[I wrote this in the wee hours a couple of weeks ago, decided I didn't like the tone, and unposted it. Then decided it wasn't so bad after all, so I'm reposting it. Hey, I never claimed to be decisive.]
So I was surfing around and I came across an event going on right now: The History of the World Mega-Conference. The event is described as "five-day crash course on world history.... all from a distinctively Christian worldview." What that means, apparently, is world history for people who believe the Bible is literally true: young earth creationism, the flood and the tower of Babel, etc.
You might wonder why I was surfing around sites that would discuss a creationist history conference. Well, I've been thinking about fundamentalist evangelicalism and the impact it has on public discourse and public policy. I'll never share their beliefs, probably not about anything, but I would like to understand them a little better. There's a lot of information out there about evangelicals from the point of view of hating and fearing them, which is fairly unhelpful to the goal of understanding them. So I have been reading blogs and websites by fundamentalists, which is how I found out about the mega-conference.
I'm trying to understand how an intelligent, thoughtful person could believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Right now I don't understand that at all. To the point that I have a hard time believing an intelligent creationist even exists. And yet, they do. The topics at that conference are clearly the work of scholars. But what kind of scholar would espouse young earth creationism? It baffles me.
I understand how two intelligent people can approach politics or social issues thoughtfully and come to different conclusions, without either of them necessarily being wrong. People have different premises, different priorities, different expectations about human behavior. But I can't understand how someone (who isn't stupid or a hypocrite) can look at hard facts and be so very wrong. Ignoring a mountain of fossil and archeological evidence isn't just a difference of opinion on some fuzzy social issue.
Georg suggested that young earth creationists aren't examining facts; they're filtering them through a biblical lens, discarding everything that doesn't confirm their a priori beliefs. But the thing is, I think everyone does that to some degree. We all have beliefs about how the world works. And we all tend to put more weight on information which supports our beliefs. It's a natural human inclination. I'd like to believe that a rational thinker would try to overcome that tendency rather than embracing it as the creationists do.
But sometimes I wonder. If I were confronted with irrefutable evidence that one of my core beliefs was false, what would I do? Something that would offend my very being, as much as physical evidence from before 4000 BC offends a creationist. For instance, what if there were scientific proof that women as a group are intellectually inferior to men. Would I face reality, regardless of the cost to myself? Or if the Rapture actually happened tomorrow. Would I come up with some whacked out theory rather than accept that I was wrong and God really does exist? Would I isolate myself from the truth at "Evolutionary History Mega-Conferences"?
These are the things I think about when I should be sleeping. I need to go to bed.
8 Comments
If it's any comfort, I think you could come off of some deeply held belief if it were proven wrong to your satisfaction (and your demands of proof aren't terribly unreasonable). I posit there is a hazy way to measure this - how much is one willing to admit they don't understand or can't explain?
Just as annoying to me as my co-religionists you describe, for the exact same reason, are self-appointed "skeptics" who begin with the assumption that anything not meeting their very narrow definition of rational reality cannot possibly exist. (Ok, the fundamentalists are more annoying to me but only beacuse those are *my* beliefs they're misrepresenting. OTOH the skeptics have ruined a perfectly good word by associating it with their own religious fundamentalism. I hate it when that happens.)
In either case, it's self-worship of the worst sort. No one is smart enough to explain away the whole universe and everything in it. And yet we seem to have this urge to do so, hence the appeal of most belief systems. (I call them all religion, in part because it *really* annoys the members of the Church of Skepticism and Evangelical Atheists.) I can't imagine getting through life without some sort of belief system. The trick is to let it be flexible enough to perceive new data on its own terms and adjust accordingly. Letting things be just what they are seems to be one of the most difficult things for humans to do.
As a confirmed skeptic and secular humanist, I must take issue with Sean for quoting that old canard that skepticism is a religion. Any reasonable definition of a religion would have to include belief in the supernatural. This automatically rules out skepticism and secular humanism as religions. This tired old argument was brought forward by fundamentalist Christians who were unhappy that their particular brand of religion could not be taught in the public schools. By defining all the things they didn't like as "secular humanism' and calling this a religion, they hoped to get progressive ideas banned from the schools. Fortunately, the courts thought otherwise. Of course, like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. Sean is at liberty to define any word to mean anything he wishes, but if the object of language is communication, defining skepticism and secular humanism as religions seems pretty childish.
I believe that most of us have skepticism programmed into us by evolution via natural selection. Otherwise we would not have survived. If people would apply the same skepticism to their religious beliefs that they would use when buying a new car, there would be far fewer fundamentalists around. Some of us are fortunate enough to be able to apply our skepticism to religion as well as to other matters. If Sean is not even skeptical in matters other than religion, there are a couple of bridges across the Delaware river that I would love to sell him.
Sarah, you've hit right at the heart of my major confusion regarding certain fundamentalist. I know people who I would classify as being of superior intellect to me; people who exell at math, science, and engineering and can easily solve logic problems that I would struggle with, yet believe in the invisible sky God. It would be easy for me to dismiss these people if they were all dullards that watched pro wrestling or were into Nascar, but it's more difficult when the person has a phd. It's baffling to me.
Maybe another hazy measure is how much your belief system makes you think you are morally and/or intellectually superior to others who don't share it?
Play nice, everybody, or I'll have to turn this blog around.
There's absolutely no sarcasm intended in my last question, sorry if it seems that way. You raised difficult and intelligent questions that are worthy of honest discussion, imho. I'm really beginning to despair of the possibility of having any kind of deep philosophical conversations on the internet, yet like an idiot I keep trying.
Because if you are a fundamentalist and you doubt creationism then you are falling prey to evil forces who's job it is to make you lose faith! It's all very clever!
Yes there are many people who believe this and they are intelligent people.
Because if you are a fundamentalist and you doubt creationism then you are falling prey to evil forces who's job it is to make you lose faith! It's all very clever!
Yes there are many people who believe this and they are intelligent people.