According to some evangelicals the writers and commenters from the Skeptical Zone look like this!
Two years ago I came across a post on the "Intelligent Design" website Uncommon Descent by someone called Sal Cordova. Although he was probably a born and bred Young Earth Biblical literalist I was generally impressed with his fair attitude. In fact so much so that I came out of lurking and added the following to the UD comment thread:
An interesting, informative and fair article. I’ll keep it book marked. Also, I think you are right to put Old Earth/Old Universe theory into a different category to “Darwinism”.
It's not that Cordova hasn't said some daft things in defense of YEC but here was an authentic guy who was trying to make the best sense of the world given his social context of Biblical literalism. He knew he had big scientific problems and he had the epistemic humility which stopped him calling down hell and damnation on those who disagreed with him (unlike fundies such as Ken Ham and Jason Lisle). If one defines a fundamentalist as a "nasty evangelical" then I would say that Cordova is not a fundamentalist in that sense of the word. Nevertheless, like so many of those in the ID community he is thoroughly alienated from public sector science and basically distrusts it. Even nice guys can get paranoiac. This post is about acquired paranoia syndrome and its effects; chiefly the effect whereby the sufferer feels at war with society.
The seeds of this current post were sown when I happened to come across an item on Panda's Thumb by Wesley Elsberry. It was about Cordova's bust up with Uncommon Descent's chief Barry Arrington. Cordova, it seems, has been sacked by Arrington as a writer at UD and has also been banned from commenting. Elseberry published the email Arrington wrote to Cordova explaining his ban:
I have a professional interest in Christian fundo-evangelical affairs quite apart from my deep interest in evolution. So this fierce and melodramatic piece of correspondence piqued my interest to say the least: How is it that a nice guy like Cordova could be likened to a quisling siding with Nazis? Can accusations come any stronger? I had to investigate this one.
Elsberry takes the quote from the words that Cordova himself wrote in a discussion thread on the website The Skeptical Zone here. This discussion thread really needs to be fully digested, but my understanding is that Cordorva makes regular comments on the Skeptical Zone. In those comments Cordova is candid and everyone there knows what he stands for. One skeptic accuses him of being "slimey"; perhaps because Cordova's chumminess may come over like the selling pitch of a used car salesman! Other skeptics, however, defend Cordova against this ad hominem attack. My interpretation of Cordova is that he's simply trying to be friendly although he tends to be forthright and honest with his views and stays true to his faith. Nothing wrong with that you'd think. Think again; you're not factoring in the suspicious and easily offended fundagelical mind.
The trouble is that Cordova, although in the nicest possible way, has a knack of speaking his mind on things. He's his own guy and frank with it, too frank it seems for lots of people. Coming from Cordova I'm fairly confident that the published email is the unvarnished truth! Some people might think he is betraying confidences, but set against that we must realise that he has given us a valuable window on the soul of the de facto ID community. Splits in evangelico-fundamentalist communities reflect badly on both sides of the fault line and consequently the why's and wherefores of schisms tend to remain closeted (cf. The Ham/Lisle split). The continued secrecy of this underworld of quite sharp contention and division is not in my opinion for the public good; especially as these evangelico-fundamentalist communities sometimes make loud claims to being the exclusive custodians of God's own Word certainties. So on balance Cordova has done us all a huge favour. Thank you Sal!
But what do we learn from this affair? Elsberry talks about "invidious comparisons is not restricted solely for use on enemies." and in fact one of the Panda's thumb commenters, Mike Eliznga, says this:
I have to admit it, these atheist people are noticing what I'm noticing; namely, a subculture that feels entirely embattled and beset by enemies, almost to the point being paranoiac - in fact I would call it a form of paranoia although not in the clinical sense of the word but rather in the sense of the kind of mental software these "persecuted" souls are running and have learned to run in their minds; it's more to do with their teaching than an innate mental pathology. For them it is not sufficient to declare their detractors as simply wrong: Rather they distrust them to such an extent that they see them as the tools of Satanic schemes, tantamount to demons out to get them. And, yes, it's all bound up with their right-wing politics too. Moreover, we see in Arrington's persecution complex a precursor of the conspiracy theorism of many on the political and Christian right.*
I'm a little surprised, however, that this sort of attitude has surfaced on Uncommon Descent; I'd thought better of them. Is it because since Dembski left they have lurched toward fundamentalism? In fact I'm sure you wouldn't get this sense of persecution displayed by UD writer V J Torley - at least I hope not.
I'm under no illusions that the sort of atheist who writes for Panda's thumb is likely to regard my own Christian theism as foolish, but that's not sufficient reason to call them the enemies of the truth or liken them to Nazi sewer rats. I don't know what went on between Arrington and Cordova, but nothing I've seen in Cordova's behavior deserves him being called a quisling. He's remained true to his faith and has put up with being called "slimey".
And where do Christians like Ken Miller and Biologos who believe God works through standard evolution fit into Arrington's War on Truth apocalypse? More quisling's I suppose! The position of these moderate yet faithful Christians is likely to be distorted by "God of the Gaps" IDists; in fact one IDist accuses them of "Epicurianism". But the charge of "Epicuriansim" (i.e. something from nothing) only stands if Biologos and Miller deny the existence of a sovereign creator God, which as far as I am aware they don't! But the charge of "Epicurianism" suits the ID community's polarised vision of an apocalyptic War on Truth down to the ground; it provides them with another label they can use to sort people into "for us or against us" categories. *2
If anti-theist atheists are to be likened to the Nazi's of the holocaust and Christians who disagree with evangelico-fundamentalism as Nazi collaborators should we then liken UD to Daesh (Islamic State) with their apocalyptic end time beliefs, their sense of holy remnant isolation justifying in their minds the torturous killing of infidels without compunction?
Of all people Christians should be able to get away from these black and white polarized caricatures of human society. Human society is made up of all too human shades of grey, some more susceptible to the sleaze of sin than others. Sin is a spiritual illness we all ultimately suffer from, but the doctrine of sin tells us that whilst no human is wholly good neither are they wholly bad.
Footnotes
* I see from this post on PZ Myers blog that he's caught one of these fundamentalist conspiracy theorists in his net: Sylvia Allen who has been appointed to the chair of the Arizona education committee (what?!!!) believes the Earth is 6000 years old, thinks the Chemtrails conspiracy is quite likely and is in favour of mandatory church attendance. What's her politics? Well, you can bet it's not going to be pro-Obama any more than Ken Ham is pro-Obama!
*2 I had in mind here a post by Cornelius Hunter on his blog "Darwin's God" dated 13 December and titled "Biologos: Ex YEC tells all". Hunter works from a polarised ID paradigm of "intervention" vs. Natural Law. Those who in Hunter's opinion favour the latter catergory, even though they may be Christians, are accused of Epicureanism. That makes them, bad, bad, bad!
Relevant links:
The seeds of this current post were sown when I happened to come across an item on Panda's Thumb by Wesley Elsberry. It was about Cordova's bust up with Uncommon Descent's chief Barry Arrington. Cordova, it seems, has been sacked by Arrington as a writer at UD and has also been banned from commenting. Elseberry published the email Arrington wrote to Cordova explaining his ban:
I owe you an explanation for why you have been banned at UD.
We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Great Britain’s position 75 years ago in the summer of 1940 - alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great darkness that constitutes an existential threat to freedom, justice and even rationality itself.
There is another parallel to World War II. We have quislings among us. A quisling is a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force. The word originates from the Norwegian war-time leader Vidkun Quisling, who headed a domestic Nazi collaborationist regime.
Sal, I accuse you of being a quisling every time you go over to The Skeptical Zone and give aid and comfort to the enemies of truth. Will you cease or will you continue to collaborate?
Barry K. Arrington
I have a professional interest in Christian fundo-evangelical affairs quite apart from my deep interest in evolution. So this fierce and melodramatic piece of correspondence piqued my interest to say the least: How is it that a nice guy like Cordova could be likened to a quisling siding with Nazis? Can accusations come any stronger? I had to investigate this one.
Elsberry takes the quote from the words that Cordova himself wrote in a discussion thread on the website The Skeptical Zone here. This discussion thread really needs to be fully digested, but my understanding is that Cordorva makes regular comments on the Skeptical Zone. In those comments Cordova is candid and everyone there knows what he stands for. One skeptic accuses him of being "slimey"; perhaps because Cordova's chumminess may come over like the selling pitch of a used car salesman! Other skeptics, however, defend Cordova against this ad hominem attack. My interpretation of Cordova is that he's simply trying to be friendly although he tends to be forthright and honest with his views and stays true to his faith. Nothing wrong with that you'd think. Think again; you're not factoring in the suspicious and easily offended fundagelical mind.
The trouble is that Cordova, although in the nicest possible way, has a knack of speaking his mind on things. He's his own guy and frank with it, too frank it seems for lots of people. Coming from Cordova I'm fairly confident that the published email is the unvarnished truth! Some people might think he is betraying confidences, but set against that we must realise that he has given us a valuable window on the soul of the de facto ID community. Splits in evangelico-fundamentalist communities reflect badly on both sides of the fault line and consequently the why's and wherefores of schisms tend to remain closeted (cf. The Ham/Lisle split). The continued secrecy of this underworld of quite sharp contention and division is not in my opinion for the public good; especially as these evangelico-fundamentalist communities sometimes make loud claims to being the exclusive custodians of God's own Word certainties. So on balance Cordova has done us all a huge favour. Thank you Sal!
But what do we learn from this affair? Elsberry talks about "invidious comparisons is not restricted solely for use on enemies." and in fact one of the Panda's thumb commenters, Mike Eliznga, says this:
ID/creationism has always had that siege mentality that is so characteristic of the evangelical fundamentalists. They have always been at war with not only secular society, but with mainstream churches as well. Ambushing others has always been a strategy in the way they attempt to push their religion onto secular society.
From time to time I can look in on the religion channels on television and see the rantings coming from the pulpits of these kinds of churches. During political seasons, these people are testing the political winds for anyone and anything that will get their dogmas into the institutions of government and public education.
This is were the Republican party has been pandering since the 1970s after the civil rights movement; and look at what it has reaped as a result. It is now ok to be a Republican and be openly racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-intellectual, and constantly beating the drum to go to war. When we look at the slate of Republican canditates running for major public offices during the last several election cycles, it is pretty clear that these sectarian right-wingers are major contributers to the kind of echo chamber thinking that is going on,
I don’t see Arrington’s mentality as anything out of the ordinary in his subculture; I think it is pretty typical. I have seen it frequently over the years just by listening to and reading how the leaders in his subculture talk to each other. There is a lot of fear and loathing that is kept churning among these sectarians; and that leads to a lot of irrational political actions that can be quite dangerous to any kind of society that values evidence and rationality in making major policy decisions.
I have to admit it, these atheist people are noticing what I'm noticing; namely, a subculture that feels entirely embattled and beset by enemies, almost to the point being paranoiac - in fact I would call it a form of paranoia although not in the clinical sense of the word but rather in the sense of the kind of mental software these "persecuted" souls are running and have learned to run in their minds; it's more to do with their teaching than an innate mental pathology. For them it is not sufficient to declare their detractors as simply wrong: Rather they distrust them to such an extent that they see them as the tools of Satanic schemes, tantamount to demons out to get them. And, yes, it's all bound up with their right-wing politics too. Moreover, we see in Arrington's persecution complex a precursor of the conspiracy theorism of many on the political and Christian right.*
I'm a little surprised, however, that this sort of attitude has surfaced on Uncommon Descent; I'd thought better of them. Is it because since Dembski left they have lurched toward fundamentalism? In fact I'm sure you wouldn't get this sense of persecution displayed by UD writer V J Torley - at least I hope not.
I'm under no illusions that the sort of atheist who writes for Panda's thumb is likely to regard my own Christian theism as foolish, but that's not sufficient reason to call them the enemies of the truth or liken them to Nazi sewer rats. I don't know what went on between Arrington and Cordova, but nothing I've seen in Cordova's behavior deserves him being called a quisling. He's remained true to his faith and has put up with being called "slimey".
And where do Christians like Ken Miller and Biologos who believe God works through standard evolution fit into Arrington's War on Truth apocalypse? More quisling's I suppose! The position of these moderate yet faithful Christians is likely to be distorted by "God of the Gaps" IDists; in fact one IDist accuses them of "Epicurianism". But the charge of "Epicuriansim" (i.e. something from nothing) only stands if Biologos and Miller deny the existence of a sovereign creator God, which as far as I am aware they don't! But the charge of "Epicurianism" suits the ID community's polarised vision of an apocalyptic War on Truth down to the ground; it provides them with another label they can use to sort people into "for us or against us" categories. *2
If anti-theist atheists are to be likened to the Nazi's of the holocaust and Christians who disagree with evangelico-fundamentalism as Nazi collaborators should we then liken UD to Daesh (Islamic State) with their apocalyptic end time beliefs, their sense of holy remnant isolation justifying in their minds the torturous killing of infidels without compunction?
Of all people Christians should be able to get away from these black and white polarized caricatures of human society. Human society is made up of all too human shades of grey, some more susceptible to the sleaze of sin than others. Sin is a spiritual illness we all ultimately suffer from, but the doctrine of sin tells us that whilst no human is wholly good neither are they wholly bad.
Footnotes
* I see from this post on PZ Myers blog that he's caught one of these fundamentalist conspiracy theorists in his net: Sylvia Allen who has been appointed to the chair of the Arizona education committee (what?!!!) believes the Earth is 6000 years old, thinks the Chemtrails conspiracy is quite likely and is in favour of mandatory church attendance. What's her politics? Well, you can bet it's not going to be pro-Obama any more than Ken Ham is pro-Obama!
*2 I had in mind here a post by Cornelius Hunter on his blog "Darwin's God" dated 13 December and titled "Biologos: Ex YEC tells all". Hunter works from a polarised ID paradigm of "intervention" vs. Natural Law. Those who in Hunter's opinion favour the latter catergory, even though they may be Christians, are accused of Epicureanism. That makes them, bad, bad, bad!
Relevant links:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wine-cellar/comment-page-21/#comment-99616
Update 18/01/16
See here on Uncommon Descent:
Update 18/01/16
See here on Uncommon Descent:
