Study to crack evangelical stereotypes

Quote :

"BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- For decades, Boston University sociologist Peter Berger says, American intellectuals have looked down on evangelicals. Educated people have the notion that evangelicals are 'barefoot people of Tobacco Road who, I don't know, sleep with their sisters or something,' Berger says. It's time that attitude changed, he says. 'That was probably never correct, but it's totally false now and I think the image should be corrected,' Berger said in a recent interview. Now, his university's Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs is leading a two-year project that explores an 'evangelical intelligentsia' which Berger says is growing and needs to be better understood, given the large numbers of evangelicals and their influence. 'It's not good if a prejudiced view of this community prevails in the elite circles of society,' said Berger, a self-described liberal Lutheran. 'It's bad for democracy and it's wrong.' Watch how evangelicals are branching out politically The study is being directed by Berger and Timothy Shah, an evangelical political scientist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its historical hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced. Some aren't convinced evangelical scholars have made as much progress as they think. Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe, who wrote an article in The Atlantic, 'The Opening of the Evangelical Mind' in 2000, said despite the success of some evangelical scholars, many have retained an insularity and defensiveness that limits their effectiveness. 'There isn't enough mixing in the larger world of ideas,' he said. An estimated 75 million Americans are evangelicals, people who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and commit to spreading the message of salvation though his redemptive death. Evangelicals say they often aren't well-understood beyond their Bible-banging, evolution-hating caricature. Many equate evangelicals with fundamentalists, an evangelical subset that interprets the Bible literally -- as in the six calendar days of creation -- and is home to ardent evolution opponents. But Shah said most evangelical scientists believe in evolution guided by God. A quote from a 1993 Washington Post article, describing followers of two leading evangelists as 'poor, uneducated and easily led,' remains infamous among evangelicals as an example of the bias they claim to face. After President Bush won the 2004 election, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Bush had won the evangelical vote, in part, by appealing to their 'fear of scientific progress.' Mark Noll, an evangelical and well-known historian at the University of Notre Dame, said the stereotype is perpetuated because both religious and secular thinkers have created an either-or choice between science and God. 'It's just false,' Noll said. 'You go back to (Isaac) Newton and (Johannes) Kepler, the founders of early modern science were theists of one sort or another.' Shah says a major split between evangelicals and popular culture came after the so-called Scopes monkey trial in 1925, in which a teacher was convicted of violating Tennessee's ban on teaching evolution -- a decision later overturned. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow told his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, that: 'You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion.' Two years later, Sinclair Lewis's 'Elmer Gantry' poked at the anti-intellectualism of leading evangelicals and cast them as corrupt frauds. At the same time, Shah said, the country's institutions of higher education were taken over by people hostile to Christian faith. '(Evangelicals) felt totally besieged,' Shah said. 'They felt like the culture made fun of them.' Evangelicals began to emerge from 'their self-imposed ghetto' in the 1950s and '60s after prodding from leaders such as Billy Graham, who urged a new intellectual boldness, Shah said. They also became more prosperous and better educated, and produced more scholars as a result, Berger said. Notre Dame is home to several of the best-known evangelical thinkers besides Noll, including philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose 'free will defense' takes on the logical problem of evil, and historian George Marsden, who won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book on colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards. Other notables who identify themselves as evangelicals include federal judge Michael McConnell, a top constitutional law scholar, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Duke professor Peter Feaver, a former top director at the National Security Council. Shah is conducting detailed interviews with top scholars as part of the ongoing research. In December, the project hosted a conference in Boston where evangelicals discussed how their faith informs their work and how to create more room for a religious perspective in various academic disciplines. The research will eventually be published in a book. As evangelical scholars seek greater influence, Wolfe warns that getting respect is a two-way street. Evangelicals in the academy too often aren't open to truly engaging those who disagree, said Wolfe, who points to things like 'faith statements' at evangelical colleges, which require professors to proclaim Christian belief. A prospering intellectual culture wouldn't make that requirement and shut other views out, he said. 'It's when you view your tradition with such confidence that you want to offer it to others ... that's when you've made it,' Wolfe said. 'I don't see evangelicals having that pride in their own tradition, yet.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/22/evangelicals.ap/index.html

1. I am not an evangelical or a fundamentalist.

2. I am not even a Christian--but I'm not saying they're wrong in their beliefs.

3. I do think that Christians are often misunderstood, stereotyped, and discriminated against in a variety of ways in a number of settings.

