Evangelicalism and language as magic.

"Dr Harries I presume?".  Jim Harries has a way of isolating himself from outside perturbations!

The underlying  assumption in the forgoing is that the language, epistemology, and ontology of Western science is universal enough to illuminate cross-cultural issues

I have been telling the story of my Thinknet project in this series of articles. What I’ll be doing here is using this project as the basis for comment on some of the thinking behind a blog post by Eddie Arthur, an evangelical Christian missionary who specialises in language. The post by Arthur is a review of two books by missionary Jim Harries. Jim Harries promotes a particular model of mission which he calls “Vulnerable Mission” (VM). I have written sympathetically on this subject here and here. One of the reasons I got involved (amongst others) in mission studies is because my Thinknet project seemed to throw light on the nature of language and its relation to culture; two topics that are of great relevance to mission. But more crucially perhaps, it was my eventual outlook on the nature of language and mission which in part created tensions with evangelicalism and helped move me away from some of its harsh over engineered doctrines to a softer broad brush approach to Christianity. Evangelicalism and its ugly sister fundamentalism are both very much bound up with the way they read and interpolate meaning into the biblical texts. In this post I would like to comment on the linguistic aspects of what is in fact a strong contention between Harries and Arthur.  

***

Natural languages don’t literally carry meanings; rather they trigger meanings in the mind of listener whose wealth of experience, memorised in the form of a network of conceptual associations, is stimulated by the incoming signals of language. In my attempt to try and reduce the theory behind this idea into a pithy non-technical conceptualisation I have contrasted the objective mechanical logic of mathematical languages with the subjective fuzzy associative logic of natural languages. (Further informal account of this contrast can be found in the VM papers I’ve already linked to above). The meaning of mathematical symbols is found in the algorithmic manipulation of symbols in a process external to human thought, whereas with natural language meaning is assigned by the connotational effects of symbols on human thinking, thereby leading to very fluid meanings. For example, whilst the foreground meaning of statements about dark rain clouds on the horizon is likely to be fairly standardised, the background connotational meanings will be different for the gardener, the cricketer and the rain dancer. The notational languages of the physical sciences are suited for the modelling of well defined physical systems, but the highly connotative logic of natural languages are adapted to the world of fuzzy human affairs where information slowly emerges out of a fog of complexity

In the light of these brief considerations let’s have a look at the following statement which can found in the comment thread of the blog post under consideration:

Ruedi Giezendanner

replied:2 months ago

When we started working for an Indian BT organization, we asked our Indian boss which Indian language we should learn. He looked at us and said, “English IS an Indian language.”

So, English is spoken as a local language in India? Yes and no: The use of a common pool of linguistic symbols is not itself a sufficient condition for transparent communication. This is because meanings aren’t endogenous to natural languages. The symbolic signals of a language act as a series of triggers to the human conceptual network inside our skulls; that mental network is constructed by long years of exposure to a particular cultural context; this learning doesn’t come packaged together with the linguistic symbols themselves.

Natural language meanings are extrinsic rather than intrinsic to a language in as much as meaning is actually delivered by the mental conceptual network upon which linguistic signals impinge. This is in fact a trivially obvious conclusion once one realises that the linguistic symbols of a language aren’t like little containers which can be opened and their meaning inspected (a point that Jim Harries himself has made); rather linguistic signals act as stimulants which release meanings implicit in the mind. Natural language is not a set of incantations and spells by which some special magic provides instant access to meaning: The illusion that meaning is actually being delivered by language from without rather than from within may be because our interpretative neural make up delivers meaning to consciousness so smoothly, efficiently and silently that we get the false impression meaning is coming from beyond us. The semantic force of natural language is sourced internally and to think otherwise is as bad as the fundamentalist creationist error that somehow “God spoke the world into existence” by sheer word power, just like that. That’s magical thinking from more primitive times. (However, the syntactical content of language which effectively constructs new semantic configurations does come from without)

In the light of the foregoing understanding of natural language let me now consider the following comment by Arthur in regard to one of the books written by Jim Harries about daily life in Africa (my emphasis):

However, it is important to remember that this book is written by a foreigner. It is an Englishman’s interpretation of Kenyan village life, not a Kenyan one. If you are really interested in getting under the skin of another culture, far better to read material written by the people themselves and not by their Western interpreters.

