Culture Wars

[poliphilo]

I've never understood why one shouldn't accept evolution and still be open to the existence of God. That, apparently was Darwin's own position. It was the position of a lot of other Victorians too. People like Charles Kingsley, Matthew Arnold, Robert Browning. They absorbed the new scientific information and adjusted their theology accordingly. I'm a bit hazy now about what they taught me at Westcott House Theological College- nearly 40 years ago- but I remember reading a huge and very entertaining book about the 19th century culture wars and coming to the end and thinking, "Well that's sorted; I don't have to worry about that any more."

God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that.

But here we are- well over a century after it seemed like the issue was settled- and the controversy is still raging- only now the Darwinists- some of them-  (unmindful of their man's quiet agnosticism) are just as virulent and bigoted as their fundamentalist opponents. A Professor Reiss has just had to step down from his job as Director of Education for the Royal Society for suggesting, in a nuanced speech, that Creationsim should be treated with respect in Science classes and engaged with- because, well,  stomping all over people's sensitive religious and cultural beliefs just alienates them and is counterproductive.

A modest proposal- maybe even mistaken- but surely not a resigning matter?

When people get fanatical about defending- or aggressively advancing- a position- one has to wonder why they're so afraid.  Darwin didn't feel threatened by Theists. Why should his successors?

My own quiet, agnostic suspicion is that a paradigm shift is on its way. Scientific materialism- of a rather basic kind, not really justified by the data- has become the orthodoxy of western liberal society.  It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that. An unexamined Atheism has become our comfort blanket- banishing the need to even consider whole, vast swathes of human experience. Ghosts? Don't exist; end of story- you know the sort of thing.  But what if real science- as in quantum physics- CERN etc- actually suggests otherwise? Well, perhaps we get jumpy and tetchy and start shouting at Muslims.

And sacking mild-mannered professors.

I dont know enough science- of any kind- to take this argument much further. All, I've got, really, is a gut feeling, a hunch. And a distaste for fanaticism. I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a bronze age religious book (which he probably hasn't read)  and says it contains all the science anyone needs to know- but equally I don't like it when a silly person stands up and bangs the cover of a 19th century science book (which he probably hasn't read) and says it contains all the theology we need to know.  I suspect both of them are running scared.

And what they're running scared of is the truth.

Comments

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that

I don't think that's actually true. The upsurge in interest in all sorts of alternative beliefs and spiritualities would indicate not, anyway. It is true that very few people attend traditional church services, but that doesn't mean the British public are avowed atheists, they tend to follow a wolly agnosticism, I would have thought.

What does worry me is the way we (or at least the media) are importing this black and white type thinking from the US.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I was thinking not so much of the person in the street as of the movers and shakers. How many people in the public eye (apart, of course, from politicians- who belong to a different species) are willing to own up to any kind of religious or spiritual belief?

This post was, in part, prompted by an interview with Ricky Gervais, who has just made a film about ghosts but says that (of course) he doesn't believe in them.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Well said.

I suspect much of the fanaticism on both sides stems from the same mentality as much of the abortion debate here in the States - it's politics. Neither side wants to give an inch to the other, for fear of them gaining a toehold and grabbing a mile. Trouble is, as you say, the truth gets lost in the shuffle in such a dispute.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I feel one could write a very similar post about the current election. Opinion is so polarised. "My candidate is everything that's good, and if your's gets elected it'll be the end of civilisation as we know it." Both sides (I'm talking about the foot-soldiers and bloggers rather than the candidates themselves) seem equally hysterical.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

I'd rather live the quietly examined agnostic life- and choose to prove- or disprove- the existence of myriad Small Gods.

Happily, there are so many of them, and most are so eager for attention, that it will be harder to disprove their existence than to prove it.

Or something like that. I can piss off both TrueBelievers™ and hard-core atheists in one go!

Yay me!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Small gods are everywhere. Leave 'em alone and (usually) they'll leave you alone. Bother 'em and they'll make their presence felt.

It's a big universe. Plenty of room for all of us- corporeal and non-corporeal.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

I've never understood why one shouldn't accept evolution and still be open to the existence of God. That, apparently was Darwin's own position. It was the position of a lot of other Victorians too. People like Charles Kingsley, Matthew Arnold, Robert Browning. They absorbed the new scientific information and adjusted their theology accordingly.

God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that.

Yes. I've told people this, and believed this, for a very long time. It's never made any sense to me why it must be one or the other. I don't understand why we always seem to want to have that dichotomy - this or that, one or two, A or B. Why not both?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I suppose we crave certainty. But really it's one thing we can never have- not- as Darwin pointed out- with our very limited monkey brains.

