I have totally heard pretty much every one of these…
Originally posted on Defeating the Dragons:
There have been plenty of things I’ve heard since I left Christian fundamentalism after spending 14 years (more than half my life) in it, and most of them make me want to tear my hair out. So, I put out a general call for some of the gems you have heard, and here’s a few that I got back.
1. “You just need to work through your bitterness.”– Teryn
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…”
Matthew 28:19 (English Standard Version)
If there is one thing that unites Evangelical Christianity, it’s The Great Commission: Jesus’ instruction to the disciples to going out into all the world and to bring them the gospel. So enthusiastic about this command are some strains of Christianity that a friend recently walked out of his bedroom stark naked, only to be surprised to find that his front door was open, and that two representatives of the local church were smiling at him and asking if he had time to talk about the Good News.
This urge to tell others about your perspective, with the aim of persuading them of it’s benefits as a world view, is common as a social behaviour. If we accept that humans are tribal animals, then its in our nature to both want people to share our value system, and to distrust people who do not. I’m sure that anyone who’s watched the news will be familiar with this, because it’s at the core of any dispute between any two groups you care to name. Participants will each try to besmirch the name of the opposing group whilst promoting the advantages of their own.
I feel the same pattern can be observed in much the same about some of the periodic science communication conversations that come round time and time again. You know the type, the stories which appear in specialist and public press, claiming that, for example, science literacy levels are embarrassingly low, or that governments are spending too little on science and technology or, today, that hard-to-reach groups are disengaged or unengaged in conversations about science. In short, the bread-and-butter of the interface between science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and publics. Today, I see that Australians are jumping on this band wagon, complaining that communicators need to work harder to engage the unengaged.
The unspoken predicate for all these rhetorical attempts is that STEM is so important that in order to validate your existence as a consumer of its outputs, you must have a deep and meaningful understanding of, and views on, a wide range of STEM topics. If this assumption were not lying at the bottom of the discussion, it would be impossible to make a statement like: “But worse than any of the above [recoiling in horror or laughing heartily]: you may not have reacted at all [to news about STEM strategies]” (Cormick, ibid).
Consider the implications of that sentence.
If you recoiled in horror to news that people don’t do well on exams for which they haven’t prepared, then you are in Our Club. Alternatively, if you laughed at such ignorant fools who care so little for the universe around them, then we also approve of you, for you value Science.
If you celebrated that a government chief scientist is promoting the strategic consideration of STEM issues within a governmental context (and, by the way, I might argue that’s what a government chief scientist is paid to do, whether in Australia or Britain) then you are fighting the good fight, sister. If you shook your head, mildly embarrassed that such a basic step had yet to be properly implemented, then you too are a committed to the fight against the legions of uneducated darkness who threaten civilisation.
If, on the other hand, it passed you by, perhaps because you were distracted by the slightly-over-reported news of the birth of Royal Baby Prince Diana (it’s what she’d have wanted), or by news that supposedly-democratic states misuse surveillance technology, or by the introduction of fascist homophobic policies into Russian law, then you are a sinner! You will burn in hell for not caring the degree to which the government funds STEM development in universities. Your soul is forever damned for putting your immediate priorities (feeding the family, going to work, playing Candy Crush Saga) above the Gospel of STEM. AS Cormick puts it:
That’s three in every ten people lined up at the check-out at your average local shops who probably haven’t once thought of Brian Cox nor dinosaurs nor space, yet alone basic chemistry, in the last year!
I know! Thirty percent have not been saved! 3 in 10 of the population are trapped, forever doomed to not appreciate STEM. Worse, they don’t even understand what they are missing. So sinful are they that they cannot see the light, they deny the truth of the beauty of science, they say things like (brace yourselves, for this is horrifying to the True Believer):
Why do you think it so important that we know about your science?
(quoted in Cormick, ibid)
Such infidels hold deeply heretical perspectives, for example, worrying more about whether something is safe and works than how it works, or take sacrosanct rituals such as The Science Lesson and fail to see the inherent beauty in it. They might even take their teachings from people who aren’t Qualified Experts, and thus form an understanding that doesn’t appreciate the true, rational basis of the Truth being conveyed unto them.