That latter sentence is attractively patronising about natives, but given that meaning is an extrinsic property of natural language the statement is profoundly problematical. Think about it in terms of connotation: The level of mutual understanding between two interlocutors depends on the level of similarity of both their ostensive pool of available language tokens and their hidden mental networks. Therefore necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) conditions of successful communication are:

a)    A pool of common terms that can be strung together in order to stimulate meanings in one another’s minds. 

b)      Similar concept networks.

Given a and b it follows that reading material written by a Kenyan is not a sufficient condition to communicate meaning even though he might be using English symbols; we must also share similar concept networks.  So, how then do we “get under the skin of another culture”? There seems to be more than one possibility here, but all of them rightly require sufficient time to build a common concept network. One possibility is for me to go to Kenya and spend a lot of time imbibing their culture and language. I could then read or listen to what they say thereby availing myself of a chance of “getting under the skin of their culture”. An alternative is for a Kenyan to come to the West and imbibe a Western concept network and try to make translations from the Kenyan network to the Western network. This latter strategy may work, but conceivably there could be incommensurability between the two networks and so the translation process could remain incomplete.

So, assuming the human mind to be a sufficiently flexible universal neural learning machine, then of the two foregoing strategies the more effective would likely be for me to go and imbibe Kenyan culture and language; that would cut out any incommensurability issues in translation.  However, if after a long term visit to Kenya I eventually successfully learnt Kenyan conceptual networks any attempt by me to translate from Kenyan to Western terms may hit the same incommensurability issues faced by a Kenyan trying to explain to the uninitiated Westerner how Kenyan thinking works.

But what if I’m not able to spend any time in Kenya imbibing their culture and language? Who would I best listen to in order to “get under the skin of their culture”?; a Westerner who is acclimatised to Kenyan culture or a Kenyan who is acclimatised to Western culture? Both emissaries might face issues of incommensurability and gaps in their knowledge of their respective foreign cultures when trying to translate. There is also the asymmetry of overwhelming Western power, wealth and influence to contend with, a wild card which might skew the output of this experiment in some unforeseen way; perhaps by the benefactor-beneficiary effect. (See here)

All in all, then, it is difficult to either affirm or contradict from a theoretical stand point Arthur’s patronising assertion. Someone like Jim Harries who lives and breathes rural African culture is in a position to actually understand African culture. But whether a Kenyan acclimatised Westerner like Harries would render a better translation of Kenyan conceptual networks than a Western acclimatised Kenyan is difficult to judge.  In the absence of reasons to believe why one case should be favoured over the other a possible strategy would be to get accounts from both kinds of sources and then make comparisons. It would probably be wise to repeat the experiment several times to spot any systematic differences between the two kinds of account.

Here are some further extracts from Arthur’s blog where he picks up the matter raised by Harries of what language to use when communicating with Africans.

There are an increasing number of Africans for whom English or French is actually their mother tongue, not to mention the growth of urban patois such as Nouchi in Abidjan or Sheng in Nairobi. These cannot be ignored when talking about communicating the Gospel in Africa, especially the burgeoning cities across the continent.

This leads into my biggest problem with the whole thing and that is that according to this model it is the missionary who decides which language the Gospel should be transmitted in. I’m all in favour of working in African languages (that’s what I’ve spent my adult life doing and advocating for), but the choice for the medium should lie in Africa, not with the expat. Some Africans prefer using European languages in some contexts, and they should be allowed to do so, if that’s what they want.

I have similar concerns about some of the other sections, but the language issue is the one I know best and about which I feel most qualified to comment.

I think this shows that Keith’s point about language choice not being straightforward stands. It also illustrates the issue of rural versus urban language use. French is a first language for Many Abidjanais and to insist that they be addressed in ‘African’ languages is nonsensical. This does not devalue the need for Bible translation, but it does show that we need to think seriously about what languages are used where and not to allow our own biases to determine what should be done.

I am not going to contradict of any of that, but it’s what Arthur has left unsaid which constitutes a serious omission.  For the only variable he has focused on here is what he refers to as a “language” and by that most people think in terms of the ostensive medium of signalling; as I have already said the mind is such an efficient and unconscious translator that it leaves us with an illusory impression of meaning immerging out of the signals themselves. Hence, it is easy to fall for the idea that once one has the signalling medium in one’s possession one also has its meaning.

But look at points a and b above: Strictly a “language” is far more than the pool of tokens and syntactical constructions it employs as a medium of communication. If the ostensive signalling of natural language is to work it must be bundled together with the huge background hinterland of its interpretative concept network. Ergo, use of a recognisably similar signalling medium is therefore not a sufficient condition to conclude that mutual understanding can be taken for granted. A natural language is far more than its signalling medium. It follows from this that multilingual situations may be evidence of different (incommensurable?) domains of meaning. Therefore you chose the language to use according to the conceptual domain you wish to access.

