Psychology Today published a "helpful" article back in 2018 about "How Religious Fundamentalism Hijacks the Brain." The only two versions of this fundamentalism, apparently, were Islam and Christianity, with heavier emphasis on Christian fundamentalism. The author compared it to a "parasitic manipulation" that commands individuals to act and think a certain way -- "a rigid way that is intolerant to competing ideas." Now, I find that interesting, because it seems to me that there are all sorts of versions of this "parasitic manipulation" that "inserts itself into brains," rejecting competing ideas. In fact, don't (almost?) all ideologies do just that?
I was reading about "Scientific Fundamentalism," the belief that all knowledge gained through, and all conclusions drawn from, the scientific method are true. Interestingly, the willingness of some to question the veracity of "all conclusions" is regarded by most as "radical," because Science today is sacrosanct (which, being interpreted, means "treated as if holy; immune from criticism or violation"). At this point, it is impossible to think of Science as anything but right, a feat accomplished by rejecting all evidence to the contrary (which is not a small amount of evidence). Science.org, for instance, reported that "fake scientific papers are alarmingly common" and reported numbers like "34% of neuroscience papers" (as opposed to the 2% reported in 2022 ... which would appear to be a false report). Scientific Fundamentalism is a thing, and a large part of our culture has bought it, rejecting and intolerant of competing ideas.
Here's the difficulty. The nature of Truth is that there is that which is true and that which is not true. When "true" is rightly determined, it requires that every other competing idea be rejected as false. It is intolerant of competing truth claims. According to Psychology Today, that's a problem. And they didn't even seem to notice that they were practicing it in the article -- rejecting competing ideas. If, however, we are to cling to truth as a valid data set to hold and reject what is known to be non-truth (read "lies"), we know a good source for truth, don't we? (John 17:17)
21 comments:
What strikes me as interesting, is that if the belief you are following is True, then the only rational course would be fundamentalism as they define it. IF Christianity is objectively True, then it would make sense to follow it in a way that was intolerant of other false competing ideas. The missing component is a seeming assumption that it is impossible for Christianity or Islam could possibly be Ture.
There is always the old warning, "don't have such an open mind that your brain falls out." There is a certain healthiness to being sceptical of new ideas. But we all have to work from a basis of "this is true and not this is false." Nobody can live with that kind of relativism in the article. The true problem is that they don't like what the "fundy's" believe, so they have treat us as a threat and unthinking.
As Craig points out, Truth is intolerant of false competing ideas. Has to be. What we need to be careful of is that, having the Truth, we are intolerant of false competing ideas and not those who hold them. Which is their standard approach. "Oh, you believe that? You're stupid and you're a threat." Which is what David pointed out.
It always comes back to Truth.
It's also strange that they've redefined fundamentalism as far as Christians are concerned into something else entirely.
This is interesting food for thought today. Personally, I have become suspicious of much of the body of supposed “scientific” facts that is presented as irrefutable truth. For example, through my reading about creation vs. “evolution” and learning of all the unscientific and highly speculative conclusions that are presented as indisputable support for “millions & billions of years” (my derogative label for it all), I am convinced that “science” can reflect personal biases and persuasions as much as “religious fundamentalism” might (even if the supposedly neutral promoters are unaware of doing it). And that "parasitic manipulation" that "inserts itself into brains," rejecting competing ideas” you mention? I would call it “conviction,” which I don’t consider a dangerous thing but a life-saving asset when it is formed through God’s truth (and not Satan’s lies). Presumably, every thinking person forms convictions of some sort; I pray I hold the ones that reflect a renewed mind.
It should really be called "Psychobabble Today.
Lorna,
Science or Scientism is an interesting phenomenon. On the one hand there are frequent demands that we accept "The Science" as the Truth, while the same people will stress that Science is always evolving due to new information. Any discussion of origins, Evolution, or Intelligent design is full of Science that doesn't do what they claim it does.
Beyond that, the potential for financial gain has been affecting science for years, I posted on the huge amount of fraud in the world of peer reviewed journals and how many have stopped publishing due to falsified research.
I remember a documentary several years ago called "No Intelligence Allowed" that pointed to the fact that anyone in the scientific community that even posited the possibility of Intelligent Design was ostracized. The people most "open to new ideas" are just as closed minded as those that believe in Truth.
Craig, I am not familiar with “scientism” (and after looking it up, I admit I am still not clear on its meaning and proper usage). However, I can agree with David that every scientist holds personal biases and carries out his/her research in large part in support of their particular persuasions. (Realistically, why would they do otherwise?) Their lack of neutrality is frequently highlighted at the creation-science-oriented sites I visit. They also point out that there are many non-Christian/atheist/agnostic scientists who deem a belief in “evolution” as unscientific, so there is not consensus even in the scientific community.
I would point out to those people out there who consider creationists to be “anti-science” that the men and women I see working for creationist organizations (and preparing the publications and videos they produce to educate the public) are real scientists, with the same advanced academic degrees that secular scientists hold. The professionals associated with the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, or Answers in Genesis, for example, are not intellectual slouches in any regard but intelligent, highly educated scientists who happen to bring a different worldview to their work. And I believe that the average Christian can get well informed on this issue as well--enough to refute the “Christians are flat earthers” type charges that go around. At the two creationist museums I have visited (the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY, and the Creation & Earth History Museum in Santee, CA), I found the presentation and educational aspects of the exhibits on par with secular museums--and without all the unscientific speculation usually found at the latter.
Lorna, while "science" refers to a field of study and practice, "scientism" is the philosophy that science provides the only genuine knowledge of reality.
Thanks, Stan; I did read that (and a little bit more), but that’s about where my comprehension ended. I read that the term is used in a derogatory way, so I’m unsure if, as a Christian, I would agree or disagree with that philosophy. I am surprised I have not encountered that term (and an explanation of it) at any of the creationist sites I mentioned above; I’ll have to watch for it to come up.
As an aside, I just searched your site for posts related to “science” (to see if you perhaps discussed “scientism” in the past). You have quite a lot there about science, so I only scanned a few. On Oct. 3, 2008, you included these statements: “The notion, for instance, of ‘Creation Science’ is nonsense. A belief in Creation is a belief that ‘God created.’ Science cannot study that. Those who argue for ‘Creation Science’ are fighting a losing battle.” Uh oh, I thought; I do use that term, but I might mean it a bit differently from you. It’s not studying the supernatural Creation event by God (that’s impossible anyway, since we weren’t there) but the things He created--and from the perspective of YEC and not through deep time, “evolution,” etc. (as most sciences are approached).
A few examples: Creation science would explain the land formations of the western United States (and elsewhere) as the results of the flood and its aftermath and not millions of years of erosion and rivers gently carving giant canyons, etc. The members of the animal kingdom have been created with the ability (stored in their DNA) to speciate and to adapt to changing habitats, through natural selection and not “evolution.” All the chemical elements God used to form the earth can be discovered and studied. As I understand and use the term, “creation science” is science (of all sorts) interpreted from a biblical worldview--i.e. based on assumptions that the Bible’s account of the origins of our universe (i.e. through a supernatural Creation event by God) is true and in no conflict with reality or scientific discovery. Therefore, I very much regard creation science as true science and not at all contradictory.
No Christian should affirm that the only valid source of truth is science. That's the claim of "Scientism". Just to ease your mind on that.
My objection to "Creation Science" is the belief that some Christians have (tied to that "scientism" thing, in fact) that they can prove the existence of God, etc., by means of science. We need to be careful not to put our trust in science because, as sure as you'll find stuff that confirms what we believe, you'll also find stuff that denies it, so if we're going with "Science confirmed it" we'll also have to deny it when it doesn't. Our faith is not in science, even though science in general and thinking in particular ("love the Lord your God with all your mind ...") can support it.
I agree with you that so many working in that field are PhD types with excellent credentials, worthy of respect, and I benefit from their, "Look at this ... here's an answer from science that concurs with Scripture," but I will always go to Scripture for my Truth and give Science a shout out when they happen to agree. (I really liked, for instance, the Is Genesis History? movie with Del Tackett and a host of PhD types.)
I appreciate the clarification on this. I too go to Scripture for my truth and then expect that science will indeed fully support it--once all the true facts are known. Since scientists are human and will err (and will hold personal biases as well), their scientific findings will be faulty to some degree as well as incomplete (that would explain the “stuff that denies [what we believe]” that you mentioned), but as true science is discovered and revealed, it will concur with God’s account of things, of course. I believe that science (true science, that is) is part of God’s truth--the systems He created for the workings of our universe. Since God is transcendent and separate from our universe (and not subject to those natural laws of order), I would not expect that His existence can be proven through science. However, when science is fully known and understood (if that ever happens for mankind during our time on earth), it will point to an intelligent, creative, loving, all-powerful Supreme Being (as per Rom. 1:20). True, “our faith is not in science,” but I would say that’s because we know science only through human scientists--most of whom aren’t pursuing evidence to support YEC (and would suppress it even if they did uncover it); if and when true science is fully known (an important caveat), I would trust it as from God.
Stan,
While I agree with you, it seems germane to note that those who laid the foundation for modern science were almost all professing Christians who believed something similar to what the Keppler quote.
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics."
They believed that the reason why things were discoverable was because YHWH had created them is such a way as to facilitate discovery.
Sure, Craig, as I said, I'm not opposed to science. I just don't make science my "proof of concept," so to speak. Modern science was originally premised on the idea that if God is a reasonable being, we should be able to follow His reasoning. Our world, they figured, made by God, is not random. So, they said, they would try to "think God's thoughts after Him." A godless world of science, on the other hand, can't begin to do that, can they? There was a paper published in 2005 that claimed that most published research is false. I didn't make that claim; science did. I don't know why the unbelieving world is so willing to believe science when science claims it is not really believable.
I just posted on the fact that one of the academic publishing houses has just shut down multiple journals due to rampant research fraud. Clearly "science" isn't what those who believe in Scientism would have us believe.
I had read Kepler’s quote (and similar ones by other scientists) as well and generally concur. I also think of Carl Linnaeus’s work formalizing “binomial nomenclature”; he felt the created kingdoms of the living world had order and could be organized (although I understand the controversy of including man as a “primate” in the animal kingdom). As I explore the natural world on a purely amateur basis, I can certainly appreciate how such a taxonomical system allows one to better see the “created kinds” the Bible mentions as being brought on the ark by Noah, to replenish the post-flood world. (There are very good exhibits about this at the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, KY.)
Lorna,
I think it's valuable to remember that without science comes from a Christian worldview and that as Christians we should be prepared to stake our claim to science in a world where science or Scientism has become a competing religious worldview.
Stan, you wrote, “There was a paper published in 2005 that claimed that most published research is false.” I had to chuckle at the irony of that statement! (Usually, you point out funny contradictions like that to us! :)
Yes, Lorna, I caught the humor there, too. "So, you're saying that most published research is false ... is yours?"
Having been in the "published research" arena for the last 17 years of my career, I got to see first hand 1) how reseachers were more interested in publishing than with finding, and 2) how much of "research" is simply researching research. A whole lot of statistical stuff. Which, of course, lends itself to falsified data from faulty statistics. The biases and sources are always in question.
I don’t doubt that, Stan. From when I worked in the Dean of the Faculty’s Office at Princeton University many years ago, I can recall how the curriculum vitae of the faculty members who came up for tenure review (or even annual salary increases) were scrutinized regarding their publications; the reviewers literally counted how many papers, books, journal entries, magazine articles, conference presentations, etc., they got published. The pressure was constantly on faculty members to be “published.” (There were even greater expectations for the Professional Research and Technical Staff members, in order to keep their research projects alive and their research grants renewed.) “Researching research” sounds like the perfect self-perpetuating enterprise.
Post a Comment