![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I read an OpEd piece today that caught my eye. I usually don't read them because, like books with the words "A Novel" on the cover, they are often are about people I don't like and strive to prove things I don't agree with. Still, I dabble in them every once in a while and usually regret it right away. Today was no exception.
Believe It or No was tagged with "Religion divides the U.S. from the rest of the world" and it caught my eye. I am a spiritual -- and religious -- person and I was interested in seeing what tact this article took: freedom of religion vs. state sponsored religion (or state sponsored atheism)? Christianity vs. Islam? Diversity of religion vs. limited religious alternatives? Perhaps even something on how the relative youngness of our country (just over 200 years) separates us from countries that have been steeped in religion for many thousands of years.
What I got was a condescending piece on how Americans are becoming more religious and by default less intellectual. In simple terms: Religion makes Americans dumb and this dumbness is separating us from the rest of the less religious (and therefor more intellectual) industrial nations.
Two things to keep in mind, here:
1) I may be misreading the article. The author may not have intended me to get the impression that I got. But this is written for the NY Times. If it had been written for a LJ, I could see how someone may not be articulate enough to make sense, but I expect that writers like Nicholas D. Kristof should have taken more than one semester of HS english and should have some concept on how to express his thoughts clearly and accurately.
2) The article was written based on a poll and the poll results are quoted in it often. However, it doesn't print the poll nor does it link to the poll. I really hate that. Anyone who has taken any amount of psychology knows that the wording or question order of a poll will influence the results of the poll. Before anyone can really understand the results of a poll they need to know exactly what the poll asked.
I have to start out by saying that there are a lot of little things in this article that really bug me. Early in the piece he uses the word "pious" in a negative way: "...regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend." Then, when he uses it later the negative connotations still cling to it "America is so pious..." and you know that whatever follows will be a bad thing. Then there's the way he writes that most everyone recognizes that evidence for the Virgin Birth is "so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith" and blithely insinuate that belief in it is some how stupid; thereby insinuating that faith itself is stupid. How he repeatedly -- but without directly saying so -- sets up faith and intellectualism as opposite and incompatible. Not to mention that he states that he's "not denigrating anyone's beliefs" when that's what he did in the whole article.
Still, what I find most annoying about this article is how it links two concepts that are totally unrelated and sets them up as equal and opposite: The virgin birth and evolution. The article starts out with "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)". Fascinating but why link those two? It sounds like bad joke: What does evolution have in common with the Virgin Birth of Jesus? I'm still waiting for the punch line.
Even if Kristof was trying to write an article stating that intellectualism should mean that how strongly people believe in something should be proportionate to the amount of proof that can support that belief (and with a stretch I could say that may have been what he wanted to do with this piece) it still doesn't make sense to use those two as examples.
And I submit to you that the very fact he wants to link belief and proof illustrates how flawed his view of belief is. Isn't belief, by its very nature, not about proof? And if you have proof, why do you need belief at all? And to tell you the truth, if being an intellectual means I can only believe in what can be proven, I don't want to be one.
I assume that his use of those statistics is to provide an example of how Americans can believe in the "unsupported" Virgin Birth and not believe in the "supported" evolution. But I submit that even if they would be equal concepts (which they are not) each of them have so many connotations and so much emotional and intellectual baggage attached to them that it is a faulty comparison.
The Virgin Birth is a concept, a story, a legend that has been believed or disbelieved for thousands of years. It was around long before people started becoming so intellectual that they needed proof for belief. It is a central concept in Christianity; as Kristof quoted it is "a leap of faith". To many, faithfully believing in the Virgin Birth is the same as faithfully believing in God Himself. Neither can be proved, both can be believed. In fact, I would submit that the 47 percent of "pious" non-Christians out there who said that they believed in the Virgin Birth were actually acknowledging that essential nature of belief -- the need for belief to take that leap of faith. That question, in many ways, could be akin to asking: Do you believe in something that cannot be proven?
Evolution, if life would be simple, would be a scientific theory and as such, there would really be no need for belief, either the theory would work or it wouldn't. But it's not that simple.
By definition, evolution is "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". On the face, it's kinda hard to argue with it. The fossil record supports it. Actually, that's the other way around, I suppose. Evolution as theory was created to explain why the fossil record is the way it is, so you almost have to say that evolution supports the fossil record. But that is a whole different and wonderful discussion of Scientific Theory, how it works and how it changes.
The problem comes with that whole "natural selection" part. Ever since Darwin proposed Evolution, too many people (both religious and non-religious) have taken "natural selection" to mean "without God/deity/supernatural help". When asked "Do you believe in evolution" too many people hear "Do you believe there is no God". Unfortunately, an equal number of people do actually mean that.
It's a shame really. Evolution shouldn't be the opposite of God or faith. Evolution should just be a scientific theory that helps us learn more about our world and directs us to form the next, more advanced, more complete theory.
If you ask me: Do you believe in the Virgin Birth? I will say yes. It's essential to my faith. It represents the wonder and power of God. It is the basis for Christ being both human and more than human. But don't you dare think that it means I can't discuss the intellectual aspects of it.
If you ask me: Do you believe in evolution? I'll probably laugh at you. Scientific theories don't need me to believe in them. However, intellectually, I would probably assume you were asking me if I believe that we all come to be the way we are accidentally, randomly and without a divine plan, and I would have to say no.
