Friday, November 23, 2012

Raised Evangelical: Bob’s Story - VI


We continue with our responses to the "Raised Evangelical" series on the atheist blog "Love, Joy, Feminism."

 
Section 6: Politics

 
Question 1: In his book Broken Words, Jonathan Dudley argues that a fourfold opposition to abortion, homosexuality, evolution and environmentalism constitute the markers of evangelical tribal identity. What role did opposition to these four issues [play] in your fundamental or evangelical upbringing, and would you agree with Dudley?
    Frankly most of these weren't issues when I was growing up. Abortion was illegal and homosexuality was never discussed in public. Evolution, of course, was discussed and debated. Environmentalism was not an issue for Christians at that time.
    Part of the problem with Dudley's thesis is that he is defining Evangelicalism in sociological terms: Evangelicalism has a "tribal identity" marked by opposition to certain political issues. But Evangelicalism should mainly center on the experience of salvation (justification by faith, the new birth, and a relationship with God). The church is supposed to be the mystical body of Christ and the communion of the saints, persons who are tied together by the shared experience, not a voting block in the American electorate tied to a secular political party.
    Abortion and homosexuality are, of course, serious moral issues that deserve the attention of the church, and evolution raises questions about the underlying worldview. Opposition to environmentalism, however, does not logically follow from the other three. If nature was created by design, then we should respect the design in nature just as we do in marriage. We are no more justified in raping the environment than we are in raping a woman on the street. Both acts violate God's purposes in creation and bring about serious consequences. Francis Schaeffer, in fact, wrote a very interesting book on the subject in 1970 – Pollution and the Death of Man.

 
Question 2: What role did you, your family, or your church community believe Christians should play in politics? What did your family or church hold was the end goal of Christians' involvement in politics? What were your family and church community's beliefs about the end times, and how (if any) did these beliefs affect their view of Christian's role in politics?
Question 3: Were you, your family, or your church community involved in politics? What did all their involvement include? Did your pastor ever preach a political view from the pulpit? Did you ever picket an abortion clinic, attend a "defense of marriage" rally, or participate in any related activities? Describe your experiences.
    The short answer to the first question is "none whatsoever." We were Baptists, and one of the "Baptist distinctives" is separation of church and state. Moreover, to answer the question about the end times, our church was very strongly Dispensationalist, and believed that we were living in the last time. The last great apostasy was underway, and the Soviet Union was preparing to invade Israel from the north! (Yes, that's what prophecy teachers were actually saying back then. How a supernatural figure like the Anti-Christ could be a dialectical materialist and a dogmatic atheist was never clearly explained.) Thus things were not expected to get any better. The church saw its role as snatching a few last sinners from the world before the end finally came (within the next few years).
    Moreover, most Christians at that time didn't have an especially favorable view of politicians. They were cigar-smoking, whiskey-swigging crooks who cut deals in back rooms. They were the dissolute looking bunch of characters you saw hanging out in the bar in a downtown hotel. Most Christians wouldn't care to admit that they knew any of these rogues and scoundrels personally.
    Beneath the surface, however, there was a gravitational pull toward right-wing politics. Although the pastor was careful not to discuss it from the pulpit, I think that Barry Goldwater got a lot of support from the members of the congregation when he ran for president in 1964. The fervently anti-Communist John Birch Society attracted support from evangelical Christians, and I can remember reading None Dare Call It Treason, by John Stormer, which laid out an elaborate conspiracy theory.

 
Question 4: What political issues did you, your parents, and / or your church community see as most important in deciding who to vote for and why?
    People's perceptions back then were colored by the Cold War, and the threat of a possible nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. And since the Soviet Union had tried to combine (illogically) a socialistic economic system with and atheist / materialist worldview, many conservative Americans did the exact opposite: they tried to combine (illogically) Christianity with laissez-faire capitalism.
What seemed to make it plausible at the time was the fact that some large companies back then practiced a kind of "welfare capitalism" that included generous benefits packages. And so American conservatives threw their support behind the free-market economic system and a strong national defense.
    There was also an ethnic dimension to all of this. Most "WASPS" (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) in the north were aligned with the Republican Party, while Catholics and Jews were mainly identified with the Democrats. So many Protestants, evangelical and liberal alike, thought that they were protecting the traditional American way of life by voting Republican.
    My father, and I think my grandfather before him, were strongly pro-business and ant-union, and pro-military. My father was known to have voted for Democrats only twice – once by mistake (he accidently pulled the wrong lever in the voting booth), and once because he thought that not even a Democrat could be as bad as Nelson Rockefellar, who was the Governor of New York State at the time. Shortly afterwards the Conservative Party of NY was founded, and my father became an enthusiastic supporter.