***

Finally I’ll say a little bit about the interpersonal aspects that stand behind this contention between Harries and Arthur. What I consider to be a heavy hint about this matter is found in the following quote from Arthur (my emphasis):

However, as was the case previously, there are some serious flaws with this book. The first and most serious problem is the “I’ve got it right and everyone else is wrong” attitude which pervades the book. Even when I agree with the author, I find myself wanting to disagree because of the strident tone.

Nonetheless, Jim feels “written off”. Apparently you have to accept every jot and tittle of his ideas or you are opposing them. Please look at Jim’s response to my comments. From where I am sitting, he has simply side slipped my comments, while likening himself to the prophet Jeremiah. So my genuine and honest questioning of his work is transformed into persecution of the Lord’s prophet; a classic way to shut down conversation.

It is true that Dr. Jim Harries is very convinced about the exclusiveness of his own approach to mission. As I’m all for British compromise I have found his insistence on VM’s ideological purity just a little uncomfortable. But no question about it, he very strictly follows the model I have referred to above of the person who realises that the best way for the Westerner to get to grips with African (rural) culture is to go and immerse you self in it for years. Moreover, to further insulate the “experiment” against the perturbing and biasing effects of the overwhelming firepower of Western cultural influences and wealth he insists on keeping Western resources/culture out of mission as far as possible. I’ve met few people of such single minded dedication. I’ve seen him cross swords with other missionaries over his work but he remains cool in circumstances when I would have gone for my gun; ditto when I myself have raised questions about his rather uncompromising stance. He’s the last person I’d call strident. I’m not an evangelical myself but Harries has won my trust in his abilities and authenticity. Compare that with Eddy Arthur: It soon became apparent from the signals I was receiving that here was not the most easy going of guys, a guy who finds himself wanting to disagree with whomever his human instincts clash.  In a future post I’ll talk about the time Arthur responded to me in an all too typically paranoid evangelical way and I consequently gave him a sample of just what being strident really looks like.

Stop Press:
I was interested to note the following Tweet in relation to Arthur's post:

1. @DrMarkPickett

   2 months ago

   @kouya Surely both emic AND etic perspectives are necessary to really get “under the skin of another culture”, are they not?
2. Eddie

Donald Trump and the politics of paranoia.

The BBC Magazine on paranoiac fantasies: “Trump promises to make America Great Again - as if the US somehow was no longer the most powerful country in the world”

The title of this post is taken from a BBC magazine web article which can be read here. The article is of great interest to VNP because it adds further weight to the VNP theme which links fundamentalism, collective paranoia and right wing politics into an integrated socio-psychological complex. Although I’m not talking here about clinical paranoia, the term is singularly appropriate in this context because there is a close social analogy to clinical paranoia – in particular, the way the fearful imagination invents baroque conspiratorial narratives about malign wills working behind the scenes to persecute, corrupt, subvert and control.  

 Below is a quote from the article:

The phrase "paranoid style in American politics" was coined by the late historian Richard Hofstadter. He defined the Paranoid Style, "an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent."

In a country that at its best radiates an infectious optimism, it is interesting how often fear has stalked the American landscape.

Richard Parker, who lectures on religion in the early days of America at Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government, traces paranoia in American public life back to the Salem Witch Trials in the late 17th Century and even before that, to the religious politics of the Mother Country.

It's easy to forget how closely tied the first colonies were to England, particularly in Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were dissenting Protestants who sided closely with Cromwell in the English Civil War. When the Commonwealth was overthrown and the Stuarts restored to the British throne, there was renewed struggle with Catholicism - and the religious suspicions surrounding the court of James II were magnified out of all proportion on the other side of the Atlantic.

Add in the daily struggles with nature, fighting with native Americans, and millennial religious practice that thought the end times were approaching and you have, Parker points out, "a community primed to be fearful".

And so in the town of Salem, people turned on their more free-thinking neighbours, and accused them of being witches. At this time, the idea of witchcraft was not something from fiction. People really did believe, in Parker's words, "dark spirits could inhabit souls and bodies. It was the basis for primitive psychology and physiology."

