[Vision2020] Arrogant Dogmatism, Faith & Science

[Ted Moffett]

Joe et. al.

I have had been quoted on Dale's website in a less than flattering manner.
I guess that's one of the risks of expressing opinions in a public forum,
that they will be taken out of context, or used for someones agenda against
whoever or whatever...

I am inclined to think there are more than 1000 people in the Moscow city
limits (over 22,000 pop.) who believe in some form of what I would call
"religious dogmatism" that is fear based... Belief in a hell for punishment
in the afterlife is all that is required to qualify for this... But there is
no survey I know of to determine the numbers on this subject.  Many who
appear to follow a given church or religion do not really believe all that
is expected of them.  If it turned out that only 1000 people out of the
22000+ in Moscow believed in hell, I would be pleasantly surprised.

However, many of the "tolerant and humble" religious believers, who are kind
and generous people, are still led to support "arrogant dogmatism" via their
religious beliefs and faith, in the sincere intention to follow God's law.
How many in Idaho who voted for the anti-gay rights Super DOMA (Defense of
Marriage Act) in 2006, might give the shirt off their back to help someone
in need?  Yet in the firm belief that the Bible, the word of the one true
God, commands that gay behavior is wrong, they will vote to deny gay
rights.  They may not be "arrogant" in person, but their beliefs are
embedded in what I think is an arrogant ideology.

I do not believe that "faith" always gets in the way of understanding the
world from a scientific, or even a Ethically enlightened, point of view.
Belief in God, and also in the science of evolution, or any scientific
finding, in love and compassion as a general approach to life (even towards
Nature), rather than exploitation, force, violence, or exclusion, or in
human rights across the board for all regardless of race, gender, or sexual
orientation, etc. can happily coexist.

The Catholic Church has officially accepted that the science of evolution
does not contradict their faith, if understood correctly.  Which is more
than can be said for a number of local churches.  However, the official
position of the Catholic Church on evolution requires careful qualification,
discussed in the article below:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the
encyclical *Humani
generis:* "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in
conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology,
research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields,
take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries
into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living
matter."

A Crucial Distinction

Obviously, John Paul II distinguishes between evolutionary theories
compatible with sound philosophy and theology, and those, such as
naturalism, which aren't. In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
he spoke of "theories of evolution," rather than simply *the *theory of
evolution, to make the distinction. Believers who defend or attack evolution
should make the same distinction.

When a philosophically or theology unsound version of evolution is proposed,
it should be challenged on those grounds. But when a view of evolution
doesn't contradict sound philosophy or theology-when it is compatible with
what John Paul II calls "the truth about man"-then its validity depends on
the scientific evidence. Ultimately, the evidence will either corroborate or
undermine the theory. Those who accept or reject such a theory should do so
on scientific, rather than philosophical or theological, grounds.

That distinction will, no doubt, displease those who think the theory of
evolution not only *scientifically *false but *theologically *erroneous.
Little can be said to persuade Fundamentalist Protestants otherwise. But
Catholics who criticize Pope John Paul II for not condemning evolution
should recall Pope Pius XII's now half-century old teaching, and avoid
trying, in their anti-evolutionary fervor, to be more Catholic than the
pope.

 *Mark Brumley, a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism, is the
managing editor of *Catholic Dossier*.*
--------------------------
Ted Moffett