26 comments:

  1. (Off-topic post. Apologies)

    Bob, I wanted you to see this video.
    It's about claims made by people who go around crediting ancient structures to aliens.
    The whole thing is rather good but there is one thing in particular I wanted to draw your attention to.
    Consider this...
    Take an ancient city in South America.
    How would you go about dating it?
    Someone says its 3000 years old.
    Ok, maybe.
    Someone else says it's 15,000 years old.
    Ok, maybe.
    Someone else says it's only 600 years old.
    Yep, possible.
    Trouble is that (of course) nobody is around to tell us the age of South American cities.
    We are just going to have to work it out for ourselves using detective work, just like they do on that CSI tv show.
    So how do you date an ancient city?
    What would be a fair and reasonable way to do it? The methodology that you use must be scrupulously fair and be matched with multiple lines of evidence.
    Well, there are ways to go about it...and, sadly, there are ways you should NOT go about it.
    Watch the whole video, it's quite entertaining and is a worthwhile exercise in healthy skepticism and the scientific process. However, if you are very short of time, skip to 16:30.
    Tell me what you think and whether certain people who try to date things ( hint, hint) could take certain principles to heart.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (sigh)
    Heres the link.
    Ancient Aliens Debunked - (full movie) HD
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ&feature=watch-vrec

    ReplyDelete
  3. I watched about 2/3 of the video and found it all very interesting. Years ago I actually heard Erich von Daniken lecture in person in London, and believe it or not I actually have a autographed copy of The Gold of the Gods.
    So, how do we go about dating ancient ruins? Very good question! In the Middle East we are fortunate in that we have documentary evidence -- the Bible, Greek historians, and then documents from the sites themselves in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Thus we can fit the various layers of the ruins into a well known chronology.
    In South America, however, all we have is the physical evidence -- there are no documents. Radiocarbon 14 dating will help us out a little here within certain limits, but there's bound to be a certain amount of guesswork.
    All of which brings us back to the problem of the fossils. The problem with historical geology and historical biology is that all we have is the bare physical evidence which could be interpreted various ways. There are no historical records to correlate the evidence. This means that the conclusions of science here must be necessarily tentative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the Middle East we are fortunate in that we have documentary evidence -- the Bible, Greek historians, and then documents from the sites themselves in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Thus we can fit the various layers of the ruins into a well known chronology.

    The best thing to do is assume that the records are worthless and then start from there.
    Again, treat a site like a crime scene from CSI.
    Don't just dust for fingerprints.
    Go for blood spatter too.
    Skin flakes, ballistics, scratch marks, insect larvae etc.
    Multiple lines of independent evidence are vital to understand the age of things.
    Radiocarbon 14 dating will help us out a little here within certain limits, but there's bound to be a certain amount of guesswork.

    You mean carefully acknowledged margins of error based upon painstaking scientific research, right?
    Guesswork? No.

    The problem with historical geology and historical biology is that all we have is the bare physical evidence which could be interpreted various ways.

    They are not.
    Geologists are not wringing their hands in hapless woe.
    Not are the biologists.
    The only "interpreting in various ways" nonsense comes from the back seat drivers of the creationist camp that peddle doubts yet precious little work.

    This means that the conclusions of science here must be necessarily tentative.

    All science is "tentative". Not just "here" but everywhere.
    Yet it works.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The best thing to do is to assume that the records are worthless . . ." This is precisely the problem I have with so much of modern "scholarship." We dismiss the documentary evidence, some of it verbal testimony from eyewitnesses, and rely exclusively on physical evidence which tells us little. The net effect is to get rid of most of the evidence and replace it with speculation and conjecture. Imagine that you were going to write a history of the American Revolution, but you proceeded on the assumption that "the records are worthless." what kind of history would you wind up with? You would look at a building in Philadelphia (Independence Hall, conclude that it had been built in the 18th Century, was equipped with a large bell and a clock, and was apparently used for meetings of some sort. And that would be the full extent of your history of the American Revolution!

    ReplyDelete
  6. We dismiss the documentary evidence, some of it verbal testimony from eyewitnesses, and rely exclusively on physical evidence which tells us little.

