From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 8 Jan 1993 07:34:15 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <96109@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> hamilton@gmr.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.152448.8339@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>>	I'll try to be brief -- I think that in the U.S. there is a
>>general waning of educational standards, and with this, an ignorance that
>>leads to acceptance of current Creationism preachings.  
>
>This is part of it.  Another part comes from the tendency of many 
>fundamentalists to shy away from putting the kind of effort into 
>understanding the Bible that their high school English teachers should
>have taught them to put into understanding, say Shakespeare.  This 
>is near-eastern literature, written 2000 or more years ago. It's full
>of poetry, uses allegory and hyperbole.  It's not the kind of literature
>a 20th century American should expect to just dive into and immediately 
>understand. This is not to say that you have to have a degree in near eastern
>literature and read Greek and Hebrew to understand it - I do believe
>it's the word of God, and I don't believe God would make it inaccessible
>to all but a few highly educated people.  But you have to be willing to
>do some work to understand it, and no matter how much work you do,
>you won't understand all of it.

	I agree with your assessment of Scripture, except that access
to it after the Reformation in the poliferation of print and the translations
into local languages did allow for every Tom, Dick and Harry to try to
read it and try to understand it immediately and then to claim that they
had its ultimate truth and the authority to back up that claim.

	The problem with easy access to Scripture is that people are
not aware of the different uses of language and the different contexts
for specialized languages that use common words of the larger language
in general use. This is at the heart of the problem with talking to
some people in this group. They would have Scripture read with the same
language as a law book or as a scientific journal. This does violence
to Scripture and to their credibility as religious and spiritual guides.

	A central problem is making sure your own house is clean as
a religious person, because some Christians and others ARE trying to
pull the wool over people's eyes, and some of them ARE legislating
morality, and some of them do want the rest of us to accept a simpiler
formula for sociatial conduct based on their authority claimed in God.

	Authority is a central feature of the Judeo-Christian tradition,
even Jesus, who is supposed to be the example and font of love, is put
there as heir to a theocratic crown. He was heir to the House of David
in the time of Herid and was divine by definition. I am not disputing
your belief in Christ but only wish to point out that the station of
the historical personage was an integral part of an on-going theocracy.

	At the same time Jesus' life fits the model of the numerous
Hero myths as noted by Joeseph Campbell in "Hero with a Thousand Faces".
In a real sense the historical verification of the Bible is baside
the point as the stories in it are examples for a spiritual reality
that trancends history. Again, reading Scripture in one way leaves out
other possibly more enduring value it has.

>-- I see the
>>ICR and fundamentalist hype as a deliberate attempt to mislead the
>>unschooled masses, and rally them to the cause of a Judeao-Christian
>>state.  
>
>Unfortunately, that's what I see too. Christ commissioned the church to
>preach the Gospel.  He also taught (at least we Calvinists believe He did)
>that the church is to take back territory won by Satan.  That will happen
>naturally if the church preaches the gospel - but it takes time.

	I have developed some considerable mistrust of Christians, this
is porportional to how loud and often they speak about it. But I know
individuals who LIVE the message of the Gospels and don't talk about it
much. These are people I admire because they love others with few
qualifications and they have their own peace. They don't go around
telling others how to live except by example, which is the best way, as
any parent knows or must learn.

> Some
>(maybe most) of the efforts of Christians who are active in trying to change
>the laws seem to be aimed at trying to change behavior without necessarily 
>changing people's minds. In other words they seem to be trying to take
>a shortcut to a society which has some of the outward characteristics
>of the society they want.  I'd like to see a society that better reflects
>Christian values too, but the only way to do that is to convince more
>people to embrace Christianity.

	These people you mention that are taking the shortcut are seeking
a political solution to their problem which is to create a utopia insulated
from the outside secular society by walls of dogma. They are reactionaries.

	When one thinks about how Christianity started, some of its appeal
had to embody some demonstration of its followers that its doctrines offered
peace and love for other people. Now, I also know that these same doctrines
were used for powerful groups to gain exclusively over others, to eliminate
rival creeds, and to create a social order with a price of alegance for
admission and some material and spiritual rewards if you fit it.

