Hell and Hamnation

The above picture shows the New York Daily Times front page carrying the headlines about a recent indiscriminate terrorist attack in California which left 14 dead. The terrorists were a Muslim couple who were not on the Security Services radar probably because other than being inspired by Daesh (formerly “Islamic State”) they had no other connection with the terrorist group. Once they had conceived their plan the ready availability of high powered semi-automatic weapons of mass death allowed that plan to be implemented to devastating  effect.

To my mind the NYT front page is almost certainly a protest against the free availability of guns in the US. Viz: “End gun scourge”. I’m not going to comment on this debate here other than to mention that following on the heels of the California attack the UK was rocked by what appears to be a lone wolf attack by a knife wielding Daesh sympathiser. In fact it is possible the perpetrator was inspired by the attack in the US.  He injured two people although the injuries were not life threatening. This arbitrary rampage would have been a lot worse if the would be killer had easy access to semi-automatic military rifles.

But what really interests me about this front page is the headline “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS”. In the US a headline like that is unlikely to be anti-God – in fact it could conceivably be contrived by a Christian who is simply against weapons of mass death being sold as a consumer product: If for the sake of argument we conjecture that the headline was written by a Christian then it could be an expression of the Christian belief that God can’t or won’t do anything until the subject is willing to change, repents and does works worthy of repentance. In this connection the repentance would be to turn from the retailing of over-the-counter machines that can deal out death on industrial scales. 

Of course, the foregoing is not to say that this is the actual attitude of those behind the headlines, but it is a construction that could be placed on them. Now let’s turn to a right-wing fundamentalist’s view of these headlines, namely the censorious and condemning Ken Ham. In a blog post dated 3^rd December and entitled “God isn’t fixing this?” we can read the following from the keyboard of Ken Ham. I reproduce the post in its entirety (with my emphasis):

By Ken Ham on December 3, 2015

This morning’s cover of the New York Daily News references the tragic shooting in San Bernardino, California, that left at least 14 dead and several wounded. It shows tweets from politicians referencing prayers for the victims but then boldly declares “God isn’t fixing this.”

This front page of a major newspaper is a blast against approaching God in prayer—it’s mocking God and mocking Christianity. It clearly shows where our culture is at today as America becomes more secular. It’s an utter rejection of God and an ignorance of His Word.

The paper’s editors say that “God can’t fix this”—but which God are they talking about? Our culture and government have by and large thrown the teaching of the true God out of public schools, tossed out nativity scenes, crosses, and the Ten Commandments from public places. They’ve largely taken Christ out of Christmas, made it legal to kill millions of children in mothers’ wombs, and our culture shakes its fist at God in regard to His teaching on marriage. Our culture has largely rejected God and has the audacity to say God can’t fix problems.

Our culture refuses to acknowledge we are living in a fallen world (Genesis 3)—although God is not responsible for the tragedies we see all around. God created a perfect world that was ruined by mankind’s sin—it’s our fault in Adam. Our culture by and large refuses to acknowledge God is the absolute authority. Instead we’ve raised up generations of students who believe they are nothing more than animals and that there is no God who makes the rules. Our culture has worked hard to throw the biblical and true teaching of God out of America, and then expects God to protect America!

America needs to repent and turn to God! The only thing that will save this nation is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Hearts and minds need to be changed with the gospel for now and eternity.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His own inheritance. (Psalm 33:12)

We need to pray for this nation and share the gospel with our family, friends, and neighbors, and raise our children to love the Lord and think biblically. And yes, please pray for the families of those who have been affected by the California massacre.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

In many ways this is typical fundamentalist fare: Ham jumps straight in firing on all barrels and accuses the NYT of blasting against prayer, mocking God and Christianity. This outburst is then the trigger for all the other holy grievances Ham holds against his society; he lumps the NYT in with those grievances. The majority of Americans would not regard Ham with a great deal of respect, even many evangelical Christians, but that only further marginalizes Ham and increases his sense of righteous outrage and offence. All the antipathy directed toward Ham registers on his meter as an affront upon the Almighty Himself. Where there is otherwise good conscience Ham only sees sin. In this particular instance Ham doesn’t acknowledge that the NYT headlines are likely to be the outcome of a moral compass that is set against the consumer-level availability of machines of mass death; either his easily triggered "blasphemy detectors" blind him completely or his right-wing political stance prevents him from siding with anyone who is anti-gun lobby; his politics and his religion are inextricably mixed.

I have said something like the following many times before but I say it again: The fundamentalist perceives the world beyond his subculture to be in a state of total depravity, capable only of evil; a wicked world that he holds in contempt and deeply despises. He is constantly at odds with that world and in a perpetual state of offence and grievance about it. He sees it as his moral duty to level uncompromising charges against outsiders even when the case for those charges is very flimsy. If you have ever had a clinically paranoiac person accuse you of a quite fanciful misdemeanor your reaction is likely to be “However did they managed to work that one out? It's a total fantasy!”. And that echoes both my personal experience of the apocalyptic paranoia of the fundamentalists and my reading of Ham’s fanciful charge against the NYT.

In Ken Ham’s behavior I see the prototypes of something sinister: Alienation, utter disaffection, marginalisation, spiritual loathing of the world, new dawn restorationism, paranoiac conspiracy theorism, epistemic arrogance, faith testing, huge spiritual ego, uncompromising, unwillingness to negotiate or engage in diplomacy. anti-science philosophy etc – a whole cocktail of attitudes and practices that lead individuals to impose their world view on others by spiritual intimidation of one sort or another, and possibly worse.  From Jerry Falwell to Donald Trump, some (and I'm glad it's only some) versions of Christianity in America are suffering from a canker. All very embarrassing for a Christian like myself whose faith appears to have become the stamping ground of right wing crackpots and authoritarians. Having moved in Christian circles for many years and had contact with fundamentalists I’m bound to admit that if it weren’t for the New Testament explicitly breaking the link between religion and violence, the prototype attitudes I list above can push a certain class of mentality toward fascist government or failing that, lethal terrorism. It makes me shudder to think that a person like Donald Trump is so close to attaining presidency in not only the most powerful country in the world, but one on which the whole of Western democratic civilization swings. The internal enemy is always the most dangerous enemy.

 Gun-ho-ho-ho!: Look what Santa has brought these nice Christian people!
 Ken Ham is unlikely to want to upset the  right-wing gun toters

Fundamentalist Paranoia

Fundies: One rule for them....

Under the title "I think this was satire", evangelical atheist PZ Myers has published the following screen capture of a Facebook entry purporting to be from the Scientology Sect:

Yes, we seem to be well and truly in Poe's law zone here: It is difficult to tell if this is for real or whether it is send up. It's probably satire but when I first read it I didn't think so. After all, the Scientology sect are particularly prone to seeing the utmost evil in those who speak out against them, and especially so if they are ex-members; Character deformation is very much par for the course in Scientology, although that's nothing new for a religious sect; we see it in other religious sects as well and this is true to a greater or lesser degree of the whole gamut of fundamentalist communities. It is an outcome of them seeing themselves as a holy and enlightened remnant amidst evil people who have it in for them: Infamy! Infamy! Every body has got it in for me!. It is this feeling of being specially targeted for persecution that gives them the ego boosting belief they are centre stage protagonists in the battle against evil. Moreover, if one genuinely believes that one's detractors can't possibly have clear consciences it justifies character assassination, if not, in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, literal assassination. 

The above piece may be parody, but it is parody that conveys a kernel of truth about closed religious sects: Their marginalized alienated perspective gives them a paranoia which means they see evil and persecution round every corner, may be even criminal evil. Because they believe in the absolute correctness of their interpretations of scripture and/or personal revelations this sanctions their belief in their ability to see behind the scenes of social discourse. And behind those scenes they perceive the malign motives of those who are against them!  Hence, critics of a sect can protest their innocence as much as they like, but it is to no avail; sectarians have absolute confidence in their apocalyptic world view of targeted persecution.

Religious sects offer exclusive short cut solutions to the human epistemic predicament and service the human aspiration for heroic purpose. This attracts well meaning people who are seduced by this offer and find joining a sect or cult a way of disconnecting from some of the grubby affairs and discord of wider human society.  But the epistemic certainties of fundamentalist sects may make them dangerous in the way they react; if a sect believe it is right to use the methods of coercion against critics they will: For example, I myself have been pretty close to two occasions when Christian sect members have threatened legal action in order to assert their will; more about that another time perhaps.

All in all then, yet more reasons to steer clear of the more extreme fundies!

Evangelical Cosmology, Compromise and Fundamentalist Insecurity

 For fundamentalists  the world  beyond their communities is  not only ritually unclean but downright spiritually dangerous. Instilling fear of damnation is the non-violent fundamentalist's chief weapon of spiritual intimidation.

Below I reproduce a brief encounter I had with someone of (probably) evangelical persuasion. This encounter can be seen in the comments section of this VNP post.  I'm not quite sure whether I'm dealing with a fundamentalist or evangelical here; it all rather swings on the attitude of the person concerned; as I say in these circumstances, fundamentalism is 1 part doctrine and 2 parts attitude. The fundamentalist attitude manifests itself in aspirations for a comprehensive rule and recipe driven "jot and tittle" faith that seeks epistemic security and a way to establish a firm anchor in an uncertain open ended world. Aspirations like this are only human after all, but it leads to a defensive, aggressive front: Fundamentalists believe their opinions have divine authority and therefore in their eyes vindicating their abrasive demeanor. I always match that attitude with a firm approach in order to convey that I do not approve of fundamentalist behaviors.  They are incapable of seeing this firm approach as a symmetrical match to their own attitude. This is because they see their firmness and aggression  underwritten by the Almighty, whereas seen anywhere else firmness registers as aggressive, rude. proud and arrogant. One rule for them.....

However, doing "hard cop" with fundamentalists also has the convenient side-effect of chasing them away: I'm not particularly fond of dealing with them. Moreover, social discourse of this kind can be unhealthy.  Fortunately the internet allows the researcher to observe their behavior without getting too involved.....

My main reason, however, for publishing this quick exchange is that it reveals yet another species of evangelico-fundamentalist cosmology: This time a combination of an old Earth and old cosmos with a young Earth biosphere modified by a recent world-wide flood. I think I have come across this view before, but not very often - in fact I'd almost forgotten about it. "Coby", as he calls himself, would no doubt be sternly censored for his "unbiblical" compromising views by the Ken Ham's of this world! However, I doubt very much whether positing a young biosphere with a recent universal flood solves the problems that plague Genesis literalism and moreover it certainly invites testing against the geological record: So, as far as I can see, contrary to Coby's statement, "all bets are on".... unless of course there is such a wholesale appeal to arbitrary divine fiat as to render any rational inquiry useless and that's quite possible with fundagelicals. Notice also Coby's diffidence about mainstream scientists, an all but inevitable trait of evangelical Genesis literalists who find themselves at odds with the standard theory of origins

***

Coby said...

Saw this blog post linked from a blog I respect. I think it's unfortunate that you're choosing Ken Ham as the spokesman for YEC. That's an unfortunate choice. It's fairlyad hominem.

For myself, I'm an old-universe, young-biosphere Creationist, following St. Peter. I think that it is ridiculous to pillory people like Ken Ham for his immaturity, when mainstream scientists, who should be mature, refuse to talk about evidence for a worldwide flood. If there was a flood, all their bets are off. Period.

12:19 PM 

Timothy V Reeves said...

Thanks for the comment Coby.

I’m aware that there is a wide spectrum of views among fundamentalists and evangelicals, running from flat Earth and geocentric beliefs, through John Byl and Ken Ham, to the reasonable views of evangelicals like Hugh Ross and William Dembski (People I can do business with). But the fact is Ham and the fundamentalists he represents have managed to position themselves as prominent players in the Biblical literalist spectrum. So Ham and co choose themselves for consideration, not me.

I haven’t often come across your view of an old earth and young biosphere, if at all: I assume you would support the Genesis 1:1 gap theory? Without looking into it further I suspect that you might hit consistency problems when attempting to blend an old Earth geology with a young biosphere, not to mention the problems with flood geology. But I take it that the star light problem isn’t a problem in your cosmology – that’s a point in its favour.

Unlike mainstream science Biblical literalist science covers a huge spectrum of belief (starting with flat earth!), a sign, I suggest, that Biblical literalist science is in disarray. So I’m not surprised that scientists simply don’t take fundamentalist science seriously; they have more important things on their agenda than disentangling the vagaries of fundamentalist thought.

Fundamentalism is in fact 1 part doctrine to 2 parts attitude, mostly bad attitude – that’s why I treat hardened cases like Ken Ham with the utmost firmness – I don’t want anyone running away with the idea that I’m soft on what to me is unacceptable behaviour. In fact I’m a lot less hard cop about their beliefs than I am their attitude. The upshot is that I’m not at all keen on doing business with the grosser fundamentalists. 

9:26 AM 

Timothy V Reeves said...

Relevant links:
Flat Earth: http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/hovind-defends-science-against-flat.html
Geocentricity: http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/problems-in-young-earth-creationism_15.html
Omphalos hypothesis: http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/beyond-our-ken-on-mature-creation-part.html
Bad Attitude: http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html
Bad Attitude: http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/vengeance-fundamentalism-turn-or-burn.html
Fundamentalist division:http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/fundamentalist-schismogenesis.html

9:31 AM 

Fundies feel very insecure about the slipping and sliding of moderate evangelicals.

Avoid Fundamentalists

This cartoon rather sums up my experience of fundamentalist extremism! Fundamentalism displays some all too human traits, weaknesses, and foibles and yet seems completely lacking in the self-awareness needed for self-criticism.

Although I regard Jason Lisle (a great user of the omphalos hypothesis in his "mature creation" cosmology) as not the most extreme of fundamentalists he nevertheless gets some quite extreme commenters on his blog.*  Here's an example:

***

Mihai Ursu (Romania) says:

September 4, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Hello Dr. Lisle,

I just finished watching a debate you had with Hugh Ross like in 2013 at the national conference on christian apologetics 2013.
I know that this was some time ago, but i was so deeply hurt or should i say angry.
Hugh Ross considers himself a christian? I now that you might consider him that way but i say he is a heretic and belongs to some cult, not the church of God.
He claimed the we can see in the past now, God creating the Universe.
How can he say such a thing? I would like to see that to… And maybe the day i was born…
I thought that ” Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrew 11:3
If it is through faith then it is not by seeing…
I thought that it was the most disgusting claim i have ever heard…
He also claimed in another debate with Kent Hovind, that we can see the farthest star existing, and that claim was made at least 10 years ago… He shocked Kent Hovind…

I can say that i enjoy your presentations so much. And i would really ask you to keep writing post here.
Maybe you can post some articles like the one you did ”Answering Dr. Norman Geisler’s Comments on Genesis” and do something like that concerning Hugh Ross.
I think he is quite dangerous…

I want to thank you for your work.
God Bless you and stay with the Word(Bible) to the end.

·         Dr. Lisle says:

September 18, 2015 at 1:18 pm

Thanks Mihai. Sadly, Ross’s theology is quite bad. However, I reserve the word “heretic” for someone who denies an essential Christian doctrine such as the deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc. Ross professes these essentials, so I must give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope he is genuinely saved, and that is up to God anyway. But I am more than happy to show why Ross’s theology does not stand up to biblical scrutiny. My latest book “Understanding Genesis” is exactly what you are wanting. It’s much like my response to Geisler’s comments on Genesis, but it deals with Ross’s errors. God bless.

***

Fortunately we find here Lisle being a voice of moderation among his more extreme followers. Lisle's Romanian admirer shows no sign of being able to resolve out the central and crucial kernel of the faith that Lisle refers to - and I would like to add to Lisle's list atonement, repentance, forgiveness and new life.  Christianity is first and foremost about getting the foundation right and then building on that foundation. (1 Cor 3:11-15).

But for those whose faith is excessively literalist and rule driven each jot and tittle of holy writ tends to be perceived to be of the same level of importance in a grand-slam-swallow-whole-and-digest-slowly package. For Mihai Ursu failure to follow his system of practice and belief to the letter is to disqualify one from the church of God; he does not see Christianity as the gateway to the kind of developing life pilgrimage described by John Bunyan, a pilgrimage that at times goes unpleasantly wrong for the pilgrim. Mihai Ursu's spiritually conceited attitude and rule driven spiritual paradigm is the very bedrock of the fundamentalist cults that oppress their followers with spiritual threats; I've seen plenty of that among fundamentalists! But I'm very glad to see that Lisle, presumably as a mature Christian, can see well past this error. Of course, I don't expect Lisle, who is likely to have been brought up as fundamentalist Young Earther from the cradle, to agree with Hugh Ross, but he is generous enough to give Ross the "benefit of the doubt"; at the very least Ross would undoubtedly have a far deeper grasp of the true nature of faith in Christ than  Mihai Ursi.

However, Lisle nevertheless remains true to the definition of a fundamentalist as a "nasty evangelical". He clearly distrusts Ross' evangelical faith and can only concede "I hope he is genuinely saved". In Lisle's paranoiac conspiracy theorism prone fundamentalist culture disagreement with fundamentalist opinion raises deep suspicions about one's standing before God; one is seen as at best a compromiser with a bad conscience and at worse an apostate or blaspheming heretic. In fact Lisle himself is quite capable of stuffing incriminating blasphemies into the mouths of his Christian detractors. 

As Lisle's attitude to the faithful Hugh Ross reveals, it is difficult to have a trusting relationship of mutual respect with the out-and-out fundamentalist. That's why I advise moderate Christians, unless they are engaged in research, to stay away from the nastier fundies. As for Jason Lisle I trust his faith as much as he would trust mine!

Footnote:
* William Erwin Thomas says this about the relationship of gurus and their followers:
The gurus are tolerant and merely condescending now because they have no political power; but even without power they show full evidence of human frailty and vanity and tend to think that their own yoga is bigger and better than the other guru’s. And what is often only a case of mild condescension in the guru becomes in the disciples a fever of zealotry. (This comment applies to Christian "gurus" and their followers as much as it does to New Age gurus and their followers).

Relevant Link:

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-escape-to-arcadia.html

Jeepers Creepers II: The John Mackay Affair

What creeps out from under this latest stone is particularly nasty and it’s a warning to keep a professional distance from fundamentalists.

As a rule fundamentalists have a very jaundiced view of those beyond the pale of their sub-cultures, often assigning quite extreme opprobrium to outsiders. An example is fundamentalist Jason Lisle who recently referred to civic leaders as “wicked” on the basis that they sanctioned homosexual marriage. He has also stuffed blasphemies into the mouths of Christians who don’t accept his YEC position. In the perception of fundamentalists like Lisle one cannot ultimately reject their opinions in good faith or good conscience – instead they see final rejection of their opinions as a product of malign ulterior motives. As I have said before this imaginatively jaundiced view of the world gives fundamentalists a weakness for conspiracy theorism: When they adopt a conspiracy theory stance it gives them at once both aggrandisement and rationale for their paranoia by way of dignifying narratives which explain why the world is so evil-hearted in not accepting their opinions.

Before I continue I must give my usual mental health warnings: Fundamentalists are apt to apply moral duress on outsiders by means of quite extreme language; after all, they genuinely believe their opinions come with divine authority and so in their view if you speak out against them you speak against the Almighty himself and one can’t do worse than that!...in fact that's the unforgivable sin. It’s understandable then that in fundamentalist perception detractors deserve the utmost censor. But this censoriousness can have a damaging emotional effect and unless you are the sort for whom it’s all water off a duck’s back it is probably not advisable to have contact with fundamentalists if you feel that disagreements are inevitable. I have seen and experienced some pressure myself but my usual approach is to treat fundamentalists with the utmost firmness; unless I am seeking information from them I find that attack is the best form of defence and a firm approach chases them away.  Fortunately Christian fundamentalism is non-violent – it is very difficult to justify violence from the teaching of the NT Christ. However, having said that it is my opinion that the core mental complex displayed by Christian fundamentalists is an all too human trait and has commonalities with the mental complex displayed by Islamic extremists: In both cases we see that uncompromising, self-believing, last-bastion remnant militancy, an attitude that is proof against discouragement when just about everyone in the world is perceived as being wickedly set against your community. Uncompromising idealism of this kind, in any shape or form, can be ruthless and cruel and is best avoided.

Now, against that backdrop I would like to introduce The John Mackay affair. Mackay is an abrasive Young Earth fundamentalist. In terms of being highly self-motived and with utter self-belief he is probably on a par with fundamentalist Kent Hovind.  Both have that kind of faith which trades on fear. Obviously as professing Christians they can’t use violence but there are other means of putting coercive pressure on people. It is this more subtle coercion which brings me to the point of this post. For this post is about the fierce acrimony that can exist between fellow fundamentalists; if fundamentalists fall out their self-believing epistemic leads to a belligerent confrontational paranoia that is compounded when it is on both sides of the equation; ergo, fundamentalist schisms are some of the most vicious feuds of all as both sides let out all the stops and have no compunction about engaging in mutual accusations of atrocious sin. Since 'compromise' is a dirty word to fundies inter-fundie feuds can go on for years.

The information I will be linking to in this post is, in my view, in the public interest because it exposes the psychological pressures that can be brought to bear within the closeted confines of fundamentalist communities. Such rancour can be very damaging to those who find themselves on the front line, especially if they don’t have the self-belief and confidence of some of their hardened uncompromising cohorts. This data will serve to reinforce my warnings about the potential psychological dangers of fundamentalism. Let me also add that I have on more than one occasion been concerned about the mental health of some fundamentalist leaders; but ironically it is that self-same mental condition which gives them their drive, their vision and above all their self-belief.

