Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[Skaloop]

Now that is an interesting question. How does the Bible propose to find out who is a witch?

If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood?

 

[BananaSlug]

You guys are the ones having trouble with it --- not I.

So is the whole Bible meant to be read literally from cover to cover? Will a giant seven headed beast really come out of the ocean?

You're the ones who think the Salem Witch Trials were done with the Bible's permission/insistance

No, but they used their literal interpretation without considering cultural and historical differences and probably little knowledge of the Hebrew language.

then balk when I say that if you ran the world like the Bible permits, we'd be in trouble.

We "balk" because we would not run the world like the Bible permits. If we did, we would still be a monarchy rather than a democracy (remember our forefathers went against the Bible by not submitting to King George's authority). Do you allow your wife to speak in church or do you follow Paul's Biblical advice?


34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:30-40

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:11-12

We do not want to run the world based on the Bible. We are pointing out the fallacies in wanting to pick and choose what verses should apply or not apply literally.

Are you admitting that these women were indeed witches?

Probably not but maybe so. So what if they were? It has been impossible for the church to completely stamp out native religion no matter where they went. Christmas, Easter eggs/rabbits, Halloween, etc.

 

[atomweaver]

If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood?

It is a "Python" sort of day, isn't it..?

 

[BananaSlug]

In a lame attemptat a post relevant to the OP, and not witches;

The Pew Center released a poll and study today, which had some tidbits which could be seen as relevant to the impact of recent anti-intellectualism within the Republican party on scientist's political leanings

Article about the study

I found one table really interesting;

I know there's been a general mass-migration from the Republican party, but 6%??!!! IIRC, there was another poll from ca. 2000, which cited ~25% of polled scientists identifying themselves as Republican (couldn't find the older poll... will look for it some more). The mass-exodus of scientists from the Republican party is outpacing even the broader population as a whole, by about a four-fold rate increase!!

This puts data to the impact of the anti-intellectual stance of the Republican Party, paired with the Bush era stifling of scientific findings that ran contrary to party policies (I thought about also putting this in the Physical Science's "Cherry-picking data" thread...)

For you raging factinistas, the complete poll and analysis makes a pretty interesting read...

Thoughts?

Very interesting. Another independent line of evidence for the OP! Last time I posted it was on page 24. Now it's over 50! So what are some of your thoughts on why fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism always seem to go hand in hand?

 

[Hespera]

You guys are the ones having trouble with it --- not I.

You're the ones who think the Salem Witch Trials were done with the Bible's permission/insistance, then balk when I say that if you ran the world like the Bible permits, we'd be in trouble.

Are you admitting that these women were indeed witches?

Are you having trouble telling us exactly what quotes from the bible "we" would use to run the world in some unsatisfactory way?


Please provide the verses, and the correct translation.

 

[Hespera]

Very interesting. Another independent line of evidence for the OP! Last time I posted it was on page 24. Now it's over 50! So what are some of your thoughts on why fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism always seem to go hand in hand?

Seems easy enough to see! Fundamentalism is totally dependent on anti intellectualism.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You guys are the ones having trouble with it --- not I.

You're the ones who think the Salem Witch Trials were done with the Bible's permission/insistance, then balk when I say that if you ran the world like the Bible permits, we'd be in trouble.

The point is that if Anyone ran the world like the Bible permits, we'd be in trouble.

And you guys (fundies) and the ones who want to run the world like the Bible permits.

Are you admitting that these women were indeed witches?

What about the men, AV?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hey, AV -- why not just do the honest and honorable thing and admit that when the Bible tells people to kill witches, it's wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that is an interesting question. How does the Bible propose to find out who is a witch?

Ask your friends from 1692 --- you guys think just like they do.

I'm sure you guys have some method of determining what a witch is, since you're always harping we should find them and hang them.

 

[AV1611VET]

If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood?

Ah --- I see --- wood burns longer?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, AV -- why not just do the honest and honorable thing and admit that when the Bible tells people to kill witches, it's wrong?

No --- you guys are the ones who say the Bible says to kill witches.

We say the Bible said to kill witches.

We're not on a witch-hunt today like you guys are.

 

[MoonLancer]

Ask your friends from 1692 --- you guys think just like they do.

I'm sure you guys have some method of determining what a witch is, since you're always harping we should find them and hang them.

we simply state whats written in the bible. It says to kill witches. YOU GUYS have already shown that you are willing to act on such passages and carry it out.

No --- you guys are the ones who say the Bible says to kill witches.

We say the Bible said to kill witches.

We're not on a witch-hunt today like you guys are.

Show me what changed in the bible from 1600 to 1800 in relation to now? ah yes, it was secular morality. The bible says the same things it has always said, Your just projecting secular morality on the bible.

Please cite were "we" are on a witch hunt? we have simply shown the bible calls for oneo. Your displacing and twisting our criticism of the bible, and twisting it to say that we are somehow bad for pointing out whats already written. that's dishonest.

Its akin to someone saying that the Koran is immoral because it promotes revenge against enemies (which it does) and some Muslim claims that this someone is exacting revenge against their enemies or at least promoting it, when in reality its criticism against the Koran.