Now, obviously, I am slightly paraphrasing and I am reframing the arguments, but if one were so inclined, one might find it difficult to differentiate between the rhetoric of the Science Zealot from that of the enthusiastic preacher from a pulpit of a Sunday morning.
There is a serious issue here: the less socioeconomic advantages a person has in life, the less engaged with STEM issues they tend to be. This to me is entirely understandable: the valency of a carbon atom tends not to be incredibly valuable information when you are working three minimum wage jobs, nor do you tend to have time to watch the latest Epistle from St Brian of Cox. When your education was punctuated with bullying because of your sexuality, when your ethnicity acted as a boundary in the classroom, or when your parents weren’t home and you had nothing to eat, I frankly find it unsurprising that STEM doesn’t seem like a priority.
This serious discussion, in which the failure to engage with STEM is placed at the door of the unengaged sinner, doesn’t address the underlying problem of social inequality and instead goes for the traditional Evangelical approaches to conversion: send more preachers out into the places where the poor wretched delinquents congregate, and
TESTIFY the Word of the Lord, sorry, promote the benefits of STEM unto the blasphemer unengaged until he (or she!) sees the light.
Such a conclusion about outreach (also what churches call it) can only be supported if you accept that without Science people cannot truly be citizens in society. It’s a fundamentally scientistic position in which we take a small step from the Creed of Scientism “everything that is worth knowing is science” to “unless you know science, you have no worth”.
I, for one, cannot accept that conclusion. I love science, I love the way in which science has transformed the ways in which I perceive the world, and I love the ways in which the world is transformed by science, but science is far from the only way to perceive the world, and it’s a privileged perspective at that.
Because if we accept Evangelical Scientism, we are but a step away from instituting a Science Literacy Inquisition. We are but a step away from using our privilege to oppress people whose perspectives differ from ours. And we are a mere step away from knocking on people’s doors at nine o’clock in the morning to ask them if they’ve heard the Good News about evolution.
Originally posted on Defeating the Dragons:
Today’s guest post is from Jonny Scaramanga, who blogs about his journey out of fundamentalism and into atheism, as well as his experience with Accelerated Christian Education at Leaving Fundamentalism. “Learning the Words” is a series on the words many of us didn’t have in fundamentalism or overly conservative evangelicalism– and how we got them back. If you would like to be a part of this series, you can find my contact information at the top.
I used to hear about it when I was a child. Usually it was a customer or business associate of my dad’s, who didn’t have a wife – he had a ‘partner’. I could almost hear the scare quotes even then. If I hadn’t picked up the disapproval in my parents’ voices, it would be made explicit soon enough.
This is actually how the law is made, right?
Originally posted on Love and Garbage - some commonplace musings:
A government spokesman today confirmed plans to press ahead with the Something Must be Done Bill. She said,
“During the year we saw things happen which were very serious – and while each of these serious things was dealt with by the police under existing laws, we have decided that if we appear to do nothing about these things that will be worse for us than doing something (or appearing to do something while actually doing nothing) because people will expect us to do something after we appeared on the television saying that something had to be done. Therefore after careful consideration we have identified a thing to do. And because this thing to do is something we have therefore concluded that this something must be done, even though it is – in effect – little more than what can be done at the moment. However. in order to disguise the fact that we are not really doing anything, and to confirm that we are definitely not doing nothing, we have decided to rush to do something to give the impression that there is an emergency about these serious things that must be dealt with immediately. We therefore have introduced the Something Must be Done Bill which is to be considered by the Parliament and passed before anyone has a real chance to realise that the something that is being done about the serious things, is less of a something and more of a nothing than people realise. However, while we are at it we will put in a provision which does do something but is actually unrelated to the serious things that prompted us to believe that people would think that something must be done. This something is actually a bit like another thing that can be done but in order to ensure that we don’t properly have to justify what it is we will borrow a something that was done about a thing in another country and explain that we are doing something to bring us into line with that other country. We will do this something despite the fact that we are criticising judges for equiporating our laws with those of that other country (despite the fact that the judges are not actually doing that at all). However, unlike those evil judges who are (we know, but won’t admit) not actually bringing our law into line with the law of another country but are applying normative standards from a suprenational hierarchy to test the efficacy of our law, we know that if we attempt to do something to bring our treatment of things into line with how another country deals with things (even though that other country took years to pass legislation to deal with that thing and we will take, oh, let’s say a good ten minutes) then self-evidently that is a good thing to do, because we only do things that are good for our country, unlike all the others who really hate our country – especially the judges that commute to another country.”
