From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:39:06 GMT

brinkman@edseq4.llnl.gov writes:

>   In article <salem.702857217@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU 
>(Bruce Salem) writes...

>>	2) The path to spiritual reward is taken by Christians to be
>>	   to a point not in this world and distant from themselves,
>>	   especially their corporal selves.

>   Bruce, this is such a gross mischaracterization of Christian thought as to
>be laughable.  What you are claiming as a tendency of Christianity (i.e., the
>belief in the ultimate corrupt nature of the physical world) is in actuality 
>one of the central hallmarks of Gnosticism, a Christian heresy.  A few simple
>examples should suffice to show that this is at best a superficial reading of
>Christian thought.

	But God and the world are made distinct, and after the Fall,
death becomes part of the world. It is true, as you point out, that
christianity does not cut us off from participation in the affairs
of the world, indeed not nearly to the extant of the Eastern faiths,
but neither does it find God in everything in the world, in ourselves,
inately. My point is that we are estranged from the divine inately,
and are strugling to get back to Him. This is unknown in Eastern
religion.

>   Finally, if this is correct, would you care to comment on why science, 
>which is the ultimate human endeavor with regard to interacting with the 
>physical world, would have reached such spectacular heights in a culture 
>permeated by the Near Eastern Religious Worldview (and hence, with such an
>overwhelming inherent barrier against it in your view)?  That strikes me as a 
>real difficulty for this silly claim.

	It is because the spiritual system of Catholicism did not
cause the full closure seen in the East. There was a long standing
conflict between the Humanism of the Classical Period and the
regemen of the Catholic Epoch, between the power of the individual
and the power of the state, respectively. The rise of modern science
did not occur until the power of the Church Hiererarchy was broken
by the Reformation and entrepaneurs had enough power to promote
individual pursuit of knowledge. The rise of the Individual came
at this time, and the rise of the political state and the Rights
of Man, still later, in reaction to the Clergy and Monarchs.

	It is true, that the spiritual system of the East prevented
the pursuit of science there, as we know it. I was not arguing for
the overall superiority of either tradition, only to the problems
in ours that lead to errors such as Creationism.

>>	3) The Near Eastern Religions are theocratic and monocratic.
>>	   Until very recently Christinaity was used to keep Monarchs
>>	   in power as it envisinged a hiearchy of relations from God,
>>	   the king down through the temporal ruler and his clergy
>>	   to their subjects.

>   Once again, we are back to comment made on your earlier claim that the
>_Bible_ is to be viewed as a legal authority.  You are discussing questions
>of social engineering here, and such questions have no relation to Creationism.
>This is, once again, not a comment on Creationism as much as it is an overbroad
>attack on Christianity.

	Bruno went to the stake for proposing that there were other worlds
in space, like the earth, with life on them. Even if you know the difference
between a secular state and a theocracy, it is not clear that many Christians
do not, and as we have Islamic states now that are theocracies falling back
on the law in the Koran, there is no assurance that some Christians and Jews,
believing from the same tradition, do not wish to confuse them. In fact, that
is the thrust of Creationism, as a political move.

>   Now, looking back at your contentions, we have:

>1) One claim (i.e., Christians view the _Bible_ as a historical source) that 
>   is of marginal utility to discussions of Creationism.  Marginal in terms
>   of the fact that there is little or no evidence that this claim is in
>   general true for Near Eastern Religions as regards to discussions of 
>   origins.

	Then why do some Christians claim just the opposite? And what
authority as a Christian do you have to prove them wrong? I claim that
you have none, and that there is nothing about Christianity which prevents
them from making this "error" again and again.

>2) One claim (i.e., Christians view the material world as unimportant) that is
>   based on a gross mischaracterization of Christian religious thought.  In 
>   fact, it is more closely related to a Christian heresy.

	I admit that you are probably right, and that I would have made my
assertion in a different way: There is relative estrangement from God, man
and the world, that is not shared in Eastern religion, that leads to a
struggle for spiritual favor not found in the East. This has to do with
Creationism as an external struggle for spiritual truth; a misplaced
pursuit.

>3) Two claims (i.e., Christians view the _Bible_ as a legal authority and
>   Near Eastern religions are authoritarian) that have nothing to do with 
>   Creationism beyond being attacks on Christianity.

	I don't agree. The need of Christians to be Right in law and
in might is central to Christian history. Regardless of whether you
are authoritarian, and not many Christians are today, because their
influience is declining, there are many who are, and the past is full
of Christian legitimacy at the point of a sword.

>In other words, your opinions on tendencies inherent in Christianity are
>either completely irrelevant or useless to discussions of Creationism.

	I rather think you don't like the ugly truth that your faith has
a checkered past which you can do nothing to prevent from being repeated!
Creationism is a resurgance of that kind of history.

>   I guess my question is, what is your hidden agenda, Bruce?

	There is nothing hidden about my agenda. I see Creationism as
a political movement, part of a larger conservative Christian goal
to establish theocracy in the U.S., or at least thecratic enclaves.

	I have developed a deep mistrust of Christianity. That
doesn't mean that I hate Christians, or don't appreciate some of
their deeds, but that the bad in Christianity comes with the good,
and there is no self controlling mechanism which prevents past
excess and error from recurring. The tendency to religion is deep
in mankind, it cannot be sublimed away. I think that eastern
religion has a better conception of the spiritual and the divine
than has been developed out of the Near Eastern tradition.

>  You seem to be
>doing an admirable imitation of Creationist rhetorical forms, with unsupported 
>claims, attacks on strawmen, immaterial fear-mongering, and, of course, the
>ubiquitous proselytizing (i.e., we need a new spiritual direction like Far
>Eastern Religions provide).

	If I have fallen in to Creationist rhetoric in speaking about
Christianity it is bacuase these attitudes are deeply part of the
tradition.

>>Bruce Salem

>Matt Brinkman		brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins