The growing voice of the religious left

Two important things regarding Christian liberalism have come through my inbox recently. The first is a study from The Barna Group, which says:

Although most adults affirm the importance of faith in their life, regardless of their sexual orientation, straight adults (72%) were more likely than gay adults (60%) to describe their faith as “very important” in their life. And even though most Americans consider themselves to be Christian, there is a noticeable gap between heterosexuals who self-identify that way (85%) compared to homosexuals (70%). Another gap was then noted among those who say they are Christian: about six out of ten heterosexuals say they are absolutely committed to the Christian faith, compared to about four out of ten among homosexuals.

And even though a majority of adults have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today,” such a relationship was more common among non-gays (75%) than among gay adults (58%). The research also revealed that straight adults were nearly twice as likely as gays to qualify as born again Christians (47% compared to 27%, respectively).

Now, The Barna Group, from what I can tell, is a pretty conservative organization. They have a bias, so they've tried to spin this research to say that the gay community is less religious than the other 97% of the population (which, if this data is to be believed, it is). That said, what I see here still constitutes a majority. A majority of American homosexuals are Christian. A majority of American homosexuals do not identify as "born again", likely due to the fact that those who do are often (not always) closed-minded, partisan bigots. But still, a majority believe in God, and the Bible (to whatever degree they see fit), and Jesus Christ. These people - these 60% of 3% - make up an important part of the religious left. Assuming that gay Christians have mostly found churches that accept and embrace gay Christians means assuming that gay Christians are members of churches that also accept and embrace other important things, like science, birth control, and universalism. This is good news.

The second item is a column from the LSU Daily Reville, which says:

Any student who has taken an Intro to Philosophy course at the University is aware of the logical fallacy of “false dichotomy.” This fallacy arises when an argument is posed in which only two options are made available, when in fact more exist.

In the quest to determine where life comes from, a thinking person is often faced with a false dichotomy. Either they must accept evolution and discard the belief in a creator God, or they must maintain faith in creation and ignore the findings of science.

But there are more than just these two options.

Although it is true to a certain extent that evolutionary theory casts a shadow of doubt on the notion of a world created in six days, the two are by no means completely incompatible. Just because you are a rational, scientific person does not mean you must immediately disqualify your faith.

Yes. Yes yes yes. This is is a key point to the ongoing debate about religion and science. Nearly every branch of Christianity outside of evangelical fundamentalism recognizes the different kinds of truth represented by science and the Scripture. The Christian right, however, have taken on this issue (as they have so many others) and presented it as Jesus vs. Science. The fact that so many Christians believe in evolution is irrelevant to them, because those Christians aren't actually Christian.

But, I do not believe that these people are a majority. And, if they are, it is partially due to the fact the religious moderates and liberals have not made our voices heard with the same veracity. There are liberals in the public square who are also Christian, of course. But they are liberals first, Christians second (which is fine). What we need is to make our presence known not as liberals who are Christian, but as Christians who are liberal. No, not to silence the fundies or convert the atheists, but to show those who are confused and/or uninformed about all their options that the battle between the Christian right and the secular left is a false dichotomy. I'm pretty sure that's WTF Jesus would do.

Religion and Education

Recently, I came across this incendiary video:

I believe that one of the things that makes a country strong is diversity - diversity of race, sexual orientation, politics, and faith (or lack thereof). The idea that all the atheists should just GTF out of America is absurd. That said, the idea that if the atheists left we'd have no intelligent people is equally absurd.

You'll note that this video does not cite its sources; it uses music as a tool to evoke an emotional response; and it makes claims that aren't entirely true. In short, it is a propaganda film. I find myself not only offended by this video, but disappointed. One thing I really like about atheism is the value it places on logic and reason - things I value as well. When an atheist person or group makes statements like these, it says to me, "Fuck logic and reason. I just want to piss people off." Since that seems to be the mantra of the Christian right, I am disturbed to find that some atheists are adopting it as well. Seriously, guys? Stop it. You're better than that.

In the comments on the last post, I found myself on a tangent about what I believe to be the correlation between blind faith and lack of education. In order to explore that further, I decided to check out some statistics (because I am just a barrel of fun, and this is what I do with my free time). Here's what I got (from Gallup):

So, the claim this video makes that says 10% of America is atheist is apparently fabricated. It looks more like 6% to me. Way to be part of the "reality-based community", video-making guy. Gosh.

As I'm sure we could all have predicted, the likelihood of fervent religious belief seems to decrease as a person's education level increases. That said, this data doesn't entirely support what's presented in this stupid video. But it does raise an interesting question: why are more highly-educated people less likely to believe in God? I have a hypothesis (which might sound slightly redundant to those of you who read the comment thread on the last post).

One of the most valuable byproducts of a good education is the learned ability to think critically. Children are naturally curious; but if they are taught facts without methods, numbers without formulas, and dates without context, they will, for the most part, lose their curiosity and wind up as mindless drones (to put it dramatically). Unfortunately, it is difficult for someone with a high school education or less to receive the kind of education that would lead to critical thinking. Public schools, for the most part, teach to standardized tests. The schools are measured on how much useless knowledge they can cram into kids' heads, to the detriment of the students themselves.