The John Mackay Scandal: A sordid, squalid affair

John MacKay: A Headache for Ken Ham

In the late 1970s John Mackay was a business partner of Ken Ham; they ran a business selling YEC literature. But according to the sources I link to below there was a complex three way split starting in the late 1980s triggered by the accusations MacKay made about Ken Ham’s secretary Margaret Buchanan.  As a result MacKay fell out acrimoniously with his own organisation, now called Creation Ministries International (CMI). It seems that even today there is considerable rancour between CMI and MacKay. Also, CMI remain bitter about the way they were treated in the early 2000s by Ken Ham's start up, Answers in Genesis-USA. I needn’t go into details as those details are provided in the documentation I link to.  I have created my own copies of all the relevant documents in case they should otherwise disappear from the web. It is these copies I link to.

1. The British Centre for Science Education have an web article that is probably best read first as an introduction to the affair. My copy of it can be obtained here, although the original web article can still be found here. Some of the links in the article are orphaned but that doesn’t matter as I supply links to the requisite documentation below.
2. Creation Ministries International at the time of writing still have a web page on the affair.  My copy of  this page can be found here. The original, if it is still available, can be found here:

hxxp://creation.com/regarding-john-mackay
3. Supporting documentation that is linked to by both the BCSE and CMI web pages can be found here and here.

     4. Ken Ham has, it seems, come out on the side of MacKay: Reformo-charismatic fundamentalist Nigel Wright sent me this document.

Finally one general lesson: As in the case of the Witch Finder General of 17^th Century England, we discover that those who seek out witches are far more dangerous than those they accuse of witchcraft!

Relevant Links

Jeepers Creepers I:

http://www.viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/jeepers-creepers-i.html

See the sections on Witchcraft here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLwnl6qE_yeNXFGZDQwcWs2WVk/view

Fundamentalist Argument Clinic

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/fundamentalist-argument-clinic-part-1.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/fundamentalist-argument-clinic-part-2.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/fundamentalist-argument-clinic-part-3.html

http://viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/fundamentalist-argument-clinic-part-4.html

The Heroic Holy Remnant

No kidding, I have seen fundamentalism that boarders on this kind of thing!

Having focused closely on Christian fundamentalism in its many, many forms since the late 1970s I find that at times it disproportionately fills my field of view and I can get a distorted sense of its importance. However, in a post dated 18th of August and entitled Partnering with a Creationist University one of my favourite fundies, Ken Ham, helps me get back a sense of proportion:  This is what he says (See underline):

One of the most-asked questions I receive at conferences and from visitors to the Creation Museum concerns whether I have a recommendation for a Bible college or university that has a strong creationist emphasis that their teenagers could attend.

Sadly, there are very few creationist universities (or Bible colleges or seminaries, for that matter) in the world—and only one we know of that has a creation-based geology degree program—Cedarville University in Ohio (only about 2 hours from the Creation Museum)

Yes, I've noted this kind of thing before (See also here) and so has somebody else, but this reminder is confirmation of the need for fundamentalists like Ken Ham to maintain the spiritual spin that supports the self-image of a heroic holy remnant battling against wide spread heresy and apostasy in the church - after all, they need a dignifying rationale to live for. However, academic Christianity is not entirely representative of rank-and-file Christianity where it is likely that there is greater prevalence of the fundamentalist cognitive complex.

And while I'm here take a look at this picture of Ken's Ark and compare it with my blog post on "Quantum Non-Linearity".  If the weather in Kentucky is anything less than mild then those thin wood walls are either unfinished or they are going to prove rather energy inefficient.

 From Quantum Non-Linearity 29/615: *quote* My guess is that the "hull" of AiG's Ark will be covered in a thin facade of planks and that's highly symbolic because in the final analysis that's what this "Ark"  project is all about: namely, a matchstick facade sufficient to give visitors the impression of being inside the Ark *unquote*

Submission, Obedience ....and Threat.

The picture above shows the Muslim family who recently left the UK for a holiday in Bangladesh and then routed their return journey so as to join the Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. News items about the family can be read here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33393628

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/british-family-reportedly-joins-syria-095036755.html#UwORS6E

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149190/All-12-Islamic-State-Luton-family-release-statement-confirming-Syria.html

The statement released on the family's behalf by the Islamic extremists is given in the Daily Mail article as follows (My emphases):

We release this statement to confirm that, indeed we are in the Islamic State, a land that is free from the corruption and oppression of man made law and is governed by the shariah, the perfect and just laws of Allah subhanAllah wa Ta'la.

All 12 of us and why should this number be shocking, when there are thousands and thousands of Muslims from all corners of the world that are crossing over land and sea everyday to come to the Islamic State?

That are willingly leaving the so called freedom and democracy that was forced down our throat in the attempt to brainwash Muslims to forget about their powerful and glorious past and now present.

Or is it shocking that those attempts have clearly failed? That regardless of being born and bred in the west, the epitome of democracy, our Islam was not washed away? And despite the totalitarian rules that are in place, Muslims are still awaking to their obligations?

Don't be shocked when we say that none of us were forced against our will. In fact it is outrageous to think that an entire family could be kidnapped and made to migrate like this. It wasn't by the command of a single person in the family but by the command of the Khalifah of the Muslims who has called all Muslims, whether young or old, single or in families, to make hijrah to the state of Islam. A land that has established the Shariah, in which a Muslim doesn't feel oppression when practising their religion.

In which a parent doesn't feel the worry of losing their child to the immorality of society. In which the sick and elderly do not wait in agony, tolerating the partiality of race or social class.

Alhamdulillah for the establishment of the Khilafah.

We say to those that are concerned for our safety to put your hearts at rest for we feel safer than we have ever felt before.

