I don't usually defend organized religion (and certainly not people who take religious texts literally), but I'll disagree with you here. Plenty of the great thinkers of history were also deeply religious. Plenty of great intellectuals of today are very religious. I happen to know people all the way over on the spectrum to "born again" who are also very bright and I would consider "intellectuals".

I'm sure that a higher-profile return to a slavish literal devotion to religious texts has some sort of influence, but honestly I'd credit most of this development to the Bush Administration and its supporters and the growth of a trust in instinct over thought. We joke about how Bush governed "from the gut" (actually, I think he may have said just that), but he ushered in a whole framework that governed off of certain set principles and wouldn't be swayed from them regardless of the objective evidence proving those set principles wrong.

I think this convinced (or reinforced the idea within) a lot of people that it's more important to just believe certain things are true, fight hard for them, and disregard any and all indications that you might be even slightly wrong. I'd like to point out, of course, that pretty much the entire right-wing punditocracy, including the usual Fox suspects, acts in exactly this way (and are lampooned mercilessly for it by Stephen Colbert).

Then, since a solid belief is considered so important to one's character, these people about whom we're talking naturally despise anyone who can see both sides of the argument (i.e. intellectuals). I think the message here (and we've even seen this overtly) is that if you can see both sides of the argument you don't really believe strongly in something and so you're less of a person (or even less of an American).

I think there certainly are parallels to a slavish literal devotion to holy texts, but I don't think that's where this anti-intellectualism got its genesis.

Or how about the fact that "Jesus' birthday" was conveniently placed on 12/25 because it coincided with the Feast of Sol Invictus (the Sun God) who was closely associated with Mitra, another huge pagan god at the time.

Makes me wonder how this Tea Party stuff in states like Nevada and Delaware GOP is influencing these races... what I mean is that people in toss up states getting antsy about handing power to a party that seems to be taken over by loonies even if the guy running in their state isn't that crazy.

Very true, but I think a lot of people fall into the opposite trap. If someone has studied something they probably do know something better than you and do tend to have more expertise if you have not similarly studied up on a topic. We don't say "hey, braniac doctor, I know my knee gets sore when it's going to rain so quit telling me it's arthritis".

SI

I meant more along the lines of things that are open to interpretation, like historical/political analysis.

Hear hear! I mean the head of the National Institute of Health, who used to be in charge of the Human Genome Project (Francis Collins), is a strong Christian (he even wrote a few books on it).

Regardless of what some like to sling mud about, President Obama has said that his faith is very strong to him.

Yes, regarding the Bible as inerrent (rather than infallible) is very highly problematic, especially in regards to science, but people can be believers and highly intelligent. Reason can explain everything. There is more to life that just what we can see and science can't really help us in that realm.

Not sure I disagree with any of what you wrote here. However I think DT's question was mostly about politics and I feel like politicians often send the message that faith supersedes common sense and logic. So instead of Christianity or Islam being anything more than attempted answers to a question none of us could possibly ever answer they are taken literally as right and wrong by a lot of people and their leaders. This may be typical human behavior but it ultimately leads to LOTS of problems.

Yes, but if they have more of a background than I do, I'm going to defer to their judgment on something open to interpretation because they have a better background for it. It seems we've come to equate folksy wisdom and oversimplification of problems as being able to discount an actual intellectual base on a topic because it sounds better in a quick argument.

SI

very interesting analysis...very interesting.

my original question was really more in general then in politics...i think it certainly applies to politics, but in a lot of ways i wanted to explore the topic more generally and avoid the kneejerk reaction by say a Dutch or a Jon that would be "because (R) ideas are always right. har har har." (caricature intended)

If it's something I know nothing about, I will certainly defer. If it's something I too have studied, the views of their professors and books do not trump the views I've developed.

but certainly you're open to debating them and possibly continuing to develop your views, right?

Obviously. I've just seen the "I STUDIED THIS YOU ARE WRONG" card pulled a few times here and it's frankly a bit disgusting.

The controversy over vaccinations is a great example of this.

In your second paragraph you draw a line for where intellectuals should no longer be trusted. Those that we deplore for anti-intellectualism have just drawn that same line in a different place. We all have our predispositions and assumptions that are hard to shake. There hopefully is a difference in quantity, but I'm not sure there's much of a difference in quality.

There's a big difference between taking an undergrad course and having years of study and research in a field.

That's a good point. It could be the same as when the GOP had an edge in the GA senate race because it would've given the Dems 60 votes. Plus the fact is that the GOP is relying on several blue states to take the majority away. For example, Dems in CA may hold their nose and vote Boxer because they don't want to hand the Senate to the GOP.

The Senate map is actually not very good for the GOP this cycle. It will be much better in two years when the Dems have to defend their gains from 06, but the Dems political standing will also be much better (along with increased turnout).

So, then, the most learned person is always correct?

edit:

I studied biology for four years. That said, I am positive that there are second year bio students who would be able to get more out of an article, design a better experiment, distill a biological question more succinctly than I. Education is important, but its not the goal. It just gives you more weapons for figuring out how to achieve the goal.

No, but the odds they are correct are higher.

Well, I'll give you that for sure. I am talking about the mindset that education = correctness, not education tends to equal correctness.

I think we all agree on that point and we are all arguing semantics, a bit. I just feel that a lot of people make the next mental jump of really devaluing it by saying "well, education doesn't make one totally correct- in fact, they have no real expertise above and beyond me" which is patently false and just downright egotistical.

SI

You must be seeing some trend that the rest of the world has missed. The longer this batch of D's is in power, the worse their standing becomes.

Yeah, I was probably obscuring the point being made for a smaller, technical one because I feel the main point to be fairly obvious and not really done much here.

If I'm following you correctly, I believe you're underestimating the impact of the sheer number of "educated idiots" that are frequently encountered day to day by many "regular people"; i.e. repeatedly hearing allegedly educated/intelligent people state opinions/positions that either fly in the face of reality or in complete contrast to positions that are unshakable.

I'd have a tough time believing that isn't playing a role in the discount being applied by a lot of people (even if I haven't managed to describe the factor as well as I would have liked).

And I'm sure the Republicans thought the same thing in 1994 and the Democrats in 1982.

Could this explain why Michelle Bachmann keeps getting re-elected?

I really like Flere's explanation here.

I also wonder if this anti-intellectualism is part of a broader social shift that has arisen out of a more relativistic attitude toward truth in the culture. If truth is relative, then the intellectual's truth is no more valid than my own. I am my own expert about what is true. The intellectual's truth is only valid in so far as it squares with either my world view and/or how I would like the world to be. I accept experts where they agree with my worldview, but reject them where they don't. I think this idea might be related to the line that JPhillips alludes to in his post. Personally, I claim no expertise in social history, but it seems that in a past when people at least paid lip service to an absolute truth, in whatever form it took for them (science, religion, etc.), I suspect that they were more trusting of intellectuals.

Some additional more informal argument might be made about this position in thinking about the aspirations of teens. How many teens want to be celebrities of some sort? I thought I heard recently that a recent poll revealed that an absurdly high number of teens want to be actors. The aspiration appears to fame rather than to knowledge or wisdom. The idea of a famous intellectual in our culture is pretty much ridiculous. Maybe these these things aren't expressly anti-intellectual, but they seem to be symptomatic of an apathy/disrespect for intellectualism.

I think generally, the swing to the extremes (on both sides), especially from the House, can be blamed on gerrymandering. Basically, the politicians, in their eternal quest to be re-elected, have set up districts to have as many of "their guys" as possible, and few of those who wouldn't vote for them. Therefore, as time goes on, more and more, you win by playing on the edges instead of in the center.

I think this is actually one of the better post snippets I've seen here on FOFC in a while.

That may be. If we divide people quadrants of stupid/smart and educated/uneducated, the damage that can most be done is by the stupid/educated as the stupid/uneducated really don't have a platform to stand on and the smart/uneducated should, in theory, not be on par with the stupid/educated as they have no "proof" of their intellect. However, in that case, the smart/uneducated will be, well, smarter than the stupid/educated pretty much every time.

I also think that since our sources of information continue to be more and more fragmented, it is much easier to obscure the truth when you grab a small segment of experts where you give them an incentive to act in their own best interest (and in yours)- you can easily muddle the waters. You don't have to disprove the actual truth, you just have to make it seem like there is no truth or that it is relative or up for debate. Then the flat-earthers are elevated to a position of equality with those with the actual truth as we want a "fair debate" on something that inherently is not equal.

SI

Y'know, between your two posts, Ajaxab's, and maybe mine, there's probably an entire philosophical thread about "the nature of truth" sitting here.

I don't think we really need to do one, but between the four posts it could probably be done pretty easily.

Good post and I mostly agree with this. I'd like to expand on what you say about paying lip service and being more trusting of intellectuals: I think it's ok to question these intellectuals, but, if the evidence keeps pointing to them being correct or wrong, there has to be some point where the debate is over. Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it is a good example of that. So is the whole, vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. How many studies have to come out that confirm or deny the validity of these things, yet, people still think that theses things are not settled? I think it's because they have more of an emotional attachment or just parroting the punditry instead of taking a rational approach to them. Not that I expect everyone to be like Mr. Spock, but, there's times when you just have to stop the flow of alligator tears and unpin the hearts on people's sleeves and quit wasting resources on settled issues. If new evidence comes to light, then yes, open up the debate again.

I think you need to separate honest, even if misguided, debate and dishonest debate. It's possible to honestly believe that vaccines are bad and even present data that you believe is just as honest, whether or not that data is in fact honest. Those people may be wrong, and they certainly can be a pain in the ass, but I don't question motives.

The people that knowingly feed questionable or false data into the media in an attempt to obfuscate the truth are the real problem. Almost the entire case for vaccines causing autism comes from one study where we know the author falsified data. Lancet even said that the article they published was a lie and people shouldn't believe there's data to support a link between vaccines and autism. However, the water's been muddied because the media loves to report the controversy and challenge accepted truths.

Which might sound okay in theory, if those things were dealt with in a theoretical fashion.

Once you start making laws and/or spending tax money related to whatever "truth" however, then the debate remains in play since (in simplest terms) "people believe whatever they believe" and it's ultimately their money you're messing with. There's no shutting down the debate, because ultimately ther is no any inherent right of government to go against the wishes of the governed even if - hypothetically - the governed believed something that was proven false by empirical evidence beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

That's an absolutely great point. I actually have no problem with people who have been misled, up until the point that the amount of available data is overwhelming to where now they are either purposely being stubborn or have a ulterior motive. Plus, I have to agree with you on the media being a part of the problem as well.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't believe for one second that theory could be put into practice to the degree it should be, in the world that we live in today.

Well, that's where I was saying the emotional aspects come into play. The only rationality that comes into play in the political arena is: How can I appeal to the emotions of my constituents to get myself re-elected. That's why you keep hearing things like abortion come up in election campaigns. That is a huge emotional issue, regardless of the fact that it has no impact on jobs, taxes, the economy, trade, foreign relations and list goes on and on. If I know a vast amount of people in my district (say, by way of a poll) are skeptical of global warming, I'm going to play to that crowd to try and get myself elected. Logic and evidence be damned. Now you have a whole group of people who feel like their 'beliefs' have been legitimized because someone in a position of power feels the same way they do. Again, despite all of the contrary evidence, they now have a voice that goes up against these 'so called experts'.

I think this is a huge part of the issue. All of a sudden it becomes "well we have to give the people who don't believe in evolution their input so let's rewrite all of the textbooks to say that evolution is just a theory and an alternative theory is divine creation, that way we don't offend anybody and we don't leave ourselves open to getting sued."

And the end result is that we end up a stupider society by allowing "fringe" people with ridiculous, non-scientific beliefs to be elevated to an equal platform.

+1000

I agree with you that it's okay and profitable to challenge intellectuals. After all, they should be able to defend their positions and often do very credibly.

That being said, if people see truth as something personal and relative and not external to themselves, we could give them mountains of studies on whatever subject might be under discussion and they could still say that the intellectuals' truth is different than their own. Nothing can ever be settled for this kind of person unless that person believes it settled. It is, after all, their truth. And their truth, within this framework, is just as valid as the truth from the mountains of studies sitting in front of them. In a strange way, for them, the debate is over, but for a very different reason than the one you present here. The debate is over because they claim it is over not because of the studies that might lead us in that direction.

Want to know why so-called "intellectuals" are relegated to the bargain bin?
This quote is a great example.

The only thing I feel for those who believe science is the end-all/be-all explanation for everything is pity. There's no respect, there's a constant struggle to remain civil towards them, and it's hard to take them seriously or even moreso to trust them about anything due to their grave error in judgment on the most critical matter of all.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of all Americans believe in God (or similar entity), a number that's actually increasing on the past decade according to recent surveys. How ya think quotes like the one above play with most of them?

Let's be clear here, my point isn't to bash DT, there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere. My point here goes directly back to the sidebar about why "intellectuals" are so easy to dismiss.

Where did I say it was exclusively about religion? It could just as easily be about vaccines causing autism, or pick anything else. I did use a religious example earlier in that post, because it was the first one that sprang to mind.

And it's only your opinion that I've made a grave error in judgement. You have no proof to back that up. No facts.

But I don't want to turn this into another science vs. religion debacle.

It's true though. Science brings actual facts, actual bones and fossils to the table in a discussion. Religion doesn't. I simply contend that until it can it shouldn't be elevated to the same level of certainty as science.

Go ahead and believe it...that's fine. Hell...my parents are extremely religious. I went to a Jesuit college. I took a mandatory class on religion that was focused on reading the Bible from both a historical and religious standpoint. Not anymore, because that was 12 years ago, but I bet at that point I could have out-Bible'd you, or most others on this board.

Doesn't mean I think that it's okay to elevate creationism onto the same level as evolution. That's just being pig-headed and so blinkered by your faith into being unwilling to think critically about the world around you, when even the damn Pope has said that evolution is a certainty.

Don't get me wrong...I know some very intelligent religious people. But they all have retained the ability to think for themselves rather than "taking the easy way out" (as I'll put it to finally wrap up this posit).

But even science is filled with conjecture. In the same way you look at religion as a load of hooey, we're so overloaded with "facts" from the holier than thou (how's that for irony) scientific community that we can't help but question a great many things. How's that swine flu epidemic coming along? How 'bout that avian flu? Watch out for that 1970's ice age - we're all doomed! Saccharin causes cancer! Here, take Accutane - oops, it can cause depression and suicide. blah, blah, blah.

There's a good bit in Woody Allen's "Sleeper" where the scientists offer Allen's character a meal of ice cream sundaes with fudge and they laugh about how such food was considered bad for you decades ago.

Mind you - I fully buy-in to science and scientific theory, but I don't necessarily blame the masses for being just a bit wary and suspicious of the scientific community. Especially when they can see (whether real or imagined) results that run counter.

Oh, and speaking of the autism debate...while I don't think thimerasol is the sole reason for autism I do think there has to be some kind of relation. Maybe it has nothing to do with the ingredients, but the sheer bombardment of vaccines during certain time periods. It just seems to me that where there's smoke, there's fire - though that fire may be somewhere else in the proverbial haystack.

to bring this back to politics away from the religion/science thing.

Christine O'Donnell (R) Candidate from SC on O'Reilly


Really?? Really???

Therein lies the crux of the issue, I fear. You're looking at it backwards from the get-go.

There are those who attempt, persistently but in vain, to elevate science to the level of certainty that accompanies religion.

Again FTR, this wasn't about bashing you, you happened to be the person who served up a great example of one of the reasons for the bargain bin treatment of "intellectuals", particularly the more holier-than-thou ones. And that was the sub-topic du jour after all.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"

I really think that what Craig is describing is less a failure of the scientific community and just another failure of our media.

LMAO.

THERE IS NO CERTAINTY THAT ACCOMPANIES RELIGION.

Seriously. As usual, you're bonkers.

Hypothetically...put my life in the hands of a scientist or religion, with one chance to save it? I'm taking the scientist 10 times out of 10. Without an instant's hesitation.

And frankly, even the majority of religious people agree I would contend. Otherwise they'd all be Christian Scientists praying for good health and low cholesterol.

There isn't 100% certainty with science, but the certainty with science is vastly more than the certainty with religion. Even everybody that I know that is religious would agree with that statement.

And this is where I should probably let this topic rest, because otherwise I have a feeling it's going to