For an article that professes to be about Faith and Intellectualism I find that the author doesn't understand or use either very well.
Believe It or No was tagged with "Religion divides the U.S. from the rest of the world" and it caught my eye. I am a spiritual -- and religious -- person and I was interested in seeing what tact this article took: freedom of religion vs. state sponsored religion (or state sponsored atheism)? Christianity vs. Islam? Diversity of religion vs. limited religious alternatives? Perhaps even something on how the relative youngness of our country (just over 200 years) separates us from countries that have been steeped in religion for many thousands of years.
What I got was a condescending piece on how Americans are becoming more religious and by default less intellectual. In simple terms: Religion makes Americans dumb and this dumbness is separating us from the rest of the less religious (and therefor more intellectual) industrial nations.
Two things to keep in mind, here:
1) I may be misreading the article. The author may not have intended me to get the impression that I got. But this is written for the NY Times. If it had been written for a LJ, I could see how someone may not be articulate enough to make sense, but I expect that writers like Nicholas D. Kristof should have taken more than one semester of HS english and should have some concept on how to express his thoughts clearly and accurately.
2) The article was written based on a poll and the poll results are quoted in it often. However, it doesn't print the poll nor does it link to the poll. I really hate that. Anyone who has taken any amount of psychology knows that the wording or question order of a poll will influence the results of the poll. Before anyone can really understand the results of a poll they need to know exactly what the poll asked.
I have to start out by saying that there are a lot of little things in this article that really bug me. Early in the piece he uses the word "pious" in a negative way: "...regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend." Then, when he uses it later the negative connotations still cling to it "America is so pious..." and you know that whatever follows will be a bad thing. Then there's the way he writes that most everyone recognizes that evidence for the Virgin Birth is "so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith" and blithely insinuate that belief in it is some how stupid; thereby insinuating that faith itself is stupid. How he repeatedly -- but without directly saying so -- sets up faith and intellectualism as opposite and incompatible. Not to mention that he states that he's "not denigrating anyone's beliefs" when that's what he did in the whole article.
Still, what I find most annoying about this article is how it links two concepts that are totally unrelated and sets them up as equal and opposite: The virgin birth and evolution. The article starts out with "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)". Fascinating but why link those two? It sounds like bad joke: What does evolution have in common with the Virgin Birth of Jesus? I'm still waiting for the punch line.
Even if Kristof was trying to write an article stating that intellectualism should mean that how strongly people believe in something should be proportionate to the amount of proof that can support that belief (and with a stretch I could say that may have been what he wanted to do with this piece) it still doesn't make sense to use those two as examples.
And I submit to you that the very fact he wants to link belief and proof illustrates how flawed his view of belief is. Isn't belief, by its very nature, not about proof? And if you have proof, why do you need belief at all? And to tell you the truth, if being an intellectual means I can only believe in what can be proven, I don't want to be one.
I assume that his use of those statistics is to provide an example of how Americans can believe in the "unsupported" Virgin Birth and not believe in the "supported" evolution. But I submit that even if they would be equal concepts (which they are not) each of them have so many connotations and so much emotional and intellectual baggage attached to them that it is a faulty comparison.
The Virgin Birth is a concept, a story, a legend that has been believed or disbelieved for thousands of years. It was around long before people started becoming so intellectual that they needed proof for belief. It is a central concept in Christianity; as Kristof quoted it is "a leap of faith". To many, faithfully believing in the Virgin Birth is the same as faithfully believing in God Himself. Neither can be proved, both can be believed. In fact, I would submit that the 47 percent of "pious" non-Christians out there who said that they believed in the Virgin Birth were actually acknowledging that essential nature of belief -- the need for belief to take that leap of faith. That question, in many ways, could be akin to asking: Do you believe in something that cannot be proven?
Evolution, if life would be simple, would be a scientific theory and as such, there would really be no need for belief, either the theory would work or it wouldn't. But it's not that simple.
By definition, evolution is "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". On the face, it's kinda hard to argue with it. The fossil record supports it. Actually, that's the other way around, I suppose. Evolution as theory was created to explain why the fossil record is the way it is, so you almost have to say that evolution supports the fossil record. But that is a whole different and wonderful discussion of Scientific Theory, how it works and how it changes.
The problem comes with that whole "natural selection" part. Ever since Darwin proposed Evolution, too many people (both religious and non-religious) have taken "natural selection" to mean "without God/deity/supernatural help". When asked "Do you believe in evolution" too many people hear "Do you believe there is no God". Unfortunately, an equal number of people do actually mean that.
It's a shame really. Evolution shouldn't be the opposite of God or faith. Evolution should just be a scientific theory that helps us learn more about our world and directs us to form the next, more advanced, more complete theory.
If you ask me: Do you believe in the Virgin Birth? I will say yes. It's essential to my faith. It represents the wonder and power of God. It is the basis for Christ being both human and more than human. But don't you dare think that it means I can't discuss the intellectual aspects of it.
If you ask me: Do you believe in evolution? I'll probably laugh at you. Scientific theories don't need me to believe in them. However, intellectually, I would probably assume you were asking me if I believe that we all come to be the way we are accidentally, randomly and without a divine plan, and I would have to say no.
For an article that professes to be about Faith and Intellectualism I find that the author doesn't understand or use either very well.