Your demonizing those who are criticizing passages in the bible rather then address the criticisms themselves. That's fine but know that this is the tactic of those who have no argument.

 

[Hespera]

No --- you guys are the ones who say the Bible says to kill witches.

We say the Bible said to kill witches.

We're not on a witch-hunt today like you guys are.

Ok, I think we understand the deal now. Anything that you dont feel comfortable with, you just change it from "says" to "said". Its just the jots and tittles that you cant change?

That is quite the "interpretation". You should have just said this in the first place.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- you guys are the ones who say the Bible says to kill witches.

We say the Bible said to kill witches.

We're not on a witch-hunt today like you guys are.

Ah, well then, that explains it! The Bible's not wrong, just outdated. Guess that makes Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17, and 1 Peter 1:23 wrong then.

Is the clock ticking on the rest of the Bible as well? Do the 10 Commandments come with an expiration date?

 

[MoonLancer]

That is quite the "interpretation". You should have just said this in the first place.

So much for literal reading of the bible. If witch killing is wrong, when it says to kill witches, I wonder if its possible that parts of genesis is wrong? After all the bible is supposed to be infallible. Instead it makes makes major mistakes. i wonder if we looked at genesis and compared it to the empirical date, what kinds of inconsistencies we can find.

 

[atomweaver]

Very interesting. Another independent line of evidence for the OP! Last time I posted it was on page 24. Now it's over 50! So what are some of your thoughts on why fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism always seem to go hand in hand?

I'll tackle that by talking about the opposite position; From a scientist's/intellectual's perspective, its about confessing to/embracing one's own ignorance, and attempting to replace that ignorance with useful knowledge. This often (but not always) leads to skepticism... and if the person has good critical thinking skills, they tend not to accept any 'tribal knowledge' on its face.

Compare that to fundamentalism, where its all about the tribal knowledge. A 'good' fundamentalist accepts and trusts what they are told by other fundamentalists, to the exclusion of outsider opinion; dissension is discouraged, as is independence.. That plays out on the political side of fundamentalism, too. John McCain comes to mind, here... he's the Republican party "maverick"..? Really? The label alone suggests that a person with so much in common with Republican core gets 'outcast status' for what would be considered minor variances in opinion across the aisle. Contrast that with Joe Liebermann who, despite a strong pro-war stance, and an independent streak, caucuses with Democrats and is hardly considered "mavericky" in any sense, despite the fact that he is further from Democratic party's core than McCain is from the Republican core.

It seems like a leadership eyebrow is raised whenever a fundamentalist expresses an opinion contrary to the accepted position. There is a certain strength in that; fundamentalists do have a very cohesive unity of purpose. But that kind of organization, absent earnest leadership, can be very easily misguided. This is what you see happening with the mass-exodus of scientists; they value results honestly researched, even when those results don't help to reinforce the party line. If you want the scientific process to be made subservient to political (or religious) ideology, a scientist has to abandon what he knows makes science work, if he is to continue in his political affiliation. No true skeptic is willing to abandon wholesale his ability to question in such a fashion.


Dissension is more or less a part of a skeptic's everyday life. S/he is questioning jsut about everything, so there's no big deal when other people do the same... and I'd hate to be around when someone tries to tell a skeptic that he's got no business questioning tribal knowledge. They tend to blister the paint on the wall with the verbiage they use in telling you just where you can put your traditional, populist, tribal notions.

Accepting and organizing a spectrum of ideas from among a group of individual skeptics is a necessity if you hope to get anything done as a group. Still, all ideas should expect to be defended with facts and evidence, at the same time. Without evidence and a logical argument, your curious notions aren't worth the beer coaster they're written on to a skeptic.

 

[Hespera]

So much for literal reading of the bible. If witch killing is wrong, when it says to kill witches, I wonder if its possible that parts of genesis is wrong? After all the bible is supposed to be infallible. Instead it makes makes major mistakes. i wonder if we looked at genesis and compared it to the empirical date, what kinds of inconsistencies we can find.

Well as I am understanding it, it DID say to kill witches, but at some point that got dispensated. Amended i guess would be another way to put it.

I dont know how that fits with the bit about not changing a jot or a tittle, or how a person is supposed to know when some prohibition or command got dispensated.

 

[Freodin]

Ask your friends from 1692 --- you guys think just like they do.

I'm sure you guys have some method of determining what a witch is, since you're always harping we should find them and hang them.

I ask YOU. I ask YOUR knowledge of the Bible.

Do you deny that the Bible - your beloved KJV - tells us not to suffer a witch to live? That is a rather absolute command, don´t you think?

So why does the infallible word of God fail to provide us with a method to FIND a witch?

Do YOU think that the Salem Witch Trials were wrong? Not because your hindsight tells you so, but considering the knowledge of that time.

 

[AV1611VET]

If witch killing is wrong, when it says to kill witches...

That's the point --- it wasn't wrong at the time.

Which, by the way, was BC 1491 --- not [AD] '1600 - 1800'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well as I am understanding it, it DID say to kill witches, but at some point that got dispensated.

Mamma mia!

I underestimate you, Hespera --- and I do apologize for that.

QV my last post.

I like that word 'dispensated' ---