The Something Must be Done Bill is expected to be passed by Parliament in the next few minutes after detailed and substantial scrutiny by a committee that will have the text passed to it tomorrow.
A summary of Creationism from an educational perpective
Originally posted on Jesus Without Baggage:
Today’s guestpost is by Jonny Scaramanga who blogs at Leaving Fundamentalism. One of Jonny’s areas of expertise is the teaching of creationists and he is perhaps the leading authority on the problems of ACE home school curriculum and learning systems, which teach creationism. On his blog, he also deals with other aspects of Fundamentalist Christianity. Be sure to visit there; it is one of my favorites.
Asking what Creationists teach is a bit like asking what Christians teach. It encompasses a lot of different doctrines. Broadly speaking, a Creationist is anyone who believes that God made the universe, which could include people who accept the theory of evolution, but think God started the process.
I have a mixed relationship with London. It’s crowded by people who seem to think that I want to be hit repeatedly by their back pack. It’s full of stunningly breath-taking architecture, cathedrals to the gods of shopping, privelege, commerce and religion and breath-taking ugliness celebrating public service and poverty. It exploits a crass consumerist culture, pimping bawdy trinkets and cheap plastic goods to sheeple who want whatever branded product is on offer and sprinkled with some of the finest examples of artisan crafts from bakeries to silversmiths, from suits to homewares. It packs thousands of people into a small space and boasts large open spaces full of greenery and beautiful bodies of water. It celebrates fame and privilege in some of the most opulent surroundings, and traps the poorest in society in some of the drabbest estates.
I was expecting – hoping – to see these conflicts and contrasts reflected in the displays at the Museum of London. And to an extent, the museum does touch on these juxtapositions, but perhaps not in the ways one might expect.
Iain (M) Banks has died. If you’ve never read Culture (with the M) or his other fiction (without) you’ve missed out on one of Scotland’s finest writers.
Culture is a hybrid, liberal in the far future, in a world where humanity (in the loosest sense of the term) has exceeded it’s biological limitations. As with all scifi, he uses Culture to explore contemporary issues, but also to explore possibilities. He uses – used – a range of forms, and perspectives to explore his speculative realities in ways which surprise, delight and engross you, the reader. He transported me, a scifi veteran, to worlds I hadn’t imagined by ships which have personalities I fear may not be far off mine. When you identify with a ship, you know the author is something special.
If you want to read him, start with Consider Phlebas.
I shall leave by recalling the names of Culture ships; not only because they are in every sense his biggest creations, but because, I suspect, they were the deepest reflections of his character.
- Prosthetic Conscience
- Irregular Apocalypse
- Screw Loose
- Just Read The Instructions
- Cargo Cult
- Kiss My Ass
- Very Little Gravitas
- Size Isn’t Everything
- I Thought He Was With You
- Grey Area (aka Meatfucker)
- Zero Gravitas
- Resistance Is Character-Forming
- We Haven’t Met, But You’re A Great Fan Of Mine
- Pride Comes Before A Fall
- Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall
- It’s My Party And I’ll Sing If I Want To
- Lightly Seared On The Reality Grill
- Falling Outside The Normal Moral Constraints
- Questionable Ethics
- Refreshingly Unconcerned With the Vulgar Exigencies of Veracity
- Displacement Activity
He named the following ships when another culture criticised the lack of gravitas when ships named themselves:
- Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
- Gravitas, What Gravitas?
- Gravitas… Gravitas… No, Don’t Help Me, I’ll Get It In A Moment…
- Gravitas Free Zone
- Low Gravitas Warning Signal
- Absolutely No You-Know-What