[Phys-L] Re: FL stamps out dictator professors

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

Well we don't have adequate terms for the type of person whose commitment
includes shooting doctors to defend a the right to light of a fetus, or
dumping garbage on someone's lawn because they are perceived as blocking the
individuals right to freely proselytize in the public schools, or to have
their prayers recited at football games.

Are they religious bigots?  Or would fundamentalist or fanatic be a better
term?  Or how about close minded?  Obviously they are zealots, and probably
all of the above.  The terms committed and caring are usually used for those
who spend their lives helping others.  The terms devoted, devout, and deeply
religious can be applied to some of the individuals.  But there are caring
individuals who are not religious, so the last three terms would really on
apply to religious people.  The term zealot generally takes on a shade of
meaning which is quite different from committed, and usually it is
pejorative, and it comes close to fanatic.  In other words zealots or
fanatics are more likely to shoot doctors, or the Duke of Sarajevo.

Maybe we should call them common criminals if they engage in illegal acts in
defense of what they see as "truth and justice".  The dividing line can be
very thin.  Gandi would be classified as devout, caring, committed, but also
he engaged in non-violent illegal acts.  Many would classify him as a saint.
Martin Luthor King would also fall into this category.  He however had a
direct line to President Johnson which helped him immensely.  What would
Scopes have been classified as?  Newton was religious and wrote religious
tracts, but was he caring and committed?  Einstein was caring (but not to
his first wife or his illegitimate daughter) but might be classified as
Deist, and not an atheist.  How would he be classified?

With individual behaviors I would think the proper classification might best
be along the lines of whether they are engaging in "adult" higher level
moral behavior.  This was studied by Piaget.  He found that developed moral
behavior is based on reciprocity, while undeveloped behavior is based on
rules or "thou shalt not".  Along with well developed moral rules needs to
come the ability to think in a formal operational manner.  Without the
higher level of cognition, it will be difficult for the individual to make
the necessary decisions to implement the higher level of morality.

Most of the zealots who go around shooting doctors betray the "thou shalt
not" level of morality, while the committed individuals who spend a lifetime
working for other people display the higher level of morality.  Again there
are obvious inconsistencies in thinking in even the most devoted
individuals.  Schweitzer was criticized, as I recall, for having a bit of
noblesse oblige mentality.

The sponsor of the Florida bill probably displays signs of this lower level
of thinking.  Really, the problem belongs to the school system.  Currently
the schools are very much set up along the lines of "thou shalt not", and
they actively retard the development of the higher level of moral thinking.
In addition by not doing the necessary things to promote formal operational
thinking, they are retarding individuals in their cognitive abilities.  The
result is that you have politicians who openly scoff at evolution, including
the current president.

If you read Anton Lawson, one thing is abundantly clear.  Evolution is a
very difficult concept that requires a very high level of cognition to
understand.  But then so are the majority of physics concepts.  As such
evolution is the ONLY scientific model available for the development of
species.  One can not put direct divine intervention into any models because
if you do that, then all natural effects can be decided by divine effects.
Evolution is a model carefully based on existing evidence.  Similarly the
current cosmological model is also based on existing evidence.  And like
other models it can be changed radically.  Within my lifetime we have
shifted from the possibility of a steady state universe to a definite big
bang model and then to a big bang with inflation model.

Again, to get back to the FL bill, It does not recognize that the cure they
are proposing is much worse than the problem.  It also takes a very "thou
shalt not" point of view, which will not fix the real problem.  The subtext
is quite clear:  evolution needs to be balanced by another "theory"
(Christian?), liberal ideas need to be balanced by conservatism.  Actually I
would say that despite the liberal, evolutionist universities
anti-evolutionism and conservatism are both alive and well in the US.
Incidentally it is probably only in recent times that these two ideologies
have agreed to cooperate with each other.

What we are seeing here is an American problem.  You do not see this going
on in Europe, or the far East.  I have not seen any stories about European
or far Eastern parents asking for a balance to evolution or cosmology being
taught in the schools.

We work with the words we have, so while my words may have not been
adequate, they are getting across a point.  I still submit that the
religious far right (fundamentalists, fanatics ...?) poses a greater threat
than the atheists.  At one time the USSR posed a threat and it espoused
atheism and Marxism, but that is now gone.  I hesitate to use the word
communism or socialism because that idea was espoused by Early Christians,
the Incas, and many other successful societies.  Let us not forget that
studies show that cooperation is a more important motive than competition in
humans.

When is the last time you heard of an atheist insisting that historical
accounts which mention biblical history have a sticker labeling them as a
"fairy tale".  But the fundamentalists managed to get a sticker labeling
evolution as a "theory".  But of course all scientists would label it a
theory.  In the minds of the average person theory comes close to fairy
tale.  In other words they used double speak to get their message across.
Far worse is the way in which they have put fear into teachers so that they
will skip the topic of evolution rather than confronting parents.
Essentially we have censorship of valid science by fear.

As I write this, I am fully aware of the inadequacy of the terms.  For
example using right and left as terms for churches is not really a correct
classification.  I once saw a questionnaire that classified people according
to this sort of scale.  It ranked people sort of:
Missouri Synod Lutherans, Roman Catholics,  Methodists, European Lutherans
... Unitarians.  This sort of scale is lumping all sorts of differences as
being either traditional or liberal.  In reality it is not at all adequate.
Missouri Synod is definitely fundamentalist.  Roman Catholic, and Anglican
on the other hand are traditionalist with lots of rich ceremony.  Lutherans
have retained more tradition than Baptists or Methodists.  Is tradition
conservative?  Incidentally the puritans who came to New England threw out
the bishops, not the beer.  Various branches of Christianity have removed
certain traditional ideas or added new ones.  Roman Catholics have Papal
authority that their faith does not conflict with scientific ideas.  But
conservative Baptists and Missouri Synod adhere to the strict biblical
creation story.  Does the fact that the RC and other mainline churches now
consider Genesis to be a morality story or fable, if you will, make them
liberal?  What about the churches such as the Orthodox, RC, Anglican, and
Lutheran churches that believe in the "real presence" in communion.  Does
that make them conservative?

The various shades of meaning in the English language are quite subtle, and
do vary from one group to another, so it is not surprising that we can
differ over the meaning of common words.  This is because English has
incorporated more foreign words than virtually any other language.   If you
don't believe me about this look at the size of English dictionaries vs
foreign.  Or try to find an equivalent to the Oxford English Dictionary in
any foreign language.

Finally after this ramble, I think the most important thought is the
following.  This type of problem is really our problem.  It was caused by an
educational system that merely filtered individuals rather than teaching
them how to think.  We have been so focused with a narrow emphasis on
rigorous curriculum that we have not adequately improved student thinking
either morally or cognitively.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> I'm curious how John would define a religious zealot. Are persons who
> are fanatical about helping others, feeding the poor, rehabilitating
> drug addicts and alcoholics, or taking in foster children or adopting
> children religious zealots if they do these things out of a deep
> passion for serving God? It seems that you define a religious zealot as
> those who would shoot doctors and dump garbage of people's lawns
> because they disagree with them. I would define a religious zealot as
> one who is deeply passionate and committed to her or his faith.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l