4. To Whom It May Concern: Please take a respite from the hooksaw derangement syndrome. I ran across this article and I am simply offering it--I think it's a worthy topic for discussion.

6/4/2008 2:36:19 AM

1 and 2 surprise me since in the past you said you'd join the war to fight for israel....sorry thats not on topic i wont post anymore, but i know you've posted that

6/4/2008 2:39:23 AM

^ Um. . .do you have anything to offer on the topic or would you just like to make this about me--as usual?

6/4/2008 2:46:57 AM

Study to crack evangelical stereotypes

Quote :

"BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Peter Berger said, "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!""

6/4/2008 3:06:32 AM

^ Sweet Jesus (pun intended), is that all you can muster?

6/4/2008 3:14:45 AM

OK, on one level I think the sort of position advocated in the OP article needs to be put forward more often by respectable members of the "intelligentsia."

On the other hand, he's acting like kind of a douche about it. This is unfortunately inevitable.

Most of us acknowledge, at least on an abstract plane, that in any group you will find rational enough people who can be reasoned with. I think that plenty of people tend to forget about this when talking about evangelical Christians (even Christians in general) than is really fair. That said, I remain sadly confident that anyone who points such a thing out in academic circles is doomed to be torn to pieces -- all to often with good reason, since they're not typically very competent at it.

Berger's carefree use of terms like "elite" immediately damage him, if he's even sincere to begin with. His insistence that stereotypes about evangelicals have become remarkably less true in recent years do nothing to help.

6/4/2008 3:30:36 AM

^ Maureen Dowd is one example given that fits the "elite" description perfectly--trust me:



And do you honestly believe this statement by her?

Quote :

"After President Bush won the 2004 election, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Bush had won the evangelical vote, in part, by appealing to their 'fear of scientific progress.'"

It's not elitist?

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:43 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 3:42:38 AM

No. That's a factual statement referring to Bush's first and, at the time, only veto over stem cell research.

Maureen Dowd's a feminist pariah I despise, but that wasn't elitist.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 3:55 AM. Reason : ...]

6/4/2008 3:52:52 AM

I never said it wasn't elitist.

I will claim, however, that to some extent "elitism" is not a bad thing.

The basic component of the American dream is to either become the "elite" or to propel your children to that status.

There are, of course, certain types of elitist. There's the one who thinks only the most educated and refined should have a say in how things are run. These people are assholes.

There's also that type that realizes that smart, potentially well-educated people have a higher possibility of knowing what the hell they are doing. Those people have sense. The whole reason we have elections is because we collectively realize that the average schmuck doesn't need to be deciding what goes on in this country and the rest of the world.

As for Dowd, I don't know. Certainly there are plenty of evangelicals of the fundamentalist stripe, and these do have a "fear of scientific progress." Based on plenty of the numbers these people quite possibly won the election for Bush. Now, whether she thinks that evangelical Christians are a pack of retards or that a pack of retarded evangelicals swayed the election, it's hard to say from that quote. She may well be elitist. She's also one broad with a typewriter. You should stop shitting yourself over her.

6/4/2008 3:56:35 AM

^^ Disagreeing about stem cell research, which I disagree with Bush about (though he's had a bit of vindication recently), is quite a different thing than the direct quotation listed above. Can you not see that?

It's one thing to specifically say that evangelicals disagree with stem cell research. It's quite another thing--an elitist thing--to generally say that evangelicals have a "fear of scientific progress." I mean, that makes them sound about one level evolved from troglodytes.