This is not just a US phenomenon, although it might be more prevalent there; I’ve seen similar fears among extremist Protestants in the UK. As the quote above suggests the US may have inherited its complex of easily aroused fear from the mother country: The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries set a paranoiac backdrop; the religious apocalyptic mind-set of those times is implicated as the origin of a recurring socio-psychological malaise. English government went through a time of trepidation about Roman Catholic conspiracies. In the seventeenth century this was compounded by national infighting as dissenting Protestants found themselves at odds with the English government, the state church and one another.  It was a time of mutual suspicion and fear. Many nonconforming Protestants decided to start a new life on the American continent free from the interference of government and all those other heretics. The American Revolution was founded on anti-taxation grievances as the English war-machine demanded taxes to finance its battles against a competing French empire. The parliamentary opposition to Royal taxation and absolute monarchy precipitated the English civil war and this opposition migrated, along with the colonists, to the middle classes of America.

The article lists examples of the historical recrudescence of paranoia in the US about the machinations of hidden malign parties. I’ll high light just one recent and well known case:

Following World War Two the fear shifted to the Soviet Union. Leaders of the far-right vied with each other to see who could turn up the most Communists. This led Robert Welch, the founder of the ultra-right John Birch Society, to claim that President Dwight D Eisenhower was "a tool of the communists".

That latter claim reminds me of some of the things which have been said about President Obama. Given VNP’s critique of religious extremism, VNP’s interest was particularly piqued when the BBC article quoted Harvard history professor Lisa McGirr as saying the following about the US tendency toward collective paranoia:

"I think it is linked to religiosity: evangelicalism and fundamentalism which have deep strands in American life,"

And needless to say Trump knows how to tug those strands:

Writing off Donald Trump was the default setting of most pundits and political professionals in the first months of the campaign. It isn't any more. Trump understood more than they did that a significant chunk of American society is fearful. He plays to those fears - whether they are rational or not. He doesn't speak in what he calls "politically correct" terms.

And finally:

In South Carolina, recently, I met a gentleman named Robert Sandifer. In his 70s, well-educated and well-off, he had retired to a lovely island just south of Charleston, one of the nicest cities in America.

"Trump has instilled hope in people," Sandifer told me.

"Hope? Sounds to me like desperation," I told him.

Sandifer politely disagreed. "If he does what he says he's gonna do, we would be less fearful." He added, for emphasis: "We fear the federal government very much."

From the intelligent design web site Uncommon Descent, through the Fundamentalist ministry of Answers in Genesis, to  religious crackpots like William Tapley, the American right wing is suffused with fear, a sense of impending doom and a deep hatred of the liberal views of  government funded academics.

 Relevant Links.

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/right-wing-cranks.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/banning-creationism-vs-science-dichotomy.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/public-vs-private-polarisation.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-ultimate-conspiracy-theory.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-first-conspiracy-theory-kennedy.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/catalogue-of-woo.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/fundies-cultists-conspiracy-theorists.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/conspiracy-and-apocalypse.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/conspiracy-theorists-corner.html

http://quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/witchs-brew-from-townhallcom.html

More on Trump

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35388292

Generalized Fundamentalism II

Spot the fundamentalist: 

Generalised Fundamentalism

Wrong way round; The question is: "Explain the Similarities". They are there if you look

A news item in the January Premier Christianity magazine asks the question  "Who are Islamic State and what do they want?".  The article remarks on Islamic State brutality and then says:

This shocking barbarism has led some to term the group a mindless death cult. But scholar and Anglican priest Mark Durie says this view is a 'triumph of religious illiteracy'.

As Views, News and Pews is in the religion industry it has a professional interest in trying not to be religiously illiterate. To this end VNP has used up many web column inches on the subject of religious eccentricity and crankiness, albeit mostly of the Christian fundamentalist kind. But that Daesh (aka IS) are also often referred to as Fundamentalists may carry a strong hint; for perhaps general aspects of VNP's experience with Christian Fundamentalism readily port to other brands of fundamentalism. To be frank it has long since occurred to VNP that Daesh's behavior starts to make sense if one has in one's head a generalised model of fundamentalism. So let's see.....

Premier Christianity quotes journalist Graeme Wood:

Much of what the group (Daesh) does looks nonsensical except in the light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventeenth century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about apocalypse. 

SNAP! Straightaway that's very recognizable. Christian fundamentalist's anti-science, anti-modern antics look at first sight to be nonsensical. But never underestimate the Christian fundamentalist's utterly sincerely held certainty and uncompromising conviction and commitment to winding back the clock to the fancied practices of first century Christianity or to pre-nineteenth century science and beyond; in its most extreme manifestation this can take the form of geocentrism and flat earth conspiracy theorism. The common ground of all fundamentalists is that they have huge self-belief because they are quite convinced they have a very direct line to God either through traditional readings of scripture or gnostic revelation, sometimes both.  Although Christian fundamentalists are not usually as proactive as Daesh in wanting to bring about apocalypse many of them mark time as they watch for the violent and terrible end times with the joy of vindication and anticipation. 