[silverhawkdruid.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree completely. I am a Druid now, but still retain a lot of my Christian upbringing, and the teachings of the Bahai Faith, of which I was an active community member for some years. The Bahais teach that Religion and Science can be compatible, and I have always believed that. The universe seems to have far more order than a random bunch of coincidences could produce imho. Why shouldn't God or some such have designed all this? The first Scientist, if you like. :-)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I've been all sorts of things in my time- including an Anglo Catholic, a pentecostalist, a Goddess Worshipper, a Witch and an Atheist. I'm not sure what I am at the moment. Possibly a Spiritualist. This history has left me sceptical about all systems of belief. I think Darwin was onto something when he doubted if our monkey brains were capable of apprehending the Truth.

[silverhawkdruid.livejournal.com]

I have been Christian (C of E), Agnostic, Pagan generally, Wiccan, Bahai, and now Druid. I think I have finally found my home, but only time will tell. After all, I thought the others were home too at one time or another. I do enjoy the exploration though, and I think I agree with Darwin on the whole Truth thing. I wouldn't call myself sceptical, but I do find generally that belief systems don't seem to stand up to close scrutiny, and that if you ask too many questions, people seem to think that you are taking issue with their beliefs. I'm not though. It truly is just my insatiable spiritual curiosity. I am always keen to know what makes people tick. I am still trying to find out what makes me tick too. :-) I am a crock pot of spirituality, and regularly add another ingredient to the pot for a change of flavour. LOL. Sounds like you are a bit like that too.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

"Sounds like you are a bit like that too."

Yes, I am. I've always been consumed- like Kipling's Elephant's Child- with "'satiable curtiosity".

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on this one -- or, conversely, you are with me. I hope that other rational humans are also either on this wave length or heading toward it.
Once again, you inspired me to write long rant on a given topic. I cut it from here and pasted it on my LJ.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I've been across and read it and left a comment.

[nostoi.livejournal.com]

What I think about this whole fundamental religious upsurgence is that most of us are heartily sick of it and want to ignore it and hope these people go away. So in a way we need the fundamental atheists to take up the slack and fight extremism with extremism, because the rest of us aren't going to be doing very much about it.

Possibly the reason fundy Christianity is so much in evidence these days is because in the past Christianity had a hold on society and *was* the norm. Now their power has waned those that are determined to get their own way are raising the stakes.

I would disagree about it being the norm to not believe. On the contrary I think it's the norm to believe in *something*, but it may or may not be what society has believed or been encouraged to believe in the past. People are thinking for themselves and so the true nature of organised religion (which has nothing to do with belief) is raising its ugly head.

(Society = UK society)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think the decline of the mainstream churches has something to do with it. Here in Britain the Anglican Church held believers of every kind together in a big, lazy, liberal embrace. As the central authority has declined, so the extremist groups it used to benignly keep in check have become noisier and nastier.

Hah- I've just produced an argument in favour of organised (very organised) religion. Well, I never!

I agree about most people believing in "something". What I've got in mind is the way opinion makers, broadcasters, writers, movers and shakers, members of the metropolitan elite, almost always disclaim any kind of supernatural belief. For them I really do think there exists a materialist/atheistical orthodoxy- and they fear the laughter of their peers if they step outside it.

[sculptruth.livejournal.com]

It's interesting (and I believe accurate) to say that some or many atheists are unexamined. On the other side of the coin, I would also say that many religious fanatics are also largely unexamined. All the people of faith or lack thereof that I find to be interesting and insightful are the ones who arrived at their destination through a process. I would argue the truth is that either straight science and straight religion on their own are each as much an act of blind faith as anything, and it's a dangerous position to be in it without some self-excavation.

I love quantum theory because it turns everything (or nearly) we know about on its head.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Most people believe- or don't believe- what their parents/teachers/peers believe. Most Indians are Hindu, most Americans are Christian- and most members of the cosmopolitan, opinion-forming elite are atheist.

I love quantum theory too- not that I understand it- but maybe that's exactly the point.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

There was an excellent letter in the Times today about creationism, explaining why neither Jews nor Christians can believe in "creationism" (as opposed to creation) and also pointing out that the problem with people who blow trumpets in favour of "creationism" don't seem to know anything about any of the "creationist" stories except those in Genesis.
It made me laugh so much that I got a very strnage look from across the aisle of the bus I was travelling in at the time.
I don't know much about Westcott House - did my theology in Oxford and London.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'll see if I can hunt that letter down.

Westcott House in the 70s was liberal and academic, with an Anglo-catholic fringe. It produced more than its fair share of bishops. Archbishop Sentamu of York was a fellow student of mine.