^ Um. . ."smart" and "well-educated" are two different things. There are plenty of well-educated people that aren't smart and plenty of smart people that didn't receive a lot of formal education.

And please STFU with the "shitting [myself]" stupidity--I've done nothing of the sort. I simply used one example from the article.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 4:10 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 4:01:36 AM

Quote :

"Um. . ."smart" and "well-educated" are two different things. There are plenty of well-educated people that aren't smart and plenty of smart people that didn't receive a lot of formal education."

Sure.

But if you're going to look for smart people, the -- no pun intended -- "smart" money is on going with the well-educated.

It's not like degrees are just handed out to Jesus-hating liberals and deprived to the rest of us.

6/4/2008 4:14:41 AM

^ Yeah, I don't know how Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and Richard Branson--just to name a few--managed to make their billions without degrees. Let's not get bogged down with this--you get my point.

And I'm going to bed now.

6/4/2008 4:20:33 AM

Quote :

"2. I am not even a Christian--but I'm not saying they're wrong in their beliefs."

Quit pussy footing around. By saying you're not a Christian, you are saying Christianity is wrong. If you didn't think it was wrong, that would mean you thought it was right, and that would make you a Christian.

6/4/2008 4:29:39 AM

^ Not at all--it's more like agnostic. But that doesn't quite fit me either.

PS: Could you try to address the topic and not focus on me? Thanks.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 4:32 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2008 4:31:43 AM

Quote :

"^^ Disagreeing about stem cell research, which I disagree with Bush about (though he's had a bit of vindication recently), is quite a different thing than the direct quotation listed above. Can you not see that?"

With all due respect, you didn't exactly provide a lot of context.

Quote :

"It's one thing to specifically say that evangelicals disagree with stem cell research. It's quite another thing--an elitist thing--to generally say that evangelicals have a "fear of scientific progress." I mean, that makes them sound about one level evolved from troglodytes."

The guy quoted in the article's writing a book about this. Documenting the history of the evangelical "fear of scientific progress," which can really just be read as an op-ed columnist's way of sensationalizing a description. Resistance to scientific progress would've been just as accurate.

6/4/2008 4:37:53 AM

Quote :

"And I'm going to bed now."

Thanks, Wolfpack2k.

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't know how Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, and Richard Branson--just to name a few--managed to make their billions without degrees."

It's still a fairly small percentage of billionaires, let alone intelligent people. I'm not about to vote for Bill Gates for president, or, for that matter, county commissioner. These are largely people with very specific skillsets, whereas a proper college education is supposed to create a more well-rounded individual.

I'm not saying that a degree is required to be very intelligent, and that much is obvious from my post. But I have this sinking feeling that if I put a gun to your head and asked you to pick out the hundred Americans that you sincerely thought were the smartest, most of them would have college degrees, or at least the larger part of one.

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 4:44 AM. Reason : I seriously am going to sleep, it's five in the fuckin' morning]

6/4/2008 4:40:09 AM

Why even respond to that?

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=120&a=1800

(IOW - No Correlation Between Wealth and Intelligence)

[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 5:13 AM. Reason : ...]

6/4/2008 5:10:50 AM

Since when did the elitism brand become such a powerful argument?

Sure, elitism is impolite, but it doesn't invalidate arguments in the way Republicans are trying to use it.


And for that matter, why do uneducated people all of a sudden have a right to be right?

educated person to uneducated person: "You're wrong" = elitism, argument dismissed

uneducated person to educated person: "You're wrong" = OK!!1

6/4/2008 7:52:48 AM

don't get me wrong[no racism].

but hell yes i'd fight for the Israeli Defense Force:


[Edited on June 4, 2008 at 8:01 AM. Reason : ]

6/4/2008 8:01:10 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/05/biblical_literalism_or_low_iq.php


http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/05/educational_levels_denominatio.php

6/4/2008 8:17:44 AM

wow. categorizing by religion. lol.

it's case by case, human by human you dumb ass. or else i'm not understanding those worthless graphs.

