re: Anti-intellectualism...a dubious trait we share?

[Hemidakota]

  Moksha said:

I have been alarmed when I see people referring to someone as an intellectual as a put down. Even more alarming when it is used as a means of discrediting someone's ideas. Sort of like announcing that my burning sensation trumps your reasoning.

Excellent point...

[Snow]

  sixpacktr said:

We have and have had some unbelievable 'intellectuals' in our church. Nibley, Brown, Talmadge, BH Roberts. They all used their 'smarts' to help us understand things in a much deeper level that perhaps we would have otherwise.

50 years ago Leonard Arrington conducted a survey to determine the most influential Mormon intellectuals. It was repeated in 1993. Here's the list - in order.

B.H. Roberts (73)

Orson Pratt (52)

Sterling M. McMurrin (41)

Leonard J. Arrington (31)

Joseph Smith, Jr. (31)

James E. Talmage (30)

Hugh W. Nibley (25)

John A. Widtsoe (19)

Lowell L. Bennion (16)

Parley P. Pratt (13)

Henry Eyring (11)

Eliza R. Snow (8)

Richard Bushman (7)

Juanita Brooks (6)

E. E. Ericksen (5)

Thomas G. Alexander (4)

Fawn M. Brodie (excommunicated) (4)

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. (4)

Eugene England (4)

Dallin H. Oaks (4)

D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated) (4)

Brigham Young (4)

Obert C. Tanner (3)

Edward W. Tullidge (excommunicated) (3)

Laurel Thatcher Ulruch (3)

[Snow]

  Moksha said:

I have been alarmed when I see people referring to someone as an intellectual as a put down. Even more alarming when it is used as a means of discrediting someone's ideas. Sort of like announcing that my burning sensation trumps your reasoning.

It's more a statement about the person making the statement than about the intellectuals.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I don't think my view of anti-intellectualism is the same as others. I have no issue at all with studying out matters of the church with the minds God gave us.

However, I do draw the line when the conclusions reached from those studies contradict clear scriptural authority. I'm not yet 40 and already I've seen good faithful friends in the church "think their way" out of membership.

At some point in our intellectual pursuits we must check our opinions and ideas with our testimonies, and then those with official doctrines and principles of the gospel. Only then can we safely be learned and maintain the spirit equally and properly.

Remember the councel to maintain moderation in all things. At some point, we must step back and absorb what we learn and find out how it fits together. If it doesn't fit then re-thinking is in order.

Finally, if we study with prayer as a regular component, the Lord will guide us to what we need to know.

[Traveler]

  rameumptom said:

Of course, if we wish to have an intelligent discussion, we should start with proper grammar and spelling. I think you wish to use the term "blonde" as referencing women. Burnets should be "brunette." And a "foo-paw" is probably supposed to be a "faux pax."

However, the gist of your statement is probably correct. I find that the old saying: "given a million monkeys on a million typewriters/computers over a million years, they would eventually type out the entire works of Shakespeare" has been proven wrong by the Internet....

Sadly, our intellectual discourse these days is done by so few. Often it is attempted by those who think they are intelligent and knowledgeable, when most of us would do well to learn from the wisdom of Socrates and Sgt Shultz: I know nothing.

For me, intelligence is measured not by how much you currently know, but by how much you continue to seek truth and light. A closed book has limits to what it can teach. And if there are errors within it, they can never be fixed. Catholic priests threatened Galileo with torture and excommunication, simply because his telescope taught him something that their closed canon could not. Muslim warriors burned the library in Alexandria, with its million books, because their view was that if the information was important, it was already in the Quran, and if it wasn't in the Quran, then it was unnecessary and blasphemous. Hitler youth burned books that disagreed with his policies and views. And there are those in our society today who would love to censor thought and ideas.

In the realm of philosophy and religion, people are not going to agree. And that is fine. But the open exchange of ideas needs to be considered a sacred trust, so that tyranny does not step in and take over the thinking once done by the people themselves.

Your post is rather interesting - but like you I would like to correct a few things.

1. If you only know one way to spell a word - you are uneducated. I submit that spelling and grammar is not true intellectualism but pseudo intellectualism barely a few hundred years old and not even yet universal.

2. It was the Christians that burned the library at Alexandria – it would be more than 200 years after the burning of the library at Alexandria before Islam would even exist.

3. Galileo was not threatened with torture by just any ordinary Catholic priests but a particular order of Catholic priests. Galileo was threatened to be forced to drink poison by the order of Jesuits Priests.

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

  Traveler said:

It was the Christians that burned the library at Alexandria – it would be more than 200 years after the burning of the library at Alexandria before Islam

I'm sorry, but this is not true:

1. In 391 the Christian emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all "pagan" temples, which included the Serapeum which had once housed part of the Great Library. It is unknown whether any books were still stored there by this time, and if so whether they were destroyed along with the temple. Either way, the Library certainly survived this episode.

2. In 642 the Arab general Amr ibn al 'Aas captured Alexandria from the Byzantines. When he asked the Caliph what was to be done with the library, he got the famous reply "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, in which case they are superfluous." The books were burned in order to heat the public baths.

  Traveler said:

Galileo was not threatened with torture by just any ordinary Catholic priests but a particular order of Catholic priests. Galileo was threatened to be forced to drink poison by the order of Jesuits Priests.

Drink poison? That's the first time I've ever heard that about Galileo. Are you sure you're not thinking of Socrates?

[Over43]

  prisonchaplain said:

Anti-intellectualism is a persistent strain in conservative Christianity. 120 years ago Fundamentalists opposed academic literary criticism of the Bible, Darwin's Evolution, and the general skepticism about the miraculous and supernatural aspects of Scripture. In early Pentecostalism, the same opposition formed against so-called fundamentalist intellectuals, who argued that healings, miracles, and "demonstration gifts" of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the Apostles. And, in several recent strings, I've seen admonitions here not to rely on proofs, on history, science, etc.--but just to pray for confirmation from the Spirit.

IMHO, all truth comes from God, ultimately. Proper wisdom will ultimately lead to God, not away. My own school used the phrase "Knowledge on Fire" to describe the proper complementary relationship between the Spirit and study.

My bottom line question: The world may not always respect us, but, in general, shouldn't Christians be smart?

To answer your final question, yes. In the Christian/Latter Day Saint world are scientists, as you know, doctors, engineers, at BYU I was taught evolution- not Creationism, the president of The Saul Bellow Society (Nobel Prize in Literature 1976) teaches at BYU. I believe there is a false belief, portrayed in the present media, that church go-ers are a bunch of backward superstitiuos bumpkins, always making headlines out of the 1-1,000,000 parent(s) who will deny their child medical treatment, but you never hear about the 1,000,000 faithful who do believe in medicine.

I think you are quite right, all truth comes from God, whether it be spiritual/temporal.

This is a good topic.

O.

[rameumptom]

  Traveler said:

Your post is rather interesting - but like you I would like to correct a few things.

1. If you only know one way to spell a word - you are uneducated. I submit that spelling and grammar is not true intellectualism but pseudo intellectualism barely a few hundred years old and not even yet universal.

2. It was the Christians that burned the library at Alexandria – it would be more than 200 years after the burning of the library at Alexandria before Islam would even exist.

3. Galileo was not threatened with torture by just any ordinary Catholic priests but a particular order of Catholic priests. Galileo was threatened to be forced to drink poison by the order of Jesuits Priests.

The Traveler

Let me correct you on this. Casesar first burned the library. Then Aurelian went in and destroyed it.

The Christians did not burn the Alexandrian Library. Theophilus I decreed the destruction of all the pagan temples. The Serapeum, where a small portion of the library was found was destroyed. But the major portion of the library was left intact for the Moors to destroy centuries later.

You can read the history of the Library and its destruction here: Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galileo was still threatened with torture and death by an official arm/order of the Catholic Church.

And proper grammar and spelling ARE signs of true education in our world today. If you are going to insist that it has only been such for just over 2 centuries, are you also going to reduce current standards and practices and knowledge in other areas, as well? Shall we get rid of calculus, simply because the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians didn't know it? Or shall we forge ahead without Einstein's theories, because Newton's laws did just fine for centuries?

Let's be careful on how we draw the line for pseudo-intellectualism.

[Jamie123]

  rameumptom said:

Theophilus I decreed the destruction of all the pagan temples. The Serapeum, where a small portion of the library was found was destroyed. But the major portion of the library was left intact for the Moors to destroy centuries later.

It was the emperor Theodosius I (ruled 378–392) who decreed the destruction of pagan tables. Theophilius was the Patriarch of Alexandria who carried the destruction of the Serapeum. As I said before, no one knows whether or not the portion of the library stored there was destroyed too.

[Gatorman]

Well, for myself, I am not anti intellectual. However, intellectual is not capable of disproving my faith. So, if and when they try, it is automatic fail. Why? Because intellectualism relies on the strength of men. Faith relies on the strength of the Spirit. Hence, why I can sit there and say that 'evolution' may have a good theory and may have the 'process' right. They just don't have the trigger or control right in most cases. So, evolution becomes unimportant to me. Perhaps evolution IS the method that Heavenly Father set in place. Point is, it doesn't matter. Same with the Big Bang or any other 'great' discovery. They have their place.

[Hemidakota]

  Over43 said:

To answer your final question, yes. In the Christian/Latter Day Saint world are scientists, as you know, doctors, engineers, at BYU I was taught evolution- not Creationism, the president of The Saul Bellow Society (Nobel Prize in Literature 1976) teaches at BYU. I believe there is a false belief, portrayed in the present media, that church go-ers are a bunch of backward superstitiuos bumpkins, always making headlines out of the 1-1,000,000 parent(s) who will deny their child medical treatment, but you never hear about the 1,000,000 faithful who do believe in medicine.

I think you are quite right, all truth comes from God, whether it be spiritual/temporal.

This is a good topic.

O.

Good point...as some of us believe, our FATHER is a GOD of Science.

[Gatorman]

  Hemidakota said:

Good point...as some of us believe, our FATHER is a GOD of Science.

And, what more obvious place can we see Satan mingling the Truth of Heavenly Father with the Philosophies of men, than science. What better way to disprove God, than to take his ways and twist them just enough.

[Hemidakota]

Very true...have you noticed lately the interest level of many in this nation over Aliens and supernatural stuff [movies, books, and radio shows]?

[Traveler]

  rameumptom said:

Let me correct you on this. Casesar first burned the library. Then Aurelian went in and destroyed it.

The Christians did not burn the Alexandrian Library. Theophilus I decreed the destruction of all the pagan temples. The Serapeum, where a small portion of the library was found was destroyed. But the major portion of the library was left intact for the Moors to destroy centuries later.

You can read the history of the Library and its destruction here: Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galileo was still threatened with torture and death by an official arm/order of the Catholic Church.

And proper grammar and spelling ARE signs of true education in our world today. If you are going to insist that it has only been such for just over 2 centuries, are you also going to reduce current standards and practices and knowledge in other areas, as well? Shall we get rid of calculus, simply because the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians didn't know it? Or shall we forge ahead without Einstein's theories, because Newton's laws did just fine for centuries?

Let's be careful on how we draw the line for pseudo-intellectualism.

History is so interesting. Part of the reason for the destruction of the library of Alexandria was over disputes connected with the newly established Trinitarian Creed. The head librarian (do not remember his name) was murdered and his daughter dragged naked through the streets and then skinned alive with sea shells. They were denounced as “pagans” but they claimed to be Christians that opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. And all the religious texts were destroyed. This according to Jewish historians.