Premier Christianity also quotes Mark Durie on Daesh:

ISIS believes that killing disbelievers is moral act, in accordance, for example, with Sura 9:5 of the Qur'an, which states: "Fight and kill idolaters wherever you find them".

Once again VNP feels no sense of surprise here whatever: Whilst New Testament Christians are hard put to it to find divine sanction for killing the unfaithful one can nevertheless see reflected in Daesh the same unwillingness to re-interpret a verse that is open to interpretation - after all, it's arguable that neither Western atheists or Christians are technically idolatrous. But of course nuanced reinterpretation is not part of the fundamentalist mental complex. They are utterly convinced they know God's mind from scripture (and/or gnostic revelation). For them ambiguities that allow reinterpretation are considered as heretical compromise. Let me be frank: I have met Christian fundamentalists who, if the NT contained verses like Sura 9:5 providing an arguable case for killing infidels, would do just that.

Christian fundamentalists don't kill but under the threat of being branded an excommunicated heretic they are prone to some very weird practices and beliefs. In the same issue of Premier Christianity we can read an article sympathetic to a church in American that specializes in bizarre behaviors that have a lineal descent from the ministries of Benny Hinn, Rodney Howard-Browne and John Arnott e.g, collapsing into trances, fits of "uncontrollable laughter, convulsed by shrieks and groans" - and there I quote Premier Christianity. On top of this there are claims of "angel feathers" falling from the ceiling and gold dust appearing on people's skins during services. Claims of golden teeth fillings is another one that has appeared from time to time The writer of the article justifies these ludicrous goings on by telling us that although this church "messes with my theology." and is puzzled by it.....

 .... that sounds rather like the kind of things that Jesus would be doing doesn't it?

That's not a very robust argument in favor of this particular Christian sub-culture! Just about every Christian subculture between here and Salt Lake city want to mess with our theology and will claim that our sense of offense at their irrational antics is a sign that God is challenging us! This is the fideist gambit whereby it is claimed that God effectively deceives the rational person into disbelief. Further examples of this gambit can be seen here and here. It is a gambit which is frequently used by churches with gnostic leanings.

Christian sects are past masters in the art of messing with theology and insinuating and beguiling their belief systems into the life of the believer, usually backed up by spiritual intimidation: They invariably have a very strong leadership (usually patriarchs) who make claim to divine authority (e.g prophets and apostles). The communities they preside over have ways of conveying that to go against their status quo of praxis is to set you self against God, In fact we have a fine example of a subtle spiritually intimidating innuendo above (albeit unintended):  "Sounds rather like the kind of things that Jesus would be doing doesn't it?" . Translation: You're against Christ and therefore in danger of being a heretic!

Premier Christianity says the following of Daesh's patriarch-in-chief Abu Bakr al Baghdadi:

Baghdadi believes Muslims have sinned over the past 1000 years by abandoning their duty to establish a caliphate. In reestablishing this ancient system of governance, ISIS view themselves as following in the footsteps of the original caliph - the prophet Mohammed.

This is also a very recognizable pattern found in Christian fundamentalism; namely, a nostalgia for the past that seeks restoration and recovery of what is believed to have been lost by a heretic and/or apostate church. Because most Christian sects and cults are a relatively recent or historically patchy phenomenon they invent narratives to explain why they are the one true recovered and restored church and why other churches are at best compromised and at worse apostate. This entails writing off for the burning huge swaths of the faithful as do Daesh. 

Finally Premier Christianity's  news items makes what I consider to be a really serious sociological faux pas.  They give space to Jeremiah J Johnston author of Jesus and the Jihadis: Confronting the Rage of ISIS:

Speaking on Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable? programme Mr. Johnson said Westerners don't realise how theologically driven Islamic State is. The Church has been quiet for years, not wanting to offend Muslims in general,

Anyone who has observed Christian fundamentalism ought to be quite capable of spotting the patterns and putting 2 and 2 together and realising just how theologically driven Islamic State is! But the following statement from Johnson which is bound to offend (moderate) Muslims (which it seems he is prepared to do) is as bad as it gets:

If you want to see a case study of exactly how Mohammed desired Islam to be implemented, look at the Islamic state...Mohammed would not only join the Islamic state, he would lead it.

