Apparently, this op-ed from yesterday’s NY Times is creating quite a stir. (It’s funny to me because I didn’t see the article until this morning, but yesterday I wrote a post along these same lines, that I ended up discarding because it wasn’t very eloquent.) Anyway, here’s the opening paragraph:
THE Republican presidential field has become a showcase of evangelical anti-intellectualism. Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann deny that climate change is real and caused by humans. Mr. Perry and Mrs. Bachmann dismiss evolution as an unproven theory. The two candidates who espouse the greatest support for science, Mitt Romney and Jon M. Huntsman Jr., happen to be Mormons, a faith regarded with mistrust by many Christians.
The rejection of science seems to be part of a politically monolithic red-state fundamentalism, textbook evidence of an unyielding ignorance on the part of the religious. As one fundamentalist slogan puts it, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” But evangelical Christianity need not be defined by the simplistic theology, cultural isolationism and stubborn anti-intellectualism that most of the Republican candidates have embraced.
My experience bears out the observations of this op-ed. Especially in my undergrad years, evangelical “science” started with, “the Bible says X, and therefore scientists are liars.” Of course, we never probed deeply to ask harder questions like, “is this what the Bible says, or what we want it to say?” Or, what if scientists are correct? What does this mean for us?
I’m not trying to say that all evangelical Christians are anti-intellectual and all scientists are unbiased. What I really want is to see that evangelicals and scientists alike will embrace all our ways of knowing what we know. I believe that as a Christian I should take the Scriptures seriously. But, at the same time, I don’t simply dismiss our observances of general revelation.
What do you think? Are evangelicals anti-intellectual? Is the op-ed fair?
Twitter Updates
I rezent that this ardicle impleyes we evanjellocalls are anti-intelligent. I have studeed the Bible cuvver too cuvver and know i”m right and can proof him wrong if he only has “eyes to see and ears to hear” which he don’t.
The scarier part is that these folks who are running for office usually don’t say anything unless it is tested with a focus group made up of people they are trying to reach. That means that their positions are the positions of those on the right that they need to vote for them.
I suggest everyone read On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt. It will help you understand what’s happening with public speech these days. The true bullshit artist doesn’t actually believe anything. It’s different than (and worse than) lying. At least someone who is lying knows the truth and is not telling it. Bullshit artists don’t even care if something is true or not, they just care if what they are saying will help the get what they want.
So, based upon the remarks of Presidential candidates, I would say it’s really hard to know what they believe. But that they think this message will play with the religious right in the next election says a lot about anti-intellectualism on the right.
“Are evangelicals anti-intellectual?”
I don’t think it’s fair to make one issue (i.e. a stance on the validity of evolution) the indicator of a person’s level of intellectualism. I often want to do just that, but it’s too simplistic. I think of my dad as an example: he believes in a pretty literal Biblical version of Creation, which I don’t agree with. But he also is doing PhD work on social factors that lead to high violent crime rates in Nairobi slums, and he has a very sophisticated way of thinking about and relating to different cultures. It wouldn’t be fair to call him anti-intellectual because of a couple viewpoints he has.
On the other hand, I think that most people are not particularly intellectual. And there is a certain anti-intellectual vibe in American culture, anyway…”common sense” generally is valued much higher than intellectual analysis. I think that’s probably because of the historically independent, more-power-to-the-common-man streak that Americans have always identified with.
I will say, however, that the platform that plays well with Republicans is, in my opinion, very anti-intellectual and more fear-based than rational.
@Zach – Zach – I can’t speak for the authors of the op-ed, but I’ll speak for myself. My beef is not with anyone who has a different view than mine. Instead, I’m more concerned with an evangelical culture that begins with an a prior belief that because scientists don’t have a conservative evangelical worldview, they cannot be trusted regarding anything.
To put it in theological terms, I’m looking for theologians and scientists who take both special and general revelation into account – who don’t see science as an enemy, but rather another way of knowing.
If your dad looks at the issues and disagrees, then fine. But, I’m afraid that too many people don’t really weigh the evidence. Rather, they start by dismissing all secular scientists from the conversation.
And to be fair, plenty of secular scientists return the favor by dismissing anyone who believes in God, which is equally egregious.
Aren’t you dismissing people who choose to ignore general revelation when it appears (at least to them) to conflict with special revelation? How much evidence, and what kind, do people have to weigh for it to be enough?
Let me be clear, I agree with your opinion. My original point is that I don’t think it’s fair to label evangelicals anti-intellectual, which was the question posed. Here’s why.
Everybody’s beliefs are largely based on faith, not weighing the evidence. Faith in a certain interpretation of the Bible, faith in college professors, faith in TED Talks, whatever. But most people do not actually weigh scientific evidence for themselves (i.e. do scientific research, experimentation, etc.). We all choose who to believe, based on a number of rational and, unfortunately, some irrational reasons. I choose to believe a certain combination of what the Bible says and what I’ve learned–from other people that I think are credible–about scientific findings. I don’t think that’s fundamentally different than someone choosing to believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the highest authority, and therefore anything that contradicts it is incorrect.
To me, “anti-intellectual” is someone who says things like “That’s too smart for me,” “I’m not book-smart, I’m street-smart”–someone who is not interested in analyzing and talking about ideas, who’s not interested in why, they just want to know the right answer. That description fits a lot of evangelicals, but it also does NOT fit a lot of evangelicals.
@Steve – way to keep it classy!
@Zach – what do you think about this response at First Things? http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/10/19/a-different-type-of-fundamentalist/
@Zach – And I agree with you… as much as I think that there ARE evangelicals who are anti-intellectual, and really do just want to bury their head in the sand,… the original NY Times piece paints with such a wide brush, that exceptions are easy to find!
@Charlie Dean – That First Things response was as bad as the NY Times article.
“[The NYT op-ed] was the type of sophomoric, bias-confirming piece that no reputable publication would touch. Naturally, it was a hit with Times readers.”
Isn’t he painting Times readers with the same brush that the NYT op-ed painted evangelicals with?
People need to calm down.
I agree with your underlying premise that many Christians (int he class of born-again Christians, i.e fundamentalists, evangelicals) are anti-intellectual. How many times have I heard someone respond to my observation that, as Christians, we aren’t called to “blind faith?” Too many. Just recently I’ve had to explain to two well-meaning Christians that our faith is not a blind faith but a faith based on historical evidence. Granted, there is an element of faith that one has to have in order to accept Christ, but we aren’t suppose to check our brains in at the door when we accept Christ. These same well-meaning Christians also tried to come down on me for my education – they claimed that thaey didn’t need to be “educated” to understand things. All they needed was faith. One was in response to my reaction to her repost of a Louie Giglio video. I mentioned to her that she needed to look deeper into how well laminin fits into what Mr Giglio was saying (it isn’t the cross that binds us together as she is led to believe). The other was from a fellow that said education wasn’t needed to understand the Bible – his was in response to our men’s group new study by RZIM on apologetics. To let you know where I come from, my background is in geology (BS/MS), hence the reasons why I keep getting attacked by some evangelicals.