Have these people nothing better to do? I know. And also, given that they've made being anti-gay a core element of their modern theology, I have to ask, Is this all you have to hold onto? Is this all your religion can offer? But the thing that you have to remember is that you have to accept that this whole thing - that this is God's Will and will will be punished for not obeying it - is utterly real for them. That's how it works. It doesn't seem rational because it's not. It's theological, which is quite different.
Similarly, it's important to note that "not rational" is not a synonym for "not sane." Rational thought was a skill they used to teach in schools back in the 14th and 15th centuries - it was an advanced class. You learned how to engage in rational thought for the purposes of advancing knowledge. Eventually, that flowered into the Enlightenment of the 18th century, the benefits of which we are still enjoying - democratic societies, modern engineering and medicine, and all those good things. What the real hard-liners in their movement - c.f. the creationists and "intelligent design" people - are doing is attacking that, with the intent of replacing it, for most purposes, with religious/magical thought. They want to keep it for science, maybe - as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible - but otherwise, no.
This is what Terry Randall was talking about when he said that things first started to go wrong at the Renaissance. This is what the Intelligent Design people are talking about when they say say that every field of science will have to be re-examined from an "intelligent design" standpoint, because the step and then a miracle occurred is completely acceptable in that framework. That's religious/magical thinking, and it's what predated rational thought.
(Please believe me when I say I'm serious about this. It's the philosophical core of the movement at its most raw level. See many citations within the Dover decision if you want specific examples, if you want who is saying this and where really nailed down about how this is what ID is really, specifically, and intentionally about, by the people who are behind the movement. You have to dig for this stuff because it's the philosophical backbone, not the propaganda - they don't tend to throw this stuff up on every website.)
This is why they can make up whatever crap they want to and slap the word "science" on it and sleep at night. It's because rationalist thought isn't the point; the truth of a matter is decided by the Word of God, as they think they understand it. Therefore, anything agreeing with that Word must be, by definition, true. Anything that opposes it must be, by definition, false - and in their hyper-dualist worldview, wrong and evil.
Now, because most people are not theorists, most people who are rank-and-file membership in this movement haven't thought this out, and aren't in that kind of conscious understanding of what's going on. In the 90s, I'd have said that I strongly suspect that even some of the leadership isn't fully cognizant of it; there was a guest on Concerned Women for America's now-defunct radio show in the late 1990s who I heard and realised that he was the most dangerous member of the fundamentalist right I'd ever heard, because he did understand that there was a difference both in method of thought and method of speaking, and Dr. Beverly did not. That was kind of illuminating.
no subject
I know. And also, given that they've made being anti-gay a core element of their modern theology, I have to ask, Is this all you have to hold onto? Is this all your religion can offer? But the thing that you have to remember is that you have to accept that this whole thing - that this is God's Will and will will be punished for not obeying it - is utterly real for them. That's how it works. It doesn't seem rational because it's not. It's theological, which is quite different.
Similarly, it's important to note that "not rational" is not a synonym for "not sane." Rational thought was a skill they used to teach in schools back in the 14th and 15th centuries - it was an advanced class. You learned how to engage in rational thought for the purposes of advancing knowledge. Eventually, that flowered into the Enlightenment of the 18th century, the benefits of which we are still enjoying - democratic societies, modern engineering and medicine, and all those good things. What the real hard-liners in their movement - c.f. the creationists and "intelligent design" people - are doing is attacking that, with the intent of replacing it, for most purposes, with religious/magical thought. They want to keep it for science, maybe - as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible - but otherwise, no.
This is what Terry Randall was talking about when he said that things first started to go wrong at the Renaissance. This is what the Intelligent Design people are talking about when they say say that every field of science will have to be re-examined from an "intelligent design" standpoint, because the step and then a miracle occurred is completely acceptable in that framework. That's religious/magical thinking, and it's what predated rational thought.
(Please believe me when I say I'm serious about this. It's the philosophical core of the movement at its most raw level. See many citations within the Dover decision if you want specific examples, if you want who is saying this and where really nailed down about how this is what ID is really, specifically, and intentionally about, by the people who are behind the movement. You have to dig for this stuff because it's the philosophical backbone, not the propaganda - they don't tend to throw this stuff up on every website.)
This is why they can make up whatever crap they want to and slap the word "science" on it and sleep at night. It's because rationalist thought isn't the point; the truth of a matter is decided by the Word of God, as they think they understand it. Therefore, anything agreeing with that Word must be, by definition, true. Anything that opposes it must be, by definition, false - and in their hyper-dualist worldview, wrong and evil.
Now, because most people are not theorists, most people who are rank-and-file membership in this movement haven't thought this out, and aren't in that kind of conscious understanding of what's going on. In the 90s, I'd have said that I strongly suspect that even some of the leadership isn't fully cognizant of it; there was a guest on Concerned Women for America's now-defunct radio show in the late 1990s who I heard and realised that he was the most dangerous member of the fundamentalist right I'd ever heard, because he did understand that there was a difference both in method of thought and method of speaking, and Dr. Beverly did not. That was kind of illuminating.