Nice one! What's this guy want us to do? Enrage and alienate otherwise moderate Muslims? We need to bring Muslim moderates on board, not tell them that their exemplar wants them behave like Daesh! In fact According to the Christianity article:

Inayat Bunglawala, founder and chair of Muslims4UK such statements sound 'utterly outrageous' for 'normal sane Muslims'

Too right! Johnson's statement is a bit like someone saying that Jesus would join the Christian Young Earthers, geocentrists,  flat earthers or the Westboro baptist church! I suspect that Johnson has at least subliminal fundamentalist tendencies himself and so he just can't abide with the fuzzy world of interpretative ambiguity which provides space for review and reinterpretation - for fundies the latter always smacks of at best relativistic compromise and at worse blaspheming heresy. Johnson, like Daesh, is very comfortable with clear cut fault lines of division and difference, thus helping to reinforce and stoke up tensions between Muslims and Christians. Idiot!

Fundamentalist religion of all brands comes over as an all too human complex of weaknesses, foibles, idiosyncrasies, self-deceits and conceits: Viz: the desire for absolute epistemic security, black vs white oppositions and dualities, God's literal Wordism, nostalgic restoration of the one true church, overbearing patriarchal leaders with unchallenged authority, gnostic and fideist enlightenment etc. etc. - VNP has seen all these very human religious sectarian excesses the world over whether they be of Islamic or Christian gloss. Under fundamentalism Christianity loses its uniqueness. It is also a denial that humans are epistemically challenged and beset by uncertainties. The Christian walks by faith and trust. All that I have seen teaches my to trust the Creator for all that I haven't seen. (Emerson)

As a finale below I publish a YouTube I picked up from P Z Myers blog. It's a classic example of fundamentalist logic; Namely, that one has the duty to enforce one's religion on others on the basis that one is utterly convinced it is true, as convinced as one is of 2+2 = 4! No wonder these people eschew the controlled row of democracy in favour of war, fear and famine; you only need two sets of blockheaded protagonists like this who are as equally convinced about different religions and you've got a world class scrap on your hands; everlasting warfare in fact; ruined cities, refugee crisis, starvation etc - remind you or anywhere? - probably quite a few places in fact. PZ Myers remarks that this Islamic fundamentalist is indistinguishable from Ken Ham, and at the generalized level he is completely right!

Democracy and argument should be removed by force according this fundie. 

The Evolution of Cult Conspiracy Theorism

Bill Nye is a genuine guy

In a post entitled "Why don't More Scientists Believe in Creation?" and dated 5 January Ken Ham quotes one of his tame researchers as follows (My emphasis):

I believe surveys say around 97% of professional scientists hold evolution. Understandably many people want to know why, if the evidence for biblical creation is so compelling, so many scientists still reject it. Well, the same surveys show that probably at least 70% of professional scientists are non-Christians. We know from Romans 1 that non-Christians have a spiritual bias and deliberately suppress the truth. So the Scripture tells us that, yes, the vast majority of them have a compelling spiritual reason to ignore what we’re saying. And so, practically, the way it works itself out, is they never bother to consider it.

Firstly, meaning of terms: To fundamentalists like Ham and his ilk "Creation" equates to their brand of "Creationism". For these fundamentalists even evangelicals like William Dembski and Hank Hanegraaf are heretics who have succumbed to the deliberate deception of mainstream science. 

Although I wouldn't classify Ham and his following as out-and-out cultists and conspiracy theorists the above quote shows that Ken Ham has already in place important psychological components which are present in the cultic mindset; in particular, the paranoiac suspicion that those who disagree with him do so with a guilty conscience and are deliberately covering up. It wouldn't take much to evolve Ham into a fully blown cultist and conspiracy theorist.

Of course, the ego of Ken Ham and co would find it very difficult to accept the real reason why they are ignored; namely, that they are extremists whose extremism has perverted their understanding of science. Professional scientists have better things to do than waste time rebutting every error of fundamentalist "science".  

BTW: Romans 1 isn't about atheism; it's about idolatry, the misrepresentation of God. Whatever else they were the Romans weren't atheists. 

Evangelicals Behaving Badly

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: 

Timothy V ReevesAugust 11, 2013 at 8:06 am

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 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-20/#comment-99476

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wine-cellar/comment-page-21/#comment-99616

Update 18/01/16
See here on Uncommon Descent:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sal-cordova-withdraws-from-the-id-movement/

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.