According to Muslim historians the Jews and Christians destroyed and corrupted the original documents so they destroyed the corrupt replacements. It is interesting that in 1847 there was a find of Christian scriptures similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls in a hidden wall of a Christian chapel at Mt Sinai along with a document that said the scriptures were hidden because “certain” Christians were changing the scriptures and destroying all originals. There is a most interesting history to these documents that were kept secret and hidden in Russia but with the fall of Communism were made known – but the publication of these documents has been blocked by a particular order of Catholic Priests called Jesuits. Interesting that the same order of Catholic Priest blocked the publication (for 50 years) the publication of select documents among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Some other interesting things. There are some scholars that believe that the ancient Egyptians (2200 BC to 1200 BC) had calculus. This is based on the Egyptian claim that the universe was created from a watery Abyss and that all matter and light is a durative of water. The orders of matter and light that follow could not have been derived without knowledge of calculus.

And spelling – as recent as the era of Joseph Smith exact spelling was not considered necessary. In fact there are problems with the notion of exact spelling. There are things that can be spoken in perfect English but cannot be “correctly” written because of this notion.

The Traveler

[Guest]

My 2 cents on spelling and grammar - in English. I have this very very good friend from India. Smart as all get, I can barely understand his spoken English, and his written English is not any better. But man, a brilliant engineer that guy is! Expert in thermo dynamics and all that stuff. Believes in God too. He's not Christian but he thinks the world of Jesus as this brilliant man. So yeah, being good in English is only indicative of intelligence for english-speaking countries.

[prisonchaplain]

  Over43 said:

at BYU I was taught evolution- not Creationism,

O.

IMHO, while Intelligent Design is still a forming theory, the scientific community's allergic reaction to any hint of such is more motivated by internal political correctness than by a pure pursuit of scientific truth. So, I would hope that somewhere (perhaps even in the an interdisciplinary class) the ID perspective is considered intelligently. In other words, sometimes the fear of appearing backwards can also hinder academic pursuit.

(I'm not trying to start an ID debate here. Rather, I wonder if sometimes the institution is so eager to be professional, respected, objective, that it might dismiss an unpopular perspective, without a fair hearing, in a climate of political correctness.)

[prisonchaplain]

  Gatorman said:

Well, for myself, I am not anti intellectual. However, intellectual is not capable of disproving my faith. So, if and when they try, it is automatic fail. Why? Because intellectualism relies on the strength of men. Faith relies on the strength of the Spirit. Hence, why I can sit there and say that 'evolution' may have a good theory and may have the 'process' right. They just don't have the trigger or control right in most cases. So, evolution becomes unimportant to me. Perhaps evolution IS the method that Heavenly Father set in place. Point is, it doesn't matter. Same with the Big Bang or any other 'great' discovery. They have their place.

A true intellectual would not try to disprove your faith. S/he might question certain events or incidents that your Church considers historical fact. But, why would someone pursuing truth try to disprove religious conviction itself? For example, if I am a religious historian, I might examine Joseph Smith's life and conclude: He did do treasure hunting as a youth, he did claim that a particular document was one thing, and we now know it is something else. In other words, I might discover particular information that seems to undermine a religious account. But, as a scholar, it would not be my place to draw religious conclusions--only historical ones.

There are LDS historians, Christian historians, likewise for science. There are a few biologists who believe in Young Earth Creationism, a modest number that are Old Earth Creationists (God made it, but it could have been untold # of millenia ago), and most who are Evolutionists. Even Evolutionists though, who might conclude that Genesis 1-2 is not an accurate scientific description (if taken literally, anyway) are often Christians, though.

So...what I'm wondering...do we sometimes read into what scholars present, and assume ulterior motives, such as undermining faith, when no such thing was intended?

[Over43]

  prisonchaplain said:

IMHO, while Intelligent Design is still a forming theory, the scientific community's allergic reaction to any hint of such is more motivated by internal political correctness than by a pure pursuit of scientific truth. So, I would hope that somewhere (perhaps even in the an interdisciplinary class) the ID perspective is considered intelligently. In other words, sometimes the fear of appearing backwards can also hinder academic pursuit.

