What ever happened to concepts like tolerance and respect of others? Polite disagreement? Discussion as opposed to argument? Open minded acceptance of other people’s views, even if they differ from your own?
This may not be my most coherent or well-organized post, but a couple things popped up today that have been rumbling around in the back of my head, and I wanted to at least make a stab at getting some of them out.
Yesterday, I posted a link and excerpt from a story in the Seattle Times about a local Native American burial ground that has been uncovered due to construction on the Hood Canal bridge. The story caught my attention both for the archaeological significance of the find, and for the care and concern that the local tribes have for the spirituality of the site and their ancestors.
This morning, my post got a Trackback ping when Paul Myers of Pharyngula posted about the article. When I read his post, though, I was more than a little taken aback at what I felt to be the cavalier and rude tone he took in regard to the tribe’s religious beliefs.
There’s a fair bit of religious hokum in the article; goofy stuff such as the claim that pouring a concrete slab would trap the spirits forever (piling dirt and rocks on top of them doesn’t, apparently, nor does rotting into a smear), and spiritual advisors on site and ritual anointings to protect people from angry spirits. That’s all baloney…
The religious/spiritual crap cuts no ice with me…
<
p>It wasn’t that he didn’t agree with the spirituality of the tribe that bothered me (I don’t know Paul’s personal religious beliefs) — rather, it was the utter lack of respect in how he addressed it. It was the old stereotype of the scientist so convinced of the utter righteousness of the purely scientific world view that he’s utterly contemptuous of those fools who believe in any sort of higher power (see Ellie Arroway in Carl Sagan’s Contact, for example).
That bothered me, but I wasn’t quite sure how to start expressing it, so I just filed it away on the back burner to percolate for a little bit.
A couple of days ago, I’d posted a link on my linklog to a Gallup poll which showed that only one third of Americans believe that evidence supports Darwin’s theory of evolution, and had added the comment, “how depressing.” This morning, I got a comment on that post from Swami Prem that raised my eyebrows:
What’s depressing about this? There is no evidence that supports Darwin’s theories. No scientist has ever shown that there exists a link between humans and apes. Darwin’s theories are theories afterall.
Suddenly, I found myself coming dangerously close to stepping right into Paul’s shoes, and had to wait a while before responding to Prem’s comment. My first impulse was surprise and, quite honestly, a little bit of, “oh, here we go again…” — Prem and I have had strong disagreements in the past, and while I don’t believe that he’s at all unintelligent, his earlier espousal of viewpoints that are so diametrically opposed to my own strongly colored my initial reaction to this new comment.
After taking some time to let that roll around in my brain I did respond, and Prem’s responded to that. As yet, I haven’t taken it any further, both because I want to do my best to respond intelligently and because I’m somewhat stumped as to just how to start (I probably need to take some time to do a little research [this site looks like a good place to start] — as I’ve never progressed beyond attaining my high school diploma, and I was never that good in the sciences to begin with, I’m not entirely comfortable with trying to engage in a full-on creationism-vs.-Darwinism debate without a little brushing up [and actually, Paul would probably be far more qualified than I to tackle Prem’s question, judging by his obvious interest in both biology and evolution — just check out the links in his sidebar!]).
Anyway, both of these items have been bouncing around my head all day.
I think a lot of what’s been bothering me about the exchanges is that I try hard to be polite and respectful in my discussions with people, even when (and sometimes especially when) I disagree with them, and that seems to be a trait that has gone by the wayside far too often these days. Sure, I don’t always succeed — I’ll fly off the handle and rant and rave from time to time — but I do make an effort to keep those instances to a minimum.
Unfortunately, it seems that we’re living in a world where differences are all anybody sees anymore: us vs. them, me vs. you, religion vs. science, liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican, urban vs. rural, red vs. blue, etc. Nobody’s actually listening to what anyone else has to say — we’re all so sure that we’re right and everyone else is wrong, too busy banging our shoes on the table to really listen to anyone else.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs, all told.
Bouncing back a bit, but touching on both of the incidents that started all this rambling, I think the thing that frustrates me the most about the science vs. religion debate — and creationism vs. Darwinism in particular — is that in my mind, there is absolutely nothing that says that the two theories are incompatible. It’s never seemed to me as if it was an either/or equation — coming back to Carl Sagan’s book, and most pointedly the end of it (and if you haven’t read or don’t want to read the book, feel free to watch the movie — it’s one of the single most intelligent science-fiction films I’ve seen in my lifetime), why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around the concept that it’s entirely possible that both Ellie Arroway and Palmer Joss are “right”?