	If you want others to embrace your values than you have to live
them and show to these other people that these vaules give something
they need, such as peace and love for one another. Be an example.

>>The ICR, the Right-to-Life movement, and those who support prayer
>>in schools are all trying to legislate their own view of morality.  It's
>>not a conspiracy -- it's what they want!  They've said so.
>
>As I said above - the legislative shortcut to a society that *superficially
>resembles* their vision of the ideal society.  

	These people are control freaks, and they want to simplify their
lives by tossing out freedoms, choices, and responcibilities, we enjoy
and suffer under. They believe that if you lay down the traditional moral
law, and then deny any tendancy that runs afoul of this code, such as
homosexuality, that all our problems will be solved or reduced. There is
another way to go about this, that is, to understand anything you can
regardless of whether it is accepted behavior or not. You may know that
your values are superior to most people's. You may express that as a
moral prescription, or you may choose to show some deep understanding
that deals with choices not your own.

>>	I see the problem as people not having the intellectual resources
>>to understand the geological and astronomical evidence.  As long as
>>educational standards slip, these philosophies will be a threat.
>
>And (harp mode on) not having the intellectual resources to deal with
>literature which uses poetry, hyperbole and allegory to relate truth.

	The trouble is that people who want to see life as a series of
either/or situations are not going to be able to examine whether the
boundary betweem black and white is the right one or if there are
shades of grey. They will read Scripture in simplistic terms because
they have not sought education and hence the sophistocation that comes
with moot points, and because in many cases they came from social and
religious traditions that are not subtile. This is exabersated by the
authoritarian tendencies built into that religious tradition.

	Certiantly this group may provide evidance that many seqments
of American Society do not have the basics down of what science is
and the nature of its claims and how to deal with it. A central issue
is that authoritarian and bigoted people project those traits on those
they disagree with, and other people misunderstand the consensus of
scientific knowledge as a claim to absolute knowledge, which it is not.
Some of these same people will demand from the opposition the same
certianty after which they lust, forgetting that knowledge is different
because of the different ways it is applied.

>>: If so, this could represent an important step in the eventual general 
>>: acceptance of evolutionary theory and the reduction of Creationism to
>>: the status of today's Flat Earth Society.  I would be willing to guess
>>: that this state of affairs might be reached in the next 30-80 years.
>>: Any detractors?
>>
>>	Well, I guess I just detracted.  I would hope so -- but they
>>most rapidly growing segment of the Church has been the right-wing
>>fundamental side, pulling people away from the liberal Protestant side.
>>And Robertson is organizing at the grass-roots level.  Watch the
>>school board elections!  (I sound like Dan Aykroyd in "Sneakers".)
>>
>
>I don't think the situation is that bleak, Jim.  I've just come across 
>a couple of recent Bible studies on Revelation by evangelicals which
>show considerable appreciation for the symbolism of the OT prophets and 
>Revelation. If they can come to terms with symbolism on one end of history 
>perhaps they can with the other end also. I certainly would agree 
>with your concern about school board elections - but I tell my evangelical
>Christian brothers that too. They don't watch the school board elections -
>or anything else - like they should :-).

	I understand your point, but the fact remains that groups like
the Christian Coelition are political forces to recokon with, espeially
at the grass roots and in local elections, and that many of the people
flocking to these movements are reacting against the complexities, both
good and bad, of the larger secular society.

	Regardless of what scholars and theologians conclude about the
meaning of Scripture there are always those who will dictate a simplistic
use of it to further their own eartly goals of domination over others and
of political and fiancial gain. Christianity, and other religions, have
this built in, I think. This is the extant of my mistrust of all religion
that for the price of accepting some dogma or other you too can gain
favor by some worldly arbritator of power even onto the promise of power
in some other world. At least in a world where your worth has to do with
what you know or can do, it may be easier to pin down merit. On the other
hand, the spiritual life, which should not deal in such maundane things,
is the reward of sound religion.

Bruce Salem