6/4/2008 8:35:06 AM

it's not categorizing by religion, it's categorizing by denomination. Denominations are most closely correlated with evangelicalism and bible literalism.
Obviously you can't tell an individual's personal beliefs or intelligence by simply dropping them into a category, but if you can't see how large sets of data over large populations will smooth out the outliers and get to a generally representative average, then there's not much I can do for you.

6/4/2008 9:14:07 AM

Someone needs to call the Waaaahmbulance.

6/4/2008 9:15:02 AM

come on, guys. play nice.

6/4/2008 9:17:39 AM

I wonder how they quantified "Biblical Literalism"...

I mean, Jehovah's Witness have their own translation of the Bible. Episcopals use a special book called the Common Book of Prayer. Roman Catholics use books from the Apocrypha. Southern Baptists, ironically, don't believe in salvation from baptism. So, the results aren't even based on a common demoninator. Too trivial of a study if you ask me.

6/4/2008 10:26:33 AM

some of the data points may be off, and maybe some of the methodology isn't perfect. But you have to be completely delusional to not agree that the strong belief in unsubstantiated books of myths, be it the Bible, the Book or Morman, Apocrypha, or Dianetics, does not correlate to overall intelligence.
Obviously there are are exceptions to all rules. There are plenty of very smart and intellectual evangelicals, and likewise there are a lot of idiotic Atheists, deists or non-fundamentalist/evangelical christians, but statistics are based on populations, not individuals.

6/4/2008 10:49:22 AM

Quote :

"But you have to be completely delusional to not agree that the strong belief in unsubstantiated books of myths, be it the Bible, the Book or Morman, Apocrypha, or Dianetics, does not correlate to overall intelligence."

But does measured intelligence correlate to anything useful?

6/4/2008 10:51:23 AM

if it measures the non-belief in myths, the supernatural, the paranormal, then that's good enough for me

6/4/2008 10:53:59 AM

Seems a bit circular. Because of the contradictions, I'm sure scientific eduction would reduce literal belief in religious texts. But is that intelligence? I don't see why literal belief would reduce, say, language ability.

6/4/2008 10:59:56 AM

Quote :

"That was probably never correct, but it's totally false now and I think the image should be corrected"

6/4/2008 11:22:56 AM

I was disappointed not to see data on the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). They're an extremely conservative denomination but also seems to be disproportionately represented among the small pockets of Christians in graduate and post graduate circles.

6/4/2008 12:34:15 PM

Quote :

"Episcopals use a special book called the Common Book of Prayer."

Book of Common Prayer. It's just a book of prayers used during the mass, there's no biblical interpretation it it, it just lists the several different forms for various services, and has some basic statements of belief that are often recited during services.

6/4/2008 12:41:49 PM

Quote :

"3. I do think that Christians are often misunderstood, stereotyped, and discriminated against in a variety of ways in a number of settings. "

I agree, but it's just as bad if not worse against atheists.

6/4/2008 1:06:15 PM

I'd hate to say this, but I don't think America is ready to have an openly Christian President.

6/4/2008 1:39:17 PM

We're not supposed to have an openly Christian president. Or an openly Catholic, or anything.

6/4/2008 1:43:21 PM

To agentlion: Thanks for proving this point from the article. GG.

Quote :

"Many equate evangelicals with fundamentalists, an evangelical subset that interprets the Bible literally -- as in the six calendar days of creation -- and is home to ardent evolution opponents. But Shah said most evangelical scientists believe in evolution guided by God."

6/4/2008 4:12:03 PM

Where exactly did Shah get that figure?

Because that's certainly news to me.

6/4/2008 4:25:00 PM

^ Yeah, you've pinpointed the problem, Detective Horse.

6/4/2008 4:55:20 PM

The majority of evangelicals believe in evolution?

really? Does that sit well with you?