[(Anonymous)]

Producing more than its fair share of bishops can also be applied to Mirfield - not sure where Kings (now KQC) London stands in that respect, but I'd guess that Mirfield was stronger in overseas and industrai dioceses than King's, although both had excellent opportunities for candidates from families with no previous graduates

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Producing more than its fair share of bishops can also be applied to Mirfield - not sure where Kings (now KQC) London stands in that respect, but I'd guess that Mirfield was stronger in overseas and industrai dioceses than King's, although both had excellent opportunities for candidates from families with no previous graduates

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Westcott was quite a snooty place. We recognised Mirfield and Cuddesdon as having similar prestige, but all the other colleges (especially those frightful evangelical ones) were decidely inferior.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Eh? Mirfield? Prestige?
In the early 1950s it was really embarrassing to admit to being Mirfield-trsined, because it meant that you probably couldn't afford to go to |University without a Mirfield scholarship.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I remember looking to Mirfield with a certain degree of awe- probably because it was run by monks. Our chaplain- John Armson- was a Mirfield man- and the most ferociously medieval character I've ever come across.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

That does make sense - most of the people who looked down on Mirfield had probably never worked with a Mirfield-trained person.
But they weren't all "medieval", you'll be pleased to know!
I doubt if the Parish Communion Movement (very "forward-looking" and innovative it was then!)would have got going beyond Yorkshire without the very strong Miffield support.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I am, of course, using "medieval" as a term of approbation. :)

[richenda.livejournal.com]

You mean as in knowing something about medieval theology and knowing that the Parish Communion movement was reflecting pre-Reformation practice?
Or am I completely off-beam now?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm talking about the man's character- the atmosphere that surrounded him. He was a tall, gangling ascetic- with a boney, spiritual face- capable of great wit and humour, but also sudden flashes of fanaticism and anger.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Errm - his name wasn't Newman, was it?
; D

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Er, no...

But the similarities are striking.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

May I say that I love you - without offending your wife, because it's a purely theological and philosophical love?

[algabal.livejournal.com]

A big part of the problem is that people consistently look at the lowest common denominator in the opposition as the standard-bearers. A Christian or Muslim might look at an obnoxious prick like Christopher Hitchens as representing atheism in general, and an atheist will look a young-earther like Kent Hovind as representing just 'yer average Christian.'

It helps people avoid actually having to consider they might be wrong.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It shouldn't really be a fight.

It should be a debate- a philosophical debate- with careful definition of terms and much soul-searching.

[senordildo.livejournal.com]

"I've never understood why one shouldn't accept evolution and still be open to the existence of God. That, apparently was Darwin's own position."

From what I read, Darwin's position was that he couldn't definitively rule out God, but that he couldn't accept "the Bible as a divine revelation," or that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Accepting evolution essentially means heavily revising or tossing out the idea of an interfering Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. You can still posit the idea of God perhaps being the force behind the Big Bang, but go too far beyond that and you begin having to suture religious texts into science. That perhaps is why many religious people are upset by Evolution.

"God may or may not exist- but if He does, why shouldn't evolution be one of his tools? Simple as that."

If it is, then he's a much more distant and neutral figure than most religious people would be comfortable with. And

Professor Reiss's position seemed to me quite shameful. Creationism is not a science and thus has no place in a science classroom. It has no scientific discoveries to its name or history--just a set of theories backed up by no evidence. I do not want anyone telling children that the earth is only a few thousand years old or that an intelligent designer was apparently dumb enough to design people with appendixes. No, people's religious beliefs should not be stomped on. But accepted scientific discoveries and practices should not be undercut because people have been taught conflicting material.

"It's the norm not to believe in God or spirituality or anything like that."

The norm in Britain perhaps. Here in the states things are much different. And I quite enjoyed Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great. While I don't think one can rule out the idea of a God-like force, the conventional big-three God cannot stand as he was. As Hitchens states, religious belief will probably never die out, but it will shift into less conventional forms.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I grew up within a liberal, Anglican Christianity that found little difficulty reconciling God and Science. Somewhere in the background was the acknowledgement that scientific and mythological thought employ different parts of the brain- but that both are valid.

My understanding of Reiss is that his suggestion was quite gentle and nuanced. I don't think he was advocating the teaching of Creationism, merely that if you are faced with a classroom full of little Muslims you need to acknowledge their existing beliefs and engage them in a debate about the difference between religious and scientific thinking. He could well be wrong, but I don't think he should have had to step down.

[richenda.livejournal.com]

Completely agree with your take on this, and with his, if you are correct about his thinking.
Surely a good teacher always starts where his pupils are, and how could anything be taught successfully if the teacher couldn't or wouldn't take into account the POV of the pupil?
I knew an RE teacher who had problems with someone who wouldn't even open a certain Bible translation. She got round it by suggesting that this was simply a set textbook like any other set textbook, and the pupil was completely at liberty to compare it with his/her preferred translation. Not a complete analogy, but not unlike the need for a science teacher to acknowledge the creationism POV.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The people who have forced Reiss's resignation have behaved exactly like the religious extremists they deplore.

I like that story. The good teacher doesn't simply impose her will, but negotiates with the pupil.

[jackiejj.livejournal.com]

Well said, Tony! I'm marking this one to think about later and share-thanks!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Good. I'd love to have a conversation about it...