On 10/15/07, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> I appreciate your comments. I don't feel comfortable talking about the
> details of my own
> religious views, in part because often my words are quoted out of context
> on Dale's
> website and then ridiculed. But even if there were no Dale, I still
> wouldn't feel
> comfortable talking about the details in a public forum.
>
> In general, I'm against fear-based, dogmatic forms of religious belief.
> But I don't see
> much connection between faith, in the way I understand it, and fear-based,
> dogmatic
> forms of religious belief. I won't deny that fear-based, dogmatic forms of
> religious belief
> are common but even in our town only about 1,000 out of 20,000 or so
> people can be
> characterized in this way. Most of the religious people I know are
> tolerant and humble.
>
> Also, why think that faith gets in the way of understanding the world from
> a scientific
> point of view? I don't see it that way.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> ---- Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Joe wrote:
>
>
> >  This is especially
> > irritating since her beliefs are the product of faith, and it is hard to
> > see how faith could
> > ever support arrogant dogmatism. I'm annoyed too because I'm a Christian
> > and some
> > people – Paul for instance – seem to think that idiotic arrogance
> typifies
> > Christian belief.
>
>
> Perhaps by your finely parsed definition of "faith," you are correct, but
> millions of the "faithful" are supported in what I would certainly call
> "arrogant dogmatism" by their "faith," as they interpret it.  Millions of
> Christians and Muslims believe absolutely that their particular
> interpretations of the Bible or the Koran are the unquestionable truth,
> and
> based on this belief, support extremist views, whether it be that
> martyrdom
> assures a place in heaven after death, that gays are to be stoned, women
> are
> second class citizens, that the science regarding evolution is to be
> disregarded, or that the Earth's ecosystems are merely a disposable stage
> for the enactment of a cosmic drama that soon will end with the Second
> Coming.
>
> I think Paul's point about religious dogmatism based on what some believe
> to
> be commands from the creator of the universe is valid.  Beliefs of this
> sort
> lend themselves to arrogant dogmatism if wholeheartedly passionately
> followed, because they induce an unquestioning certainty that reduces the
> skepticism that might otherwise temper extremism.  I question my
> fundamental
> beliefs often.  The religious fundamentalist full of "faith" that God is
> commanding them to act in a certain way I doubt engages in the systematic
> questioning of knowledge and belief that a philosopher pursues.
>
> I am curious as to how you define your beliefs as a Christian?  I would
> not
> bother to ask, but given you have made an issue of your beliefs in this
> matter... Do you believe Christ is
> "divine," the Son of God, and rose from the dead, someday to return to
> Earth, as many Christians believe?  Why do you call yourself a Christian,
> and not a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Wiccan or an agnostic, etc?  While I
> do
> not believe I can honestly call myself a Christian without believing at
> the
> very least in the "Divinity of Christ," my respect for many of the
> teachings
> and ethical examples Christ manifested, that are reported in the New
> Testament, might allow a declaration that I am a follower of Christ's
> teachings, along with following other wise enlightened teachers, of which
> I
> could name quite a few.
>
> I thought I should add, to clarify what seems like a misunderstanding by
> some, that my spiritual focus on Nature I do not regard as a
> "Faith."  There
> is no ideological system, as we usually understand a "religion" to
> represent, behind this point of view.  I do not think, for example, that a
> coherent system of Ethics can be derived from observing or worshipping
> Nature.  There is much "cruelty" in the natural world that I would not
> want
> to see emulated by human beings toward each other.  And the natural world
> could just as well cause our complete extinction as a species, without so
> much as blinking, as continue to be our sustainable home in the universe.
>
> I regard this spiritual focus on Nature as primarily science, reason and
> fact based, though I believe "spiritual" experiences connected to the
> natural world can be just as meaningful as other forms of religious
> experience.  We evolved on Earth, the Earth's ecosystems are critical to
> our
> survival, deserving of our kind attention and conservation for our very
> existence.  This belief I think is primarily based on following what the
> world of science has revealed, not dictates from any book of revealed
> truths, or visions from the beyond.  And following the discoveries of
> science, I do not see any substantial evidence we are going to be saved by
> any beings or being from any spiritual realm, that there is a personal
> afterlife after the death of the body, or that advanced alien
> intelligences
> from other solar systems might come to our rescue.  I suppose we could
> call
> accepting the scientific method as a "faith" of sorts, but this is not
> what
> is usually meant by those who take a book like the Bible or Koran,
> claiming
> it is the literal word of the one creator of the universe, on faith, and
> then act accordingly.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071015/7e3cfe4e/attachment-0001.html