Didn't we just see a poll saying the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution? That would mean that evangelicals are more prone to believe in evolution than the average person

6/4/2008 4:59:21 PM

Quote :

"We're not supposed to have an openly Christian president. Or an openly Catholic, or anything."

where's it say that?

6/4/2008 5:05:18 PM

Quote :

"But Shah said most evangelical scientists believe in evolution guided by God."

I think you misread.

6/4/2008 5:06:28 PM

Quote :

"I'd hate to say this, but I don't think America is ready to have an openly Christian President."

Are you serious? Without argueing with you since I'm at work, do you feel this way about Muslims, Jews and other religion as well, or just Christians?

6/4/2008 5:12:02 PM

^
oh, we're in dire need of a Muslim President

6/4/2008 5:13:59 PM

^ Do you really feel that being openly of a certain belief system is equal to submitting to some kind of religious authority on decisions within a political office?

Really? Have you ever met someone who was "openly Christian" that wasn't Gary Birdsong?

6/4/2008 5:26:03 PM

Quote :

"I think you misread."

>.<;;

6/4/2008 5:33:16 PM

Saying evangelicals fear science because they are against embryonic stem cell research is absurd. They are not against all genetic research, for example adult stem cell research is uncontroversial and in fact from what I understand promising.

You know what, I'm against eating human flesh in most circumstances. I guess it must be my low-brow evangelical leanings railing against solving the problem of world hunger. Oh wait, its not that I fear that the world will have food its that I fear that it is unethical to eat human flesh.

I know many very intelligent people who do not find the hypothesis of evolution at all convincing. Some of these are evangelicals, but not all.

I would actually argue that the reason that those denominations are not as intelligent may be in part a question of geography. Its a symptom of local culture not religion. The more northern states tend to have the less literal denominations. No offense all ya all but the south on the average does not seem to be a hotbed of intellectualism. Chicken or egg? Was the north full of less educated people back when it more largely took a more literal view of scripture? I personally do not believe we are more intelligent than our ancestors. I think that we seem more intelligent in some respects because of the transfer of knowledge made possible through the advent of books. More recently google has enabled many a poster to assemble an erudite comment that would he would never have proffered modulo the magic of google. Anyway, getting back to the culture, would you really argue that those who are not fundamentalists are generally as smart as those folks in other more educated regions?

Or maybe the south and the north are equally stupid just in different ways but the test aint fair.

Anyway, there are stupid people of all ideologies. This is for sure. Arguing the statistics of who is stupidest seems well, stupid frankly.

I think that part of the reason that evangelical scholars do not get enough credit is that they are more humble on the average. Self-aggrandizing behaviour is a sure way to get media and academic attention, but no serious Christian could engage in such. Secular scholars on the other hand can use shock and awe in their literature, say scandalous things etc... generally draw attention to their ideas.
When Christian scholars do good work it is generally dismissed by lots of academics simply because of the starting point. The acceptance of scripture is tantamount to stupidity if you ask many academics. Never the less, there are many arguments based on scripture which are both academic and deep. As deep as any philosophy or science. Just without the presupposition that the mind of man is the end all and be all of existence.

There are of course exceptions, there do exist academics which entertain the thoughts of evangelicals. I have met a few.

6/4/2008 6:26:23 PM

Quote :

"the hypothesis of evolution"

is that supposed to be a swipe at evolution, or are you just ignorant of the difference in a hypothesis and theory?

6/4/2008 6:29:21 PM

^fine, "theory" if it makes you happy. I prefer the term hypothesis in the context it was used.

We don't find the "theory" or "law" or "idea" etc... a convincing explanation for the structure of life on earth.

6/4/2008 6:57:11 PM

mhum, because i'm sure you are all so well equipped the the background knowledge required to effectively argue against evolution

6/4/2008 9:58:29 PM

^ Are you "well equipped the the [sic] background knowledge" to effectively argue for evolution?

6/5/2008 1:08:02 AM