Thus, receiving a higher education will almost certainly impact a person's ability to think critically. University classes involve discussion, experimentation, and real problem-solving. If a person is going to get through, he's going to have to learn how to think. And, in doing so, he may feel inclined to apply his new-found thinking ability to other areas of his life, such as belief in God. I'm quite certain that the more education a person receives, the more that person will question his faith. Like I said, it's human nature to be inquisitive (if you can remember how). In questioning, he is more likely to find the idiosyncrasies* of belief; and in finding the idiosyncrasies, he is more likely to look for truth elsewhere. And really, I think that's fine and good and, in fact, the best thing a person can do with their faith. After all, faith is meaningless if it isn't questioned.

Lots of things in Christianity don't make sense. The virgin birth seems a little too convenient, the resurrection seems a little far-fetched, and the idea that the world was created in six days is in direct conflict with everything we know about science. Some people, when they are unable to reconcile these ideas with belief in God end up atheists. Some of them place such a high value on logic that they cannot excuse belief in God, even if it makes no attempt to argue with scientific fact, because there is not empirical evidence to support it. And, like I said, that's great. But here's the kicker:

This is just an example of one of the problems that arise for logical people raised in the Christian faith, but I think it is food for thought. According to this poll, 74% of postgraduates believe the theory of evolution to be true. Simultaneously, 90% of postgraduates believe either in God or some other higher power. What this says to me, is that these people, who are more likely than any other group (in my opinion) to have questioned their faith, have, for the most part, found a way to reconcile logic and God. Are the militant atheists going to accuse these people of stupidity? They're educated, they understand science... does belief in God make all of that irrelevant? I don't think so.

I'm of the camp that need for a higher power is a fundamental part of human nature. Sure, a small percentage of the population seems to get along just fine without it, but the rest of us really do need Him, whoever he is. That doesn't make us stupid, nor does it necessarily make us blind followers. If the people out there making videos like these and claims that religion causes all the worlds ills concentrated on improving the standards of education in the United States, they'd probably get a lot further. After all, it's got to be a hell of a lot easier to achieve education reform than it is to convince 93% of the population that there is no God. And, if they succeeded, they'd likely wind up with a few more atheists.

Were I a religion teacher (I'm not sure who would allow that. Maybe the Unitarians), I would encourage my students to find ways to relate their faith to daily life (and vice-versa), to relate their faith to what they know of the natural world (and vice-versa), and to try to find a place where faith and reality are not in conflict. If that means not believing in God, fine. But I refuse to believe that atheism is inherently superior to religion. After all, most of the faults the super-atheists attribute to religion are really faults in human nature. And, in the end, nobody really knows WTF Jesus would do.

*Holy crap! I spelled that word correctly on the first try!!!

Evolution > Intelligent Design

I saw the movie Expelled the other day, and it pissed me off right hard.

Luckily this has improved my mood.

(HT LiturgyGeek)

Literal Interpretation is Pretty Much Impossible, Guys

From a letter to the editor in The Observer:

Ms. Arseneault (letter to the editor, "Bible and science can actually co-exist," The Observer, Feb. 9, 2009) may believe in her Bible literally, but believing literally in the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is a poor foundation upon which to build an understanding of our world.

Any objective reading of the Bible reveals it to be a cobbled together mess of contradictions and inconsistencies. Literally interpreted, we start out with only Adam, Eve and two sons. But shortly, we're into a long and detailed episode of begatting, without any explanation of how all those generations of begatters and beattees could result from a mother, father and two sons.

All we can say with historical certainty about the Bible is that it selectively reflects only those writings and beliefs in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy at the time, when Christian power was being consolidated in Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries AD, ignoring or suppressing other threads of early Christian thought or belief.

And we can somewhat excuse the confusing nature of the Bible as it is the "template" for a religion whose god, like the god of the other two main monotheistic religions, revealed himself or herself primarily to members of illiterate nomadic desert tribes in the Middle East, in an era when accurate record-keeping was problematical at best.

You can read the rest here.

And since we're on the subject, the question of whether or not to take the Bible literally is one of the great dividing forces among Christians. The irony, of course, being that nobody actually literally follows the Bible (except this guy), not even those who claim that literal interpretation is the only way to salvation. Thus the existence of this blog.

I do find it really offensive that fundamentalists have hijacked Christianity. With their behaviour and archaic rhetoric, they not only make the rest of us look bad, but they make Jesus Christ look bad, which really pisses me off. I know that the Bible is a flawed document; I know that it is not literally true; and I know that in order to have the Bible in your life, you really do HAVE to pick and choose which parts of it you're going to follow. But even with all that in mind, I really do believe that the underlying message of Jesus Christ was one of love. Two thousand years after this man lived (let's assume he actually did, even though I do think it's ultimately irrelevant), we still know that the message he spread around for the few short years he was preaching was "love your enemies, treat others as you'd like to be treated, and don't judge people." To me, that is the spirit of Christianity; that is what it means to strive to be Christ-like; and that is why people like Fred Phelps are douche-tards.

Rather than a quote from the Bible, I'm going to leave you with a conversation my grandma had with her sister when my grandpa's wife (on my other side) died.

Grandma: "I don't know what to say to him to make him feel better. Normally I'd say that she's in a better place now, but they're both atheists so he won't believe me."
Grandma's sister: "I don't know what you say to him either, but boy is she in for a surprise because God loves everybody."