We call all Muslims, to rush to the command of your khalif. Race to your state. Race to what will give you honour in this life and the hereafter. Hasten to the obedience of Allah.

Do not fear losing the life you built for yourselves by making hijrah but fear losing your Imaan and Islam whilst residing in darul kufr and not making hijrah.

We pray Allah saves from such a fate and guides us all to be obedient to His commands. Ameen.

The Mannan Family in the Islamic State

Seldom mentioned is the barbaric brutality and cruelty these people, if given a chance, are prepared to inflict on those who disagree with their religious views. They coolly justify this behavior as doing the will of the Almighty: "Almighty", in fact, sums up their conception of God. The sections I have emboldened above are notable......

We read above of a group of people who are thoroughly alienated from Western democracy, to the extent of despising it. Western democracies don't give authoritative guidance on the meaning of life and one's moral duties before God - that's for the individual to work out for himself. In a sense that is a strength of Western Civilization. But for some that's far too open ended and a more intimate authoritarian society requiring unconditional obedience and identification is the security they crave. The reference to the totalitarian rules of the West forced down their throat is, of course, the distorted thinking of  a pathologically disaffected mind.

The above statement gave me a chill of disquiet: The language and sentiment behind it is very similar to some of the things I've come across in Christian sectarian circles:  A yearning for a robust "theocracy" rather than a wishy-washy democracy leads Christian sectarians into authoritarian structures where decisions are made for them, and where light touch mainstream Christian communities are considered to be "man made systems of error".... and there I quote a Christian sectarian who I will in due course feature in my "Jeepers Creepers" series.  Of course, in practice the so called "theocracy" means unquestioning obedience to some flawed human figurehead or some very human government with whom there is no arguing and have set themselves up as God's mouth piece. Very grievous to these submission driven believers is the loss of children to the freedoms of Western choices. The nostalgia for past lost glories is also a common theme among sectarian restorationist Christians.

What these religionists who yearn for a perfect law to follow do not credit is that a relationship with God is not primarily through obedience but through repentance, forgiveness, renewal of the heart and ultimately the offered hand of friendship from God.

I don't see any easy answers to the above: Western societies must remain pluralist societies where the individual makes his choices before God....or without God if that is what (s)he believes. This unfortunately will not solve the crisis of identification that faces some members of our Western communities who crave authoritative and secure guidance as to life's meaning and life's exact shape; they inevitably put themselves on a collision course with democratic values.

Relevant link:

http://www.viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/power-heroic-purpose-and-community.html

Jeepers Creepers I

Previously unknown species of Christian cults/sects creep out from under every stone.

Did you know that there is a danger of you going to hell if you:

1. Call Jesus "Jesus".
2. Don't speak in tongues
3. Watch TV.

Well, that's according to a couple of  Christian cults/sects that have come to my notice of late. In both cases it looks as though a sect member has crept onto my church premises and deposited their tracts which I then find. Here's the first tract:

(Click to enlarge)

This one threatens hell and damnation if you don't have an accredited reception of the Holy Spirit, (as accredited by them of course!) - what they recognize as "speaking in tongues" is regarded as important evidence of this. They also threaten damnation for TV viewers. I have a hunch that the people who left this tract are the so-called "Potter's House", a sect who meet not far away from my church. According to their Wiki page "Potter's House" expect a true Christian believer to speak in tongues and they also have a dim view of TV viewing. However, that's just a guess.

Here's my second tract:

(Click to enlarge)

If you read this tract you will see that they talk in very stern and condemning tones about anyone who refers to Jesus as simply "Jesus" and/or regards him as a friend. Some spiritually conceited blockhead has written an incoherent footnote on this tract that tries to get around the passage in John  15:14-15 where Jesus refers to himself as a "friend"; this person simply cannot see that "friendship" is a mutual extrinsic property brought about by mutual relationship: Viz: If A is my friend then it follows that I'm a friend of A. I know very little about this second sect except that the tract gives an address in Germany.  I actually first came across this group when they put tracts on the cars in the car park at my church. See here:

http://norwichcentralbaptistchurch.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/yet-another-christian-sect-coming-out.html

When I find a tract from some hitherto unknown Christian group there is a simple rule of thumb I use to test the likelihood that the tract is from a strongly sectarian group: Look for passages in the tract that criticize other Christians as at best inferior and at worst hell-bound - when you see that you know they only accept themselves as authentically Christian.

This characteristic of condemning all people outside one's cloistered holy remnant as at best spiritually compromised and at worst satanically evil as an all too common and recognisable human trait. As we can see from the above, apparently quite innocuous behaviors (or absence of certain behaviors) are regarded by sectarians as enough evidence to consign people to eternal tortures and at the same time are considered clear cut signifiers separating out the sheep from goats. I've said the following before but it bears repeating: It is easy to imagine that the very human traits we see above could be exploited to promote acts of violence: Firstly, if these sectarian people have little problem in accepting innocuous behaviors as evidences of the presence of evil and therefore deserving eternal tortures in hell it would be no big deal for them to think that "goats" deserve physical death. Secondly, these sectarians have such a mechanical and literal way of interpreting the Bible that I shudder to think what might happen if the New Testament contained injunctions to kill apostates, heretics, blasphemers, and unbelievers. Fortunately for us in the West, the NT is very explicit about not spreading Christianity by the sword (.....but then come to think of it what about the "inquisition"?).  But there is more than one way to disseminate fear: heavy hints about the wrath of God and hell if one leaves a sect is another way of keeping people in line. The irony is that in theory Christianity  removes the fear of sin and death, and yet these cultists know how to reintroduce it!

