Ignorance and regional America...

I'm happy that you've found a place where you are comfortable.

What worries me whether or not there's any room for people who don't conform in that God-fearing fundamentalist prairie world.

Could a homosexual, a non-Christian, a Democrat or a secular rationalist survive in that kind of small-town red-state environment without subtle ostracism or even physical violence?

One of the things that attracts me about Kansas is how friendly it seems. But I suspect that some of that friendliness is associated with people who are used to interacting with people just like themselves. And it suggests a world where your neighbors will inevitably know your business and will doubtless form their opinions. So the initial friendliness might turn very cold very quickly if newcomers don't conform.

Here in urbanized California, people often don't even know their next door neighbors. It's anonymous and not very friendly. But that also means that everyone has their own space and is allowed to make their own choices. People obviously have their circles of friends, but these are more apt to revolve around networks of shared interests than around simple proximity.

(California is less totalitarian in that sense, more "liberal" in the classic British sense of emphasizing individual choice and tolerant of the inevitable diversity that results from those decisions.)

Life here in the coastal urbanized "modern" and "progressive" blue-state world brings with it undeniable and very real aggravations. But I really think that I prefer it.

 

Ummm...

Anti-intellectualism ensues when people, who believe they have found solutions to these mysteries, attempt to push their religious beliefs on others. It's OK to think Copernicus was a nut. It's anti-intellectualism to teach kids about our geocentric solar system because heliocentrism doesn't jibe with your mythology.

No, I guess not.

Hallelujah! I worship Greek gods - let me make all the kids in Kansas learn my religious beliefs! Why am I a nut for wanting every kid in Kansas to learn that Phanes broke out of the cosmic egg?

In your opinion, perhaps. Racism and fundamentalist christianity both strike me, in certain senses, as socially transmitted diseases. Social in that they are transmitted to people by their parents and peers, and diseases in the sense of their undesirable effects.

 

Sure it's possible.

The problem is that when I inquire into the foundations of religious faith, the only answer that I typically receive from those who espouse fundamental Christian (or fundamental anything for that matter) beliefs is some variation on "it's my faith!"

Unfortunately that isn't really an answer, or at least it's not an answer that derives from "knowledge and intellect".

 

That's the fundamental ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing.

That's why they seem to lead most naturally to agnosticism. In other words, something's obviously happening, but most likely we don't know what it is.

The answer to that would depend on how one proposes to make the jump from a vague philosophical sense of the mystery of being to faith in one particular religious tradition, to belief in the truth of particular divine revelations and to assertions of the absolute truth and inerrancy of particular scriptures.

 

Does this strike anybody else non-fundamentalist as offensive?

 

<raises hand>

 

As a life-long Kansas, the answer is a definitive "yes". Despite our state board of education, fundamentalist Christians are still a minority in this state. The fact that 2 out of the last 3 governors have been Democrats is evidence enough of this. Politically, the GOP has the most members registered voters by a fair margin, but the state GOP itself is heavily divided between the "religious right" and libertarian-leaning members. The libertarian wing has no problem voting for moderate democrats when the alternative is deemed "nutty".

What you are likely to find in Kansas is some regional differences. There are some individual rural communities in Kansas (particularly in the south and southeast) that are very socially conservative. Even there, I wouldn't expect anything to come to physical violence. What is more typical in the rest of Kansas is a general feeling that we'd all be better off if the government just left us alone. In most communities, the worst that would happen is that you might not feel welcome in certain church congregations. This rarely spills over into general community life in any meaningful way.

Anyway, come to Kansas. The people really are friendly. The only place you are likely to feel genuine hate from is the Fred Phelps cult, but it's pretty hard to blame Kansas for them.

 

WOW - I take a break for lunch and the flood gates open. A lot to address and I will do my best. If I missed anything important, it was not intentional, just ask again

Ontologically speaking this is true. The origins of our existence and why we exist is pretty much a matter of faith. To that fact, I accept the existence of God as an explanation. That does not mean that I do not entertain and consider other points of view. Christian theology is based on faith and cannot be explained by any other venue.

Acceptance of that faith then spans into the development of a world view (abortion is right/wrong, homosexuality is right/wrong) and a theolgical foundation (Bible is literal/allegorical).

It is then that individuals develop priorities (job/family/religion) and set the parameters by which they drive their life (politics, opinions, etc.)

I don't know of anyone who goes the other direction. IE, I want to be a Scientist therefore I must believe in evolution, therefore I must be a naturalist, therefore I cannot believe in God. (I know I am using extreme generalizations and over-simplification, but I think you get the point).

Positions derive the other way. I have looked at the issues, studied the information and believe in evolution, therefore....

So for the Christian, just about everything comes back to faith, since we have chosen (after looking at the evidences) to put our ontological faith in God instead of nature.

It is not an absence of intellect, just a different conclusion.

Evangelism NEVER seeks to "push" religious beliefs on others, only to share what we believe to be the truth. As I said before, it is the "evolution" crowd that demonstrates a close-mindedness. I for one wish we could introduce numerous explanations for creation. Knowledge is never a bad thing.