    Eyewitness testimony is sometimes not really eyewitness testimony.
    Even if it is, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
    Any court of law will tell you the same.
    Look it up.
    This is something that is easily verifiable for yourself.
    Don't just take my word for it.

    People have bad memories, even when it comes to important or incredibly obvious moments. People lie. People just get confused.
    Soldiers make claims about important battles concerning locations, movemements and raw numbers and get them hopelessly wrong.

    The physical evidence can tell us a great deal.
    It can convict people.
    It can release people from prison on death row who have been betrayed by the system with a miscarriage of justice.
    Archeology is very rigorous in the same way that forensic science is very rigorous. There can be a lot of overlap.

    Take a simple case: How would you determine when camels were used in the Middle East? What would qualify as solid evidence for you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. How would you know who won the Battle of Carchemish? Or whether or not it had even taken place, for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
  8. So I asked "How would you determine when camels were used in the Middle East? What would qualify as solid evidence for you?"

    I still don't know.


    ReplyDelete
  9. They are mentioned in ancient texts, including 25 times in the Book of Genesis alone, and are represented in ancient art, including The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III.
    So, how would you determine which side won the Battle of Carchemish?

    ReplyDelete
  10. They are mentioned in ancient texts, including 25 times in the Book of Genesis alone, and are represented in ancient art, including The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III.
    So, how would you...


    Woah, what's the rush?
    I'm not sure I understand the problem here.
    Is talking about camels in the Middle East an uncomfortable subject for you?
    We can talk about whatever you like but you keep wanting to change the subject.
    We can change it if you want but I'd like to at least know why.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You said, "we dismiss the documentary evidence." So I want to know, on that basis, how you would tell who won the Battle of Carchemish or what happened in Independence Hall on July 4, 1776?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You said, "we dismiss the documentary evidence."

    No, I didn't. That was you.
    Ninth Commandment, remember?

    You also said that..."and rely exclusively on physical evidence which tells us little. The net effect is to get rid of most of the evidence and replace it with speculation and conjecture."

    Wrong on all counts.
    We don't rely exclusively on physical evidence.
    That goes for archeologists as well as forensic scientists.
    Physicical evidence doesn't tell us "little". It tells us a lot.
    It can change our perspective on some important issue dramatically.
    It can free a wrongly convicted person from death row.
    That's not little.
    It can bring a murderer to justice many years after a case has gone cold.
    That's not little.
    It can tell us why a city was abandoned or reveal the living conditions of soldiers from some ancient empire. It can map out ancient plagues or reveal agricultural production.
    That's not little.

    Archeology and forensic science does not "get rid of evidence."
    Discovering fingerprints (to choose one tiny example from a host of others) is not getting rid of evidence; it's addding to it.

    ...replace it with speculation and conjecture.

    Again, wrong. You are just making things up.
    They don't teach scientists to speculate and just make things up in any scientific discipline. You are indulging in pure fantasy at this point.
    Rather that smear scientists and bear false witness, it would be more honest to find out how archeologists do their job.
    The work they do is disciplined, demanding and very interesting. It has greatly expanded our knowledge of human history.
    You need to understand the very big differences between actual archeology and pseudoarcheology.
    It's all about the methodology. It's all about the actual work.



    ReplyDelete
  13. You're right. I did say that. What you said was "The best thing to do is assume that the records are worthless and then start from there." (Comment of 11/26).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you said was "The best thing to do is assume that the records are worthless and then start from there."

      Yes, that's what I said.
      Now can you understand the logic of why I said that?

      People lie.
      They really do.
      People exaggerate. It happens all the time.
      People simply get confused.
      People even get paid to lie.
      It happens now and it happens then.
      Even priests can lie.
      (Shocking but true)

      So any testimony in, say, a police report or written down on withered parchment has to be looked at with extreme caution. You assume the worst case scenario.
      You look for something to verify that one single source of information that you have.
      The more sources you have, the better.
      If the physical evidence backs up the claims then...great.
      If however, the physical evidence contradicts the claims made then...someone has some 'splaining to do.

      If you are not comfortable with talking about camels in the Middle East, then we don't have to talk about them.
      Let's choose an example which is both relatively recent and where we both probably agree on the results of the various investigations that have taken place.
      The Mormons and their "Ancient American history".
      Are you familiar with it?

