Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

levite · 11-09-2009, 12:22 PM

I would say that Creationism is not necessarily a social phenomenon. Creationism is an issue, ultimately, of fundamentalist religious thought.

What is a related social phenomenon is the adoption of fundamentalist modalities of thought-- as well as fundamentalist exegetical tropes-- into social philosophy and politics. That, I think, is really what's at issue here. If someone wishes to espouse Creationism as a religious precept, I may call that poor exegesis and simplistic religious philosophy, but I will also certainly call it their right to believe whatever they choose.

What presents such a monumental problem is the exportation of this idea into the public domain, in such a way that we are now forced to debate not merely whether our schools should teach religion alongside science, but whether that religious stance then ought to be only one specific religious idea out of many (as the literalist interpretation of Genesis generally cited by these Creationists is not the sole Christian reading, let alone the sole Jewish reading, let alone the sole Muslim reading).

Once again, I can't help noting that it is precisely because of problems with religious doctrines putting themselves forward as "objective," when they can't even claim to be universal amongst their own religion, let alone the other religions that share the same sacred texts, that Jefferson was so firm on needing a wall of separation between Church and State.

There is, IMO, nothing wrong with religion...provided that it occupies the space of religion. Religion is a tool for people to attempt to connect to God, to share in a community of spirituality and ethics, to advance their own spiritual awareness. If one is treating Scripture like a lesson in cosmological science, geology, physics, biology, etc., then one is simply abusing it: that is not what it was created to be, and it is deeply irrelevant to the enterprise of religion.

Science, on the other hand, was created precisely to attempt to create a paradigm to explain the physical universe in systematic ways, to explain the nature of physical phenomena via a common, mathematically-based language of direct observations and reproducible experimental results. It is uninterested in ethics, creating community, God, and people's spiritual awareness, and in fact lacks any capacity for working with any of those things.

I really cannot understand why individuals who espouse fundamentalist beliefs cannot simply explain to their children that their religion teaches something different, and while their kids might need to learn science to progress in coursework, they need not believe that any of it is true. And, frankly, nobody is forcing all kids to attend public school: if fundamentalist parents don't like public school, they can always send their kids to private religious school, or home-school them.

11-09-2009, 12:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	I would say that Creationism is not necessarily a social phenomenon. Creationism is an issue, ultimately, of fundamentalist religious thought. What is a related social phenomenon is the adoption of fundamentalist modalities of thought-- as well as fundamentalist exegetical tropes-- into social philosophy and politics. That, I think, is really what's at issue here. If someone wishes to espouse Creationism as a religious precept, I may call that poor exegesis and simplistic religious philosophy, but I will also certainly call it their right to believe whatever they choose. What presents such a monumental problem is the exportation of this idea into the public domain, in such a way that we are now forced to debate not merely whether our schools should teach religion alongside science, but whether that religious stance then ought to be only one specific religious idea out of many (as the literalist interpretation of Genesis generally cited by these Creationists is not the sole Christian reading, let alone the sole Jewish reading, let alone the sole Muslim reading). Once again, I can't help noting that it is precisely because of problems with religious doctrines putting themselves forward as "objective," when they can't even claim to be universal amongst their own religion, let alone the other religions that share the same sacred texts, that Jefferson was so firm on needing a wall of separation between Church and State. There is, IMO, nothing wrong with religion...provided that it occupies the space of religion. Religion is a tool for people to attempt to connect to God, to share in a community of spirituality and ethics, to advance their own spiritual awareness. If one is treating Scripture like a lesson in cosmological science, geology, physics, biology, etc., then one is simply abusing it: that is not what it was created to be, and it is deeply irrelevant to the enterprise of religion. Science, on the other hand, was created precisely to attempt to create a paradigm to explain the physical universe in systematic ways, to explain the nature of physical phenomena via a common, mathematically-based language of direct observations and reproducible experimental results. It is uninterested in ethics, creating community, God, and people's spiritual awareness, and in fact lacks any capacity for working with any of those things. I really cannot understand why individuals who espouse fundamentalist beliefs cannot simply explain to their children that their religion teaches something different, and while their kids might need to learn science to progress in coursework, they need not believe that any of it is true. And, frankly, nobody is forcing all kids to attend public school: if fundamentalist parents don't like public school, they can always send their kids to private religious school, or home-school them. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)