(I'm not trying to start an ID debate here. Rather, I wonder if sometimes the institution is so eager to be professional, respected, objective, that it might dismiss an unpopular perspective, without a fair hearing, in a climate of political correctness.)

I think the answer would be no. It had nothhing to do with not wanting to appear backwater. This was also almost 25 years ago. I'm not sure when ID started to roll, a bit, but in my biology, genetics, and physical science classes (anyone else remember Physical Science?) it was Evolution.

[Traveler]

  prisonchaplain said:

IMHO, while Intelligent Design is still a forming theory, the scientific community's allergic reaction to any hint of such is more motivated by internal political correctness than by a pure pursuit of scientific truth. So, I would hope that somewhere (perhaps even in the an interdisciplinary class) the ID perspective is considered intelligently. In other words, sometimes the fear of appearing backwards can also hinder academic pursuit.

(I'm not trying to start an ID debate here. Rather, I wonder if sometimes the institution is so eager to be professional, respected, objective, that it might dismiss an unpopular perspective, without a fair hearing, in a climate of political correctness.)

I do not think so - it is a matter of method and perspective. To ask a scientist to come to a conclusion by abandoning physical evidence and rely instead on spiritual promptings is no less offensive than to ask a religious individual to abandon G-d in order the follow physical evidence to conclusions.

And the very suggestion of compromise is offensive as well to both. There are some interesting things to me as a scientist and a person devout to religion. That is; that in most cases it is the religionist that appears foolish. What would most experts in scripture think of a scientist trying to quote scripture (mostly out of context) to theologians trying to convince them of their error? Yet often we see theologians trying to use science (mostly out of scientific context) trying to convince scientist of their error.

In reality science is winning the scientific arguments more surely than the religionist, that think, they are winning their arguments. This is because for thousands of years religionist did not advance technology or standard of living. But since the industrial revolution science has advanced technology and standard of living far beyond the wildest dreams or even the most skeptical religionist.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO pure science and pure religion are nuetral. Good and evil people can use both for great good or horrific evil. I would not suggest that either side compromise. Arguments for design have been rolling for centuries in philosophy. In science, just a few decades. It would be unfair to say that it is only religionists who are supporting it, however. Granted, they are the ones on the popular church circuit, popularizing the key points...but there are a few reputable scientists who dabble in the theory.

[Snow]

  prisonchaplain said:

IMHO pure science and pure religion are nuetral. Good and evil people can use both for great good or horrific evil.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27

How do you suppose that visiting widows could be used for horrific evil.

[Over43]

  Hemidakota said:

Very true...have you noticed lately the interest level of many in this nation over Aliens and supernatural stuff [movies, books, and radio shows]?

What? No aliens? I watched every episode of the X-Files, and let me tell you....

O.

[prisonchaplain]

  Snow said:

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27

How do you suppose that visiting widows could be used for horrific evil.

Great verse...but in the context, I simply meant religion that had not been used for human agendas. And yes, when devotion to God is the utmost, rather than an attempt to use such devotion to steer people in a political or ideological direction, the result would indeed be as James 1:27 says.

[Traveler]

  prisonchaplain said:

IMHO pure science and pure religion are nuetral. Good and evil people can use both for great good or horrific evil. I would not suggest that either side compromise. Arguments for design have been rolling for centuries in philosophy. In science, just a few decades. It would be unfair to say that it is only religionists who are supporting it, however. Granted, they are the ones on the popular church circuit, popularizing the key points...but there are a few reputable scientists who dabble in the theory.

There is disagreement in formulating theories when considering what science contributes and what religion contributes. Many scientists in trying to deal with theories and claims that come from the religious side of things ask themselves a simple question. If the theories of theologians are more accurate and dependable than the theories that come from science side of things – how come the theologians using their theories never built a light bulb?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

In the beginning God said let there be light . . .