      Delete
  14. I told you how we know about camels in the Middle East (my comment of 11/28). I probably have a copy of the Book of Mormon somewhere, but haven't looked at it in years. I have heard that they have a strange version of American history.
    As for physical evidence, we actually have an interesting, if perplexing case locally. A local businessman, (I believe he owns a car dealership), has been tried and convicted twice of having murdered his wife. However neither the body nor the murder weapon have ever been found. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to prove absolutely that the wife is even dead, let alone murdered. However the circumstantial evidence seemed to point to the husband having killed her. There was blood in the kitchen and garage, he had an apparent motive (there was talk about divorce and the possible division of his assets), and the juries could not believe that the wife would simply disappear and not take her children with her. I hear the case might be going for a third trial. So does the bloodstain on the garage floor really prove that the husband killed his wife?

    ReplyDelete
  15. So does the bloodstain on the garage floor really prove that the husband killed his wife?

    No, that's not the way the justice system nor archeology works.
    There could be a perfectly innocent reason why the blood is there.

    Still, would not you want to have DNA testing done on that bloodstain?
    Would not you want to know how much blood was spilt?
    What of the pattern of the fall of blood? That would tell you something.
    Would not you want to see the cell phone records of the wife to pinpoint her last known location?
    Would you really be gullible enought just to accept the "eyewitness" testimony of the husband?
    I'm not saying he's guilty. He could well be innocent.
    I don't know and I'm not willing to guess.

    It's just that forensic science does not work using just mere speculation and conjecture. Neither does any other science.

    Science does not make stuff up as it goes along.
    There are very strict protocols.
    Those protocols are there because they work. They are there because of experience. They help maintain the integrity of the evidence gathered.

    For example, science rejects the Mormon version of ancient American history.
    It's not because scientists are anti-Mormon per se.
    It's not a matter of "interpretation" either.
    The claims made by the Mormons just don't withstand close scrutiny.
    If the Jews really did make it to North America then that would leave behind evidence.
    An Iron Age Empire cannot vanish without a trace without leaving at least something. Reality does not work like that.
    Roads, graveyards, city ruins, ship wrecks, elephant bones, etc.
    The fingerprints of civilizations remain.

    Did an angel speak to Smith? Um, sure. Maybe.
    Yet we have to entertain the idea that the man was a fraud and a con artist who (shock, gasp) just made the whole thing up.
    When we look at the physical evidence, we find holes that you could drive a fleet of trucks through.

    Does that mean that there was no angel and no Iron Age civilization in North America lead by J.C in person?
    Well, no. But...
    (shrug)
    Take DNA for example.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is actually very good evidence that Smith made it up. He already had a reputation as a scam artist, and he never let anyone see the alleged "plates." Large amounts of the material appear to have been plagiarized from other sources. And in the final analysis we have only his word to go by.
    And so it is with any ancient record. Every historian will have a selective bias, and autobiographies in particular tend to be self-serving. But where we have multiple sources, as is the case in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, we can put together the main outlines of the story with a reasonable degree of accuracy. And sometimes archaeology actually confirms the essential truth of what had formerly been thought of as ancient legend -- Troy is an excellent case in point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is actually very good evidence that Smith made it up. He already had a reputation as a scam artist, and he never let anyone see the alleged "plates."

    Yes but that's not evidence.
    It's grounds for suspicion but it doesn't mean that he made it up.
    Maybe an angel really did talk to him.
    (shrug)

    Large amounts of the material appear to have been plagiarized from other sources. And in the final analysis we have only his word to go by.

    Well, yes. This is the important bit. There's no way to independently confirm Smith's claims. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone insists that they had a heart-to-heart with an angel...then I'd look at them funny.
    It's like claiming that they were abducted by aliens or chatted with a super-sized pixie or something.
    Sure, maybe that's what happened.
    Maybe.
    Yet only a dumb bunny would just meekly accept it and not demand actual evidence.
    That goes for any similar kind of claim.
    I'm not selectively picking on the poor old Mormons.
    My standards are the same for all comers.

    And so it is with any ancient record. Every historian will have a selective bias, and autobiographies in particular tend to be self-serving.

    And sometimes that's all we have.
    If there's only a single ancient record then extreme caution is in order. You have to assume the worst case scenario.

    But where we have multiple sources, as is the case in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, we can put together the main outlines of the story with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

    Well, firstly it's important to know if the sources really are independent and not just repeating each other like a rumour mill. That can happen.

    Two, you can have two independent "eyewitness" accounts of an event and they can both be completely wrong.
    (That goes for both modern and ancient accounts.)

    Three, people have an unfortunate habit of grasping for straws and trying to fit round pegs into square holes. Sometimes, one account is not really coroborating another account. Important details are missing and it's not really clear that one supports the other.
    Sometimes, people can swear black and blue that they are using "eyewitness" accounts which are not really "eyewitness" accounts at all. Indeed, some people don't understand how horribly unreliable genuine eyewintess accounts can be in the first place.

    And sometimes archaeology actually confirms the essential truth of what had formerly been thought of as ancient legend -- Troy is an excellent case in point.

    Sure. Which is why I don't understand your attitude that relying on exclusively on physical evidence tells us little. Surely, Troy and Pompeii are simply magnificent examples of how archeology works and expands our knowledge? Such impressive work has not had the net effect of getting rid of most of the evidence and replacing it with speculation and conjecture.

    We knew next to nothing about Troy or Pompeii before they were excavated. Records get lost. Legends change with the ages. Even when contemporary accounts survive, they don't mention important information because the writer was focused on something else.

    The way archeologists excavate cities or tombs or battlefields or ancient rubbish pits is always done with strict scientific protocols to preserve the integrity of the evidence. They don't just get to make stuff up as they go along.
    There is a yawning gulf between the way actual scientists go abount their work and the way that the yahoo pseudo-scientists go about theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My basic point is this: we know a lot more about the history of ancient Greece and Rome by reading the Greek and Roman historians: Herodotus and Thuycidides, Livy and Tacitus, than we can from the bare physical evidence. The historians are specific about persons, places and times. They tell us who said what and when. You would not be able to tell, just from the ruins of Rome, that Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C.
    I remember reading, years ago, a facetious article allegedly written by an archaeologist in the future reporting on his excavation of a backyard in a 20th Century American suburban community. He reported finding a metal circular basin mounted on legs, and having a grill on top, and finding the remains of charred bones nearby. His conclusion: it was a altar for some sort of cult where burnt offerings were made! (Well, how would he know?) And that is just the problem with reading too much into the physical evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  19. we know a lot more about the history of ancient Greece and Rome by reading the Greek and Roman historians: Herodotus and Thuycidides, Livy and Tacitus, than we can from the bare physical evidence. The historians are specific about persons, places and times.

    How do you know this? Think about it.
    The standards that historians have nowadays when they record events is a very recent thing.
    Those standards were not around back then.

    You need multiple, independent lines of evidence.
    If someone claims to have had a nice chat with an angel there's no reason to just meekly accept it.
    People make stuff up.
    They make stuff up for political reasons and economic reasons and religious reasons.
    Rumours get passed on as fact. Numbers get make up. A certain poetic licence was accepted.
    You have to treat extraordinary claims with extreme caution.
    There's no good reason to be a dumb bunny.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The Hittites had a respectable historical literature, and the Hebrews first proclaimed a truly historical narrative of extensive scope and relative accuracy. But the Greeks and Romans -- once their historians became active and independent recorders, established rather late on the cultural scene -- went much further, constantly enlarging the meanings of history (inquiry, research, investigation) and imposing order upon the knowledge of remote and recent events alike, according to principles of source criticism and causation." Michael Grant, Readings in the Classical Historians

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The Hittites had a respectable historical literature..."

    I'm sure they did.
    Yet the standards that historians have nowadays is a very recent thing.

    But the Greeks and Romans...

    Yes, wonderful people. Great historians etc.
    Yet the standards that historians have nowadays is a very recent thing.
    Multiple, independent lines of evidence are the only ways to go.
    People lie or just get things wrong.
    Being a Greek or Roman or Hittite historian is not a guarantee of quality.
    Not even MODERN historians are perfect. They can screw up as well. The academic scholarship can catch them better nowadays but it's all dependent on the research done and the integrity of the sources used.

    For example, if I told you that I spoke to an angel...would you cheerfully believe me?
    Think about it.
    (Here's hoping you actually try to answer the question instead of either ignoring it or posing a question of your own or giving a pat answer and then changing topics with a question of your own.)

    If I told you that I spoke to an angel, would you believe me?

    ReplyDelete
  22. A straight answer?
    Goodness!
    Ok then, let's work with that.
    Go back 2000 years.
    Some guy is writing about how he met an angel.
    (A Greek or a Hittite or a whatever)
    His document survives the ages and you get to read it.
    (It's a real document. Absolutely authentic.)

    Are you prepared to believe his account of how he spoke to an angel?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stay tuned. We will devote a whole blogpost to your question.

    ReplyDelete