It would be a nice idea to get together a sect/cult database that tabulates all the traits of the different cults. However, I've more pressing things to do! 

Why I’m not an Evangelical. Part 1: The Fundamentalist Epistemic

 Did he really say that?

The following letter appeared in the March/April edition of “IDEA”, the magazine of the Evangelical Alliance. The letter gives one of the reasons why I, as a Christian, struggle with evangelicalism; it tells us why evangelicalism so easily topples down into fundamentalist authoritarianism. It is a text book example of the epistemic error which is at the heart of fundamentalism:

Thanks for your timely investigations into evangelical identity in the Jan/Feb issue. Nowhere did that question come more sharply into focus than in Leader’s Questions (p32) on what the word ‘evangelical’ means.

Whilst Revd Rachel Marszalek reads scripture ‘through the lenses of reason, tradition and experience”, Dr Lucy Peppiatt perceives scripture as “the primary authoritative lens through which and against which all other texts, ideas, cultures etc. are interpreted and measured”

So which lens are we to use! Is scripture to be viewed through the filter of our world or our world to be viewed through scripture? Is the word of God to be subject to the changing culture of the world or the world subject to the enduring word of God?

Our evangelical forbears allowed the word of God to reign supreme in their lives, even when it cost them dear. May God enable us, together, to do the same.

Yours sincerely

Michael Thornton.

Michael Thornton appears to have no inkling how language actually works: The interpretation of text is always dependent on cultural and cognitive complexes, complexes which effectively process textual tokens. These tokens don’t contain meanings; rather they generate meaning given the interpretative resources of the cultural and cognitive substrate they impact. This is a general truism which applies to all forms of language because this is what language is by definition: that is, signals which act as meaning stimuli as they impinge upon cultural and cognitive contexts. The Bible, as a sequence of textual tokens, also follows these principles; if it didn’t it wouldn’t be language.

So, strictly speaking the starting point isn’t scripture in-and-of-itself but the combination of scripture and the substrate on which scripture works its purposes. Thornton appears to be under the mistaken impression that it’s a choice between scripture and substrate; he is so confounded by this false dichotomy that he is unable to see that the two must work together to generate meaning, a meaning that flows out of their interaction. In fact given this truism there is a case for claiming that effective scripture isn’t in fact the printed word, but the meanings those words evoke given the right substrate. Thornton’s dichotomy  may have been encouraged by a misapplication of the “sola scriptura” concept, a slogan coined during the reformation as a way of prizing apart scripture from the authoritarian grip of Roman Catholic fundamentalism; sola scriptura could never mean scripture alone in an absolute sense, but only in a relative sense.

The type of view expressed by Thornton is one I frequently encounter amongst fundamentalists and even moderate evangelicals like those represented by IDEA: I’ve long suspected that part of the psychological complex which favors such a view is an epistemic insecurity which prompts fundamentalist minded Christians to seek absolute jot and tittle certainty in their faith. This temptation towards inquisitional certainty subsequently provides a basis for the heretic purging of those Christians who disagree with the inquisitors.

The epistemic insecurities which fuel fundamentalist jot and tittle certainties might be assuaged somewhat if there was a clearer apprehension that God is sovereign over the whole package of contextual substrate and impacting word. The Divine choreographer is no doubt more than capable of arranging things so that the interaction between symbol and context generate potentially edifying meaning in the life of the believer.  It is unfortunate that the statement by evangelical Lucy Peppiatt has had the effect of conniving with Michael Thornton’s fundamentalist mentality.

However, let’s have a look at what Jason Lisle has to say on this subject. The following quote is taken from a comment on one of his blog posts. Here Lisle was responding to the question of a fellow fundamentalist:

Dr. Lisle says:

October 14, 2014 at 11:54 am

Zach, the answers to your questions involve the concept of the “hermeneutical circle” or “hermeneutical spiral.” I have a book coming out in the summer that addresses these issues in rich detail (in chapter 9). For now, I’ll have to give a shorter answer. God’s Word would have to be true because of the nature of God; He is truth. God has “hardwired” us to know that He exists, and to recognize His Word when we hear it or read it (John 10:27). How we respond to God’s Word will determine what happens next. If we receive His Word with humility then we participate in the hermeneutical circle. Basically, this means that God’s Word is sufficiently clear that we can understand and correctly interpret much of it upon reading it. After all, God designed our minds and knows how to write a book such that our minds can understand it. Because of sin, we don’t instantly correctly interpret all of God’s Word on the first reading. But the portions we do understand rightly will help us to understand the more difficult portions. In the process of time, our understanding improves as the Scriptures systematically sanctify our thinking. The Bible is therefore self-interpreting. It teaches us how to interpret it.

The general drift of this piece by Lisle is, I believe, correct, although he has expressed it in such a way as to as to neutralize its important lessons and even encourage the black vs white/baddies vs goodies categories preferred by the right-wing Fundamentalist mind. However, Lisle has at least become aware of the textual boot strap problem: i.e. one can’t assign meaning to scripture in a cognitive and cultural vacuum; that meaning can only bootstrap from an a priori cognitive and cultural substrate on which the text of scripture impacts. Thus the mind, in part equipped by its context, must be correctly primed in order that it be correctly informed by the textual input from the Bible. Moreover, as Lisle suggests, the reading of scripture effectively feeds back into one’s priming and therefore scripture influences the understanding of scripture; in fact Scripture becomes part of the substrate culture on which scripture itself works.  See here where I made this important point.

But fundamentalists are not known for nuancing or epistemic humility, and so Lisle uses some phrases that cancel all his good work by encouraging epistemic arrogance. These phrases are stock in trade for the fundamentalist and have the effect of signaling the old certainties about the divine authority of fundamentalist opinion.

Lisle: God’s Word would have to be true because of the nature of God

My Comment: There is a difference between natural language and the propositional notational language of mathematics and physics whose “truth” is intended to be independent of any one human being and is found in consistent and correct symbolic operations. In contrast natural language is highly connotational in nature and as such truth (or falsehood) is found in what it generates in the cognition it impacts.  Take for example the parables of Jesus: in what sense are these “true”? Are they to be regarded as true literal histories? If they don’t refer to literal histories does that make them false? Or should they be regarded as edifying archetypical vignettes whose truth emerges when they generate meaning on the appropriate human substrate?  Where is God’s truth in this case? It can’t be in the text because without interaction with a substrate it generates nothing and means nothing.  In much of natural language truth or falsehood is an effect rather than being resident in the text itself. The criticism often made of fundamentalism, and there are hints of it in the way Lisle expresses himself, is that in its very literal approach to scripture it treats the Bible like a scientific textbook. Parables are far from scientific statements: they are signals to the reader to be appropriately and rightly creative in their interpretation.

Lisle God has “hardwired” us to know…

It may well be (in fact I think it is likely) we have some kind of “God instinct”, but we must set that against the possibly that the intensity of this instinct may vary from person to person. Moreover, this instinct may be obscured and/or weakened, perhaps even eclipsed, by environmental influences of all sorts. So called hard wiring may actually only set up a propensity that in itself is not determinative. In using the term hard wiring Lisle has expressed the “God instinct” in typically black and white terms, terms that are likely to appeal to the fundamentalist sense of epistemic certainty: As the fundamentalist reads his Bible with Lisle reference to “hard wiring” in mind he will likely be encouraged to believe he has been “hard wired” to correctly interpret the text thus helping to neutralize any doubts, ambiguities or epistemic humility about what he draws from the text.

Lisle: God’s Word is sufficiently clear that we can understand and correctly interpret much of it upon reading it. After all, God designed our minds and knows how to write a book such that our minds can understand it. Because of sin, we don’t instantly correctly interpret all of God’s Word on the first reading

My Comment: It’s probably a safe bet to infer that to Lisle and his fellow fundamentalists those sufficiently clear meanings are their own! It’s what some fundamentalists refer to as the “plain meaning” of scripture; any other meanings must, according to Lisle, be a product of sinful and willful misinterpretation – notice that Lisle gives no space to plain ordinary genuine  interpretation errors when reading the Bible! In the fundamentalist universe sinful motives stalk the world and beyond their strict and particular fundamentalist communities those malign motives are found around every corner – this is why fundamentalists have a weakness for conspiracy theory.

Lisle: The Bible is therefore self-interpreting. It teaches us how to interpret it

My Comment: Although I agree with what Lisle has written immediately before this sentence, he has gone too far here: Scripture is never absolutely self-interpreting; its meaning has to be bootstrapped from somewhere as Lisle himself has admitted with his reference to “hardwiring”.  Once again we find Lisle serving up what his strict fundamentalist audience want to hear: Namely, that the Bible is a small, secure, self-interpreting universe. This encourages the fundamentalist to drop outside influences in favor of the proprietary readings favoured by his particular fundamentalist community; this is the sense in which they implicitly understand the term “sola scriptura”. The latter phrase was coined in a time when Catholic fundamentalism insisted on the divine authority of its reading of scripture. Ironically Lisle and his fellow fundamentalists have a similar opinion of their own views!

All in all Lisle has expressed himself in such a way as to mask the important questions surrounding the bootstrapping of Biblical meaning: The tenor of what he says would be unlikely to budge Michael Thornton  and Lucy Peppiatt from their misleading opinions which wrongly give the impression that scripture is a self-contained island of meaning, an independent “lens” which has no need to call on cultural and cognitive resources in order to generate meaning.

...to be continued

Did he really say that? As we shall see, the fundamentalist epistemic is likely motivated by fear and insecurity.


Postscript 30/6/15. A case study in fundamentalist epistemic arrogance

Who else?

In a blog post entitled 28 June 2015 fundamentalist Ken Ham writes (my emphases):

....we have an absolute authority by which all our actions must be judged—the authority of the Word of God. God obviously is the ultimate Judge, and He has given us His Word with which to judge actions.

....before we make a judgment, we must make sure we are judging righteously from God’s Word and not relying on our own opinion.

Ken's post is about the validity of judging others - I wouldn't quibble with that as we all, necessarily in fact, make valued judgments on people's behavior.  What interests me here is the way Ken justifies his judgments. As we know Ken Ham is a very judgmental person, constantly pronouncing God's censor on atheists and Christians alike; even that I wouldn't class as an activity wrong in-and-of-itself. Where Ken goes wrong is that he passes the buck on his epistemic responsibility in arriving at the ontological basis from whence he makes his judgments: For, as we can see from the above, in Ken's eyes he is not pronouncing his opinions, but God's opinions. He sees little epistemic responsibility in getting his interpretation of the Bible right, and gives no indication that when he "judges righteously from God's Word" it still remains his opinion of God's Word: Instead Ken is quite certain that his opinions are God's opinions. It is that unquestioning confidence that to his mind sanctions his prolific output of condemnation on others, and it is that which qualifies him as a fundamentalist.    (See here http://www.viewsnewsandpews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/hell-and-hamnation-ii.html). As I heard someone say: "An evangelical is nice fundamentalist". It follows then that a fundamentalist is a nasty evangelical!