During my studies (my concentration was Bible History), I studied numerous creation stories, even did a term paper on the Gilgamesh Epic vs the Noah flood story. It did not change my mind, but help me explore the reasons for my belief. I welcome all challenges to my beliefs, it is how I learn. However, I do not normally see that challenge reciprocated by naturalists and/or humanists.

I just finished my thesis on the book of Genesis, exploring the purpose for our existence as opposed to the method. I am (without apology) a Bible literalist, but that does not mean that I do not allow for alternative methods of creation. Nosborne introduced me to the writings of Rabbi Plaut and I learned a whole new way to read the Old Testament. I even discovered a whole new respect for liberal interpretations of the scripture. I am still not convinced the Bible is all allegory or representative fiction, but I have a new appreciation for those who do.

I think the ID crowd seeks that same opportunity.

I still don't see the harm in introducing alternatives, especially if they represent the world views of the majority. What possible harm can come from knowledge? Are you afraid that one or two students might challenge evolution? I thought the purpose of science was to lead you to the truth WHERE EVER it might take you. In that regard, I would think we would want to children to be exposed to all popular views.

In the end, I don't see how that is anti-intellectualism.

Tough question, but you are most likely correct. I don't know any homosexuals, do not socialize with non-Christians, though my oldest son is very much a liberal Democrat.

I suppose in some ways there is "subtle ostracism" in that just about anything that is not "traditional" is pretty much frowned upon. At least where I live, progressive philosophies of any kind are generally met with skepticism at best.

 

That's been my experience, too.

Some people in Kansas might not like it if you're different, but that's pretty much their own problem.

Or if you're a Mexican.

 

Left/right, evolutionists/creationists, saved/unsaved - it's all so simple, isn't it?

Your statement that evangelists never seek to push their beliefs conflicts with my real world experiences to the contrary. I've never seen evolutionists standing outside of elementary schools handing out wacky little tracts that remind children how they'll burn if they don't accept natural selection.

 

People with these opinions haven't read anything outside of theological tracts and have only heard uneducated clergy speak.

They need to read after such intellectual giants as Lloyd Ogilvie, James Kennedy, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, James Garrett and some of the old timers like Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Warren Stone, Charles Finney and Horace Bushnell.

Surely people like dcv don't think those holding accredited doctorates in some of our finest evangelical and conservative seminaries are anti-intellectual!

 

If they're fundamentalist christians, I'd lay money on it.

 

Is this an example of the tolerance and open-mindedness you so proudly proclaim?

 

You really need to get out more!

 

How is it possible for intellectual giants and scholars with earned doctorates to be anti-intellectual?

What you really mean to say, I think, is anti-liberal.

 

I once visited Kansas and I thought it was beautiful. I found so impressive those high planes. I was traveling from Colorado to NY, and I loved every minute of it. Rural America is spectacular. Some states are nicer than others, but in general the countryside, the different views are extraordinary. They say that god designed America so beautiful that to compensate he had to invent Americans....... And looking at some of the contributors here I just have to believe it........

Through those years I spent in America I found ignorance to be pretty well distributed (though it seems that now WV has suddenly increased its average ). I think that BillDayson explained how demographics and intellectual sophistication relate. There are many other factors rather than political ideology like income, education, etc.... For me conservative America has something I admire: the sense of community. I believe that´s a crucial part of America´s identity, a sine qua non condition for what it is today. Those American conservatives I met were awesome individuals in whom I would trust all I have without a doubt. But America is also the crib for progressive ideas that spread the world. They are equally important, and those liberal ideas I was taught at American universities changed my view of the world forever. In a positive manner, of course. Probably it is the combination of both, the constant struggle between both lifestyles that makes America work that good.

Oh, by the way, fundamentalism dwells here in The Netherlands too, although most people don’t know it. Among those lax laws for drugs consumption, abortion, prostitution, gay marriages, and so on, Christian fundamentalist communities with silly, obsolete precepts are also abundant. And they are as nihilist as bin Laden.

 

What are there, 275 million of us Americans now? Lotta people; it would seem strange if we DIDN'T spawn some wackos now and then...

 

I suspect there is a little "whacko" in all of us.

 

When have I proudly proclaimed anything, other than my graduation in May?

The paradigm within which you have chosen to constrain yourself doesn't serve you well.

Anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of genesis' six day creation myth is either turning off their god-given mind to do so (anti-intellectualism), is woefully under-educated, or is simply less-than-blessed in the mind category.

One way might be by pretending to believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old, or cherishing some other downright hare-brained belief, in an effort to stay within the strictures of fundamentalist christian dogma.

 

And do you understand the complexities of biblical teaching regarding the age of the earth?

Do you thoroughly understand such terms as real time versus ideal time, the age-day theory, etc.? Do you understand the Hebrew word for day, yom, and its various meanings?

Are you aware that you lump all all Bible-believing intellectuals into one category without even bothering to research various beliefs?

Do you know such orthodox scholars as B.B. Warfield, C.I. Scofield, John Walvoord, Francis Schaeffer, Gleason Archer, and Hugh Ross as well as most who signed the 1978 "Chicago Statement" on the inerrancy of the Bible held the universe to be millions of years old?

Please don't categorize all fundamentalists, conservatives, evangelicals, and orthodox as having unified beliefs on any doctrine of the Christian faith.