I’ve always found it interesting that the most commonly known of the two creation stories in Genesis fairly accurately parallels the scientific view of the formation of the universe, our planet, and the life upon it. First space, then stars, then the earth, then oceans, then plants, then fish, then animals, then man. Two different ways of telling the same story — one measured in days and one measured in millennia, but the same story. Of course, this does hinge on the ability to accept the Bible without taking it literally (which is probably another subject for another time, but it’s probably fairly obvious that I don’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible), which trips up a lot of people.
Meh. I don’t know…and I think I’m starting to run out of steam. As I warned at the beginning of this, probably not the most coherent or well-organized post I’ve ever made here.
Had to get some of this out of my head, though.
Questions? Comments? Words of wisdom? Bring ‘em on…
“Brandenburg Concerto for Violin in G Major, No.4, BWV1049, III. Presto” by Rees, Jonathan/Scottish Ensemble from the album Bach: Brandenburg Concertos, Violin Concertos (1998, 5:03).
CJ
Brandon
Tim Who?
ندى
12 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
As a muslim, I too think the same way—it’s not as if being reasonable about evolution makes you suddenly hypocritical about your creationist faith.
A lot of people seem to get caught up in the monkey -> human deal, ever since Darwin’s proposition of the theory. It’s funny because it just shows how we humans tend to think of ourselves as somehow chosen over the rest of the living things. But anyway, humans were not exactly monkeys even magnitudes of millenia ago, even by evolutionary theory, so why be so concerned? (Unless the world is just 6,000 years old… that is the most braindead claim ever.) But the thing is, evolutionary concepts don’t just apply to humans! The fossil record shows pretty clearly that animals have changed and died out over time. I wonder how widely accepted evolution would be if Darwinist theory had been less clear about the originals of humans themselves.
Coming to the part of your post that prompted me to comment—the whole banging shoes on table part—it’s a point that really resonates with what I’ve been thinking nowadays. It’s easy to get pissed off and dismiss as idiotic a person running a web site from halfway across the world, but when you sit down with someone with someone who does have a different view (on, say, the Iraq war), an acquaintance of yours, you can’t exactly start feeling hostile towards them. In that sense, I think, this post is true—just being on a medium like the internet causes people to stop seeking middle ground and let emotion reign supreme.
Anyway, when it comes to addressing the issue, I think that a lot of people’s mindsets are based on their narrative of history. For some people, Clinton was a hero, for others he was an immoral person. For some people, the Iraq war was right all along, for others (me) it was based on justifications that were obvious lies even at the time (the WMD claim). For some people (many American conservatives), the UN is a corrupt organization that bends to the will of the Arab states too much, and for others (many Arabs), the UN is just a front for the goals of the USA.
And this narrative colours their perception of what is just and what is wrong.
Also, ties this into the concept of people thinking in terms of frames—you just can’t reason with a conservative using appeals to liberal rationale.
But you know what makes me fly off the handle? The fact that anti-evolutionaries and global warming deniers use the rhetoric of progressivism (‘you’re not being open minded enough… there’s a controversy here… you’re dismissing opinion’) to push regressive educational and governmental policy. Ugh! It’s as irritating as the gung-ho Iraq war advocates coming around, after finding no WMD, to push a liberal rationale to justify the invasion (human rights abuses etc.) What do you do when faced with arguments that are the groundwork of your side’s beliefs!
PS. Sorry about the length of the comment!
Oh, I didn’t finish—last bit! So since people’s narrative of history (and by history, I mean even today’s events—just things that have happened), concept of what is a ‘proper’ solution and mental frames are what causes them to disagree, I don’t think that much of the energy put in discussion—from one-liners in comments to essays in scholarly journals—actually has much effect. Arguing about the little things (was Clinton a terrible president?) is useless when the larger points of view remain unchanged (is fidelity and character a better judge of presidential quality than whether he bankrupted the nation?)
So that’s where the rationale for ‘understanding’ the other POV should come in—you’re never going to change their larger points of view, so is it really useful to entangle in arguments about the past, or the rationale for this or justification for that? (This sounds like relationship counselling, in a way, doesn’t it—‘don’t keep bringing up past actions when arguing about something’). And by approaching discussions that way, I think it’s easier to pursue a moderate path.
I would just like to mention that the theory of evolution does not address existence, matter - or why the materials in the universe are the way they are, how life came to exist, purpose - why did this happen and why are we here.
Darwinism really doesn’t have anything to do with Creationism. Some of the basics of his theories consist of the following:
-Species are composed of individuals, a species persists through individual reproduction.
-Species differ in many ways (variability)
-Only certain individuals actually reproduce.
-Change in species characteristics are the result of differential reproduction.
-Those who are able to reproduce in a given environment are fit. [Fitness = reproduction]
This is fresh from my notes in my anthropology class.
I am a Christian myself, and I know very clearly that believing in the teachings of the Bible is a matter of faith, not a matter of science.
Besides that, I am a great enthusiast of science. I have an engineering degree, and I am very fond of reading about modern physics, and all the theories and research about the beginnings of the universe.
My personal belief is that as human beings, we have a limited perspective in matters of scientific knowledge. All we know at this moment is just a “slice” of the “big picture”.
I think God’s plan is not to “show” or discover proofs or scientific evidence of creationism or any other teachings of the Bible. Because that would disregard faith, minimizing its value. The path to God is through faith, if it weren’t that way, then the most intelligent, the man with more knowledge would be nearer to God than any other!
You hit a problem that has come up due to technology. I have noticed a lot more of the ‘I’m right/you’re wrong’ in comments posted on web logs or on news sites (Slashdot comes to mind). Everyone has a different opinion on issues out there, but the Internet takes away the face to face conversation.
The majority of the time when people discuss their different opinions in person, they listen to each other. There are still times when it does get into a shouting match, but more often they do listen. On the Internet seems to be that more people ‘shout’ more at each other than listen. It gets to a ‘I’m right/you’re wrong/go to hell’ attitude.
I know I have a tendacy to get upset and vent after reading something on the Internet, but I try to stay calm before posting so I’m not ‘shouting’ back and doing the same thing.
Unfortunatly the lack of face to face conversation on postings will continue to cause more ‘shouting matches’. At the same time I know I have seen people who post and do not turn it into a ‘shouting match’. Those are the ones I tend to read more because they are more enjoyable.
Micheal
Thank you, thank you thank you. I was beginning to believe that I was the only person in the world that felt “ in my mind, there is absolutely nothing that says that the two theories are incompatible. It’s never seemed to me as if it was an either/or equation”
They say God did it in 7 days but I have yet to hear from anyone how if all this occurred before man ever set foot on this planet how anyone can come to the understanding that 7 God days and 7 man days is the same 7 days. Can we not be open enough to understand that “time” for God and “time” for man are two different things?
Is it not reasonable to suggest that after God created man, we evolved? Or evolution of man, animals, plants and this entire planet are all part of God’s plan.
They say man was created in God image, That’s all well and good but does anybody have a picture of God? How do we know? And no I am NOT saying God looked like a monkey so save the angry post’s. What I’m saying is no man. Not me and not you (everybody else) have even the slightest clue of what God looks like. This general accepted image of God as an old white man with a long white beard and flowing white robe is complete bull. Nobody knows! And I mean NOBODY and if anyone suggests they know exactly what God looks like I sure would be interested in finding out how they know?
Like Michael there’s room in my heart for both Creationism AND Darwinism and it bothers me that the two sides can’t sit down and discuss it like adults
No time at the moment to check out the comments, but I am certainly looking forward to the conversation. Don’t put yourself down for only a H.S. science education. Unless you seriously count geography of Alaska and the geology lab of Anchorage courses, that’s all I have, too. And you know quite well that I have a bachelor’s degree (Do you realize it is TEN years since I got that degree!) Neither music nor business were strongly into science requirements, so I just took the minimum I could get away with.
It does indeed — and that actually came up last night when Prairie and I were talking about all this.
Sounds like the whole world (or, at the very least, a sizeable portion of America) needs to go in for relationship counseling.
I really think that’s a lot of it — but certainly not all of it. The faceless nature of the ‘net certainly does make it easier to dismiss someone out of hand if you don’t like what they’re saying (witness many of the ‘discussions’ in online chatrooms, for instance). With no actual face-to-face presence, no actual person to talk to, it’s far too easy for people to ignore common conversational rules and tactics that help to keep in-person discussions more civil. It’s not all of it, though, unfortunately. I don’t really know if it’s related or not, but I kind of get the feeling that with the rise of “faceless” discussions, such as those on weblogs, chatrooms, and the like, people have gotten so used to being able to say whatever they want with no immediate repercussions that they’re carrying that same tactic into the “real world”, and the quality of public discourse is suffering because of that. People pick a viewpoint and proceeded to hammer it home over and over again — preaching or disclaiming rather than discussing or debating. Hmmm. Or something like that. Still working on all this (obviously).Go to the new main library and sit down for about three hours and read the latest National Geographic - Was Darwin Wrong? No! - that will fill your head with all you need to support the reality of evolution - it’s not a theory if it’s been proven and Mendel and thousands of others since then have proven it. That being said, it’s a long, long way from evolution backwards to what-the-frick-ever-happened in that 10 to the minus 1 time before the Big Bang. How matter came from nothing still perplexes even the most Nobel-laden astrophysicist. But, creationism is complete hoakum - I may grant that there may be a “god” who created matter but will never grant that there’s such a thing as Adam and Eve - if that were true then hundreds of gods throughout history and through the present would be false in the eyes of the creationists - whose God anyway? The discussion of “god” hinges on personal belief and I would prefer it if most folks would keep that as much a secret as their sex lives and illegal activities. For one, it doesn’t affect me and for anyone to assume that their belief in a god of some flavor actually affects me is for them to step way past that line in the sand with respect to minding their own business and keeping their worldview from stepping on my worldview. Mostly my reaction is along the lines of “isn’t that nice.” If someone asks me if I’ve been saved I usually ask them why they believe in such a perverse god. If I ask someone how they are and they answer “blessed,” I respond “good for you.” That way I can be tolerant of their particular worldview and they don’t have to know mine unless they step over the line - which they do when they ask if I am “saved” - from what? If their line of thinking were true just how perverse would a god be that created a soul and then “tested” that soul in a usually pitiful existence with a carrot such as believing in divine birth (really!!). Just how different from Aztec human sacrifice or Roman God of War is this? Believe what you want but keep it out of and away from my life. That’s what gets my goat - this whole move towards a theocracy and the insane position of the evangelicals (of any flavor).
I’ve even thought of a way to appease those who would keep “God Bless America” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” on the coins. Fine, keep your God Blessings but allow me the right to say God Damn anytime and anywhere I choose. That way we’re even.
BTW, it wouldn’t be clear from my previous post that I am all in favor of observing common courtesies and abiding in respected (though arcane sometimes) customs which hinge on an individual’s or tribe’s customs or faith. I’m quiet in churches and take my hat off, I never walk on graves in graveyards, I respect native tribe’s rights to deem whatever they want with respect to land which was orginally theirs, and so on. It’s not a question of subscribing to the faith - it’s a question of common decency. In addition to a lack of tolerance and critical thinking, we’ve lost a considerable measure of what used to be common decency. Just think of all the loud-mouthed and otherwise foul sorts who talk to the entire bus on their cell phones - where’s the respect for others and decency in that? And that’s just the simple, ordinary, everyday kinds of things where it’s lost. Naturally, anyone who is like that wouldn’t care one whit about respecting a religious custom irrespective of their belief in a faith or their adherence to the scientific method. It’s probably based on an umbringing which was bereft of respect or which was borderline abandonment - in either case it is, indeed, sad. Even more so when one realizes that these are one’s fellow citizens.
No evidence of evolution, eh?
I don’t know if there’s any way around that kind of thinking: as the recent issue of National Geographic points out, there’s no more evidence of how electricity works (have you seen an electron moving through a wire?) but we seem to have overcome our doubts there just fine.
But your post was actually about rudeness and intolerance: maybe my 4 years here in Seattle have dulled my sharper edges but I think being dismissive of someone else’s beliefs, especially those of the First Peoples[*] after their wonderful treatment at the hands of our enlightened society, is obnoxious.
I’m in favor of mutual respect and consideration: I think Chas Redmond sums it up nicely. What I see in the comments you found is arrogance and ignorance in equal parts: the arrogance in assuming that the commentor is somehow wiser and ignorance of what he claims to hold inferior.
I was privy to a situation this week where a (step-)parent at my kids’ school told a teacher to “eff off” when asked to move his vehicle in what becomes a one-lane road at the end of the school day. What kind of upbringing and education creates such people, instills such self-centeredness and intolerance?
I guess that the best way to continue a civil discourse is to remember that there are two, or three, or four, or ten thousand opinions on every topic. For example, while Paul Myers was dismissive of the Native Americans’ religious beliefs, he still supported the preservation of the burial grounds for historical reasons.
While I don’t always live up to this standard - I don’t think I’ve ever posted a positive entry on David Dreier - I try to represent multiple views in my quotes in my blog, in an effort to present all of the available information on a given topic.
I still remember one creationist’s argument that the universe looks old because God made it look old, even though it wasn’t. Since this would paint God as a liar, I didn’t buy that particular argument.