The following study presents a conundrum -a difficult and often complex
problem-
to believers in any faith: How do you justify religious commitment if the
end
result is that, if you are intelligent, your adult life will be spent in
the company
of people who -supposedly- aren't very smart? Moreover, you will be asked
to make public affirmations of beliefs that the intelligentsia regard as
passé, mythological, or simply childish and/or ignorant.
Regrettably there is more truth to the "observation" than anyone wants to
admit.
Yet the question isn't quite right. It isn't right because the studies at
issue do not
seem to have asked the right questions. After all, I'm hardly the first
person in the
world to note that a lot of smart people are religious, there have been a
number
of other studies to this effect, showing that, for example, members of
Evangelical churches often are among the greatest achievers in any number of
fields -especially business, but also the military, and fields like
engineering and
other "hard" professions.
One thing to point out about these fields, however, is that none of them
take
much interest, as professions, in what is sometimes called "the life of
the mind."
This is in contrast to fields in which people with Leftist values
predominate,
academia especially, but also the Law, communications media, and the arts.
Hence, also, the distrust of these fields on the Right.
Hence, as well, the conceit of the Left to the effect, "you may have a net
economic
worth in excess of anything I can even think about, but you are not very
smart
and it is my prerogative to ridicule your views all that I want." Thus the
gradual
erosion of American culture and the gradual loss of the young to the Left.
My outlook is, to repeat the adage still again, the Right really is stupid
and the Left really is evil. As overly simplistic as this paradigm is,
by God, it explains a helluva lot.
What is the solution? This is one of my current interests inasmuch as
this exact
issue comes up repeatedly in Biblical studies. That is, in studies of the
Bible
that evangelicals never, ever, read, and hardly ever even know about.
All the "big names" in the field, recognized immediately among scholars
but just about completely unknown on the Religious Right: Crossan, Borg,
Pagels, Ruether, Schussler-Fiorenza, and so forth. For that matter, the
very best conservative Bible scholarship also is terra incognito to the
Right, for example
John Meier's A Marginal Jew, a superlative 2 volume study of just about
all current scholarship on the life of Jesus.
Of course, Meier is a Catholic and hard-nosed scholarship has been
intrinsic
to Catholicism since forever, with Catholic tradition producing arguably
the
most brilliant Christian thinker of all time, St. Thomas Aquinas. As close
as
Evangelicals usually get to an intellectual hero is to cite C.S. Lewis.
But, sorry,
while he certainly was smart, no way is he in the first rank of Christian
thinkers,
not even close. Not even in the first rank of conservative Christians
thinkers.
Which is more than unfortunate since there have been some really serious
minds who,
however, are cited by almost no-one today, to refer to Barth and
Kierkegaard
and Bonhoeffer, especially Bonhoeffer.
The discussion among scholars, sometimes citing Church Fathers, -the 3 or
4
generations of Christian leaders just after those we can read about in the
NT-
is who has the ability to understand the scriptures? This because an issue
in that era because of the rise of the "Spirit inspired" Montanist movement
which, alas, preached numerous heresies and threatened to disrupt the
entire institutional Church. Think of it as "Pentecostalism gone wild,"
to give you an idea. Or as an early version of Mormonism but without
even limited constraint by tradition which, in that era, was barely establi
shed
and only had limited hold on many believers' loyalties.
The answer given by some (a minority, but more than a few) Fathers was
that the scriptures should only be interpreted by learned scholars. And
that
view became dominant in time but always with allowance for people
like St Francis who, however spirit led, never wavered in their support
of Christian institutions
The point is that we are in the same predicament today. And, frankly, what
passes for Biblical scholarship among, it seems, most Evangelicals, is
pretty lame stuff, hardly any of which would pass muster at any
reputable university.
This is in stark contrast to Meier, who can run rings around just about all
other scholars -coming from a conservative perspective, at that.
But Meier is totally familiar with each and every argument that the Left
makes, credits arguments made by the Left that seem to him to be
irrefutable, and simply moves on to other issues where, by any objective
standards, his arguments run roughshod over the Left.
Well, much more could be said, but for me the gist is that the Right needs
to get serious about Bible scholarship because what it offers now is
devotionalism with a veneer of scholarship, not something else.
But how can it do any such thing? One approach would be -I know
it sounds naive- Sunday School. But not what many or most people think,
which is preliminary "informative devotions" prior to the main sermon of
the day.
An actual school is the intention, not for "credits" but to seriously
learn the
Bible inside and out, being painfully honest about its weaknesses
and willing to admit real problems. However, this simply cannot happen
as long as any doctrine of Biblical inerrancy prevails. That sort of thing
precludes genuine scholarship altogether.
OK, how do you avoid the slippery slope whereby, once one error
is admitted, so many other errors are also admitted that there
is nothing much left? All I can say at this time is that Meier did it,
and so have many others. For me that kind of faith is the only
kind of faith I can justify for myself. In any case, this is something
that, as the Apostle Paul said, each person needs to work out for
himself or herself, no-one can do it for you.
Billy
-----------------------
Are atheists smarter than believers? Not exactly
Kimberly Winston ("The Salt Lake Tribune," August 16, 2013)
A new study of almost a century’s worth of data shows that the smarter you
are, the less likely you are to believe in God.
The study, conducted by Miron Zuckerman, a psychologist at the University
of Rochester, examined the findings of 63 earlier studies — one dating back
to the 1920s — that measured intelligence and religiosity. The majority of
those studies found that more intelligent people were more likely to lack
religious beliefs.
"The relation between intelligence and religion is negative," Zuckerman
said. "It was very early in the study that we realized that."
But Zuckerman is careful to point out that his work — known as a
"meta-study" because it examines a range of other studies — does not mean only
dumb
people believe in God.
Instead, he said, it shows only that more intelligent people may have less
need for religion.
"It is truly the wrong message to take from here that if I believe in God,
I must be stupid," he said. "I would not want to bet any money on that
because I would have a very good chance of losing a lot of money."
Rather, Zuckerman and co-authors Jordan Silberman and Judith Hall write
that more intelligent people may find certain basic needs — "functions" in
psychology-speak — fulfilled outside of religion. These functions include
self-esteem, a sense of community and a sense of purpose.
"We say it is possible that having a high level of intelligence provides
similar functions to what religion provides" for people who adhere to a
religion, Zuckerman said.
The study also concludes that more intelligent people are less likely to
believe in God because they are more likely to challenge established norms
and dogma. They are also more likely to have analytical thinking styles,
which other studies have shown undermine religious belief.
The news is not bad for believers, Zuckerman insists.
"The functions we cover imply that in many ways religious people are better
off than those who are nonreligious," he said. "There are things about
self-esteem and feeling in control and attachment that religion provides. In
all those things, there are benefits to being religious, and that is the
take-home message for those who are religious."
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Louisville, Ky., said he has "great concerns" about the study.
"This kind of study points to a very clear issue for believing Christians,"
he said. "We do not draw support for our faith from scientific reports.
Anyone whose faith is shaken by the claim that research proves that higher
intelligence leads to lower levels of religious belief has a misplaced
faith."
Lillian Daniel is a Congregationalist pastor and author of the recent book
"When ‘Spiritual But Not Religious’ Is Not Enough." She said many
intelligent people are comfortable with "the metaphor and mystery" of faith.
"It’s not that intelligence leads to atheism, or education leads to loss of
faith," she said. "But I think there is a certain peer pressure as one
moves up the educational ladder to dismiss all religion as fundamentalism. It’
s one of the last acceptable biases in an environment that prides itself on
being open-minded."
The study appeared in the online version of Personality and Social
Psychology Review, an academic journal, and will appear next year in the print
version.
____________________________________
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
