dictionary will discover, the Hebrew word used for firmament (raquia) refers to a thin dome of metal, beaten out by a hammer. A metal dome. We all know that there is no metal dome in the sky, and creationists conveniently ignore this word, or interpret it figuratively. The Answers in Genesis website chooses the figurative interpretation, for the literal one is preposterous. The author claims that the word is used figuratively in other parts of the Bible. But this is not a defense of the creationist position; it merely demonstrates that the Bible itself permits figurative interpretations, and that literalistic ones are not necessary.
Creationists insist on interpreting the Flood of Noah as literally covering the Earth, as described in Genesis 6-9. However, in the very next chapter (Genesis 10:25), the Bible says that in the days of the patriarch Peleg “the Earth was divided.” The Hebrew word used for Earth is the same as the one used in the Noah account—the Earth that was completely covered by water; that is, from the creationist view, the planet. And the word for “divided” literally means a splitting, as with a cleaver or sword. The only literalistic interpretation possible is that the entire planet was cut into two or more pieces. This obviously did not happen. The Answers in Genesis website claims that the passage referred to a figurative splitting of peoples into different cultural groups. They insist that Genesis 6-9, but not Genesis 10, be taken literally.
There are many other examples, such as where Daniel tells the Babylonian king that his rulership extends to the ends of the Earth (Daniel 4:22). This clearly indicates that the king ruled the entire land surface of the planet, that there was no frontier of the empire. Everyone knows this is not the case. In fact, both Daniel and the king knew it. The king certainly knew he had soldiers at the frontier. This indicates, once again, that the people who wrote the Bible did not intend a literalistic interpretation.
Creationists and fundamentalists choose which passages to take literally, and which not, in order to produce the most effective propaganda. In the process, they lose any chance of the rest of us considering them to be honest.
This entry also appeared on my evolution blog.
Creationists defend a literal reading of Genesis 1 as referring to 144 hours (6 consecutive days of 24 hours). But they skip over the word “firmament.” As anyone who consults a Biblical concordance and dictionary will discover, the Hebrew word used for firmament (raquia) refers to a thin dome of metal, beaten out by a hammer. A metal dome. We all know that there is no metal dome in the sky, and creationists conveniently ignore this word, or interpret it figuratively. The Answers in Genesis website chooses the figurative interpretation, for the literal one is preposterous. The author claims that the word is used figuratively in other parts of the Bible. But this is not a defense of the creationist position; it merely demonstrates that the Bible itself permits figurative interpretations, and that literalistic ones are not necessary.
Creationists insist on interpreting the Flood of Noah as literally covering the Earth, as described in Genesis 6-9. However, in the very next chapter (Genesis 10:25), the Bible says that in the days of the patriarch Peleg “the Earth was divided.” The Hebrew word used for Earth is the same as the one used in the Noah account—the Earth that was completely covered by water; that is, from the creationist view, the planet. And the word for “divided” literally means a splitting, as with a cleaver or sword. The only literalistic interpretation possible is that the entire planet was cut into two or more pieces. This obviously did not happen. The Answers in Genesis website claims that the passage referred to a figurative splitting of peoples into different cultural groups. They insist that Genesis 6-9, but not Genesis 10, be taken literally.
There are many other examples, such as where Daniel tells the Babylonian king that his rulership extends to the ends of the Earth (Daniel 4:22). This clearly indicates that the king ruled the entire land surface of the planet, that there was no frontier of the empire. Everyone knows this is not the case. In fact, both Daniel and the king knew it. The king certainly knew he had soldiers at the frontier. This indicates, once again, that the people who wrote the Bible did not intend a literalistic interpretation.
Creationists and fundamentalists choose which passages to take literally, and which not, in order to produce the most effective propaganda. In the process, they lose any chance of the rest of us considering them to be honest.
This entry also appeared on my evolution blog.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Creationism: Turning the brain off
One of the major components of creationism and fundamentalism is that it mesmerizes its adherents into turning their brains off. By accepting literalistic biblical authority, creationists do not even notice evidence that contradicts their beliefs. But it goes beyond even the acceptance of biblical passages about the distant past. Creationists uncritically accept even beliefs that have no biblical basis and which can be easily disproven by observation in the present.
During the question and answer period of Francisco Ayala’s talk at the University of Oklahoma (see previous entry), one faculty member (who teaches freshman biology) reported results of student surveys in his class. (The new “clicker” technology allows an instant computerized display of student answers to survey and quiz questions.) He said that about 60 percent of the students believe that men and women do not have the same number of ribs.
This belief comes from the Bible story about God creating Eve from the rib of Adam. These students apparently thought that if someone’s rib is removed, that person’s descendants for the rest of time will have one rib missing. That is not how genetic inheritance works. It is not evolution that these students are rejecting; it is basic genetics. You cannot pass on things that happen to your body to later generations; the only thing you pass on is your genes. Moreover, the Bible nowhere says that because God removed a rib from Adam, all men will have a rib missing. The creationists have just made up this story, which contradicts all of biology, not just evolution.
The adherents of the missing-rib idea have turned off their minds. It is a perfectly straightforward procedure to count the number of ribs in men and women and verify that they are the same (unless there is an injury or a mutation in certain rare individuals). But they do not bother to do this. An intelligent creationist would instantly recognize (as many do) that the missing-rib theory is wrong and totally unnecessary for a Bible believer to believe. But mentally-lazy creationists, of which there are many thousands, do not bother with such mental exertion. They figure they already know everything they need to know: They believe the Bible, even if they do not know what it says, and they do not need to learn anything else. The result is a brain that is accustomed to not think.
This essay also appears in my evolution blog.
During the question and answer period of Francisco Ayala’s talk at the University of Oklahoma (see previous entry), one faculty member (who teaches freshman biology) reported results of student surveys in his class. (The new “clicker” technology allows an instant computerized display of student answers to survey and quiz questions.) He said that about 60 percent of the students believe that men and women do not have the same number of ribs.
This belief comes from the Bible story about God creating Eve from the rib of Adam. These students apparently thought that if someone’s rib is removed, that person’s descendants for the rest of time will have one rib missing. That is not how genetic inheritance works. It is not evolution that these students are rejecting; it is basic genetics. You cannot pass on things that happen to your body to later generations; the only thing you pass on is your genes. Moreover, the Bible nowhere says that because God removed a rib from Adam, all men will have a rib missing. The creationists have just made up this story, which contradicts all of biology, not just evolution.
The adherents of the missing-rib idea have turned off their minds. It is a perfectly straightforward procedure to count the number of ribs in men and women and verify that they are the same (unless there is an injury or a mutation in certain rare individuals). But they do not bother to do this. An intelligent creationist would instantly recognize (as many do) that the missing-rib theory is wrong and totally unnecessary for a Bible believer to believe. But mentally-lazy creationists, of which there are many thousands, do not bother with such mental exertion. They figure they already know everything they need to know: They believe the Bible, even if they do not know what it says, and they do not need to learn anything else. The result is a brain that is accustomed to not think.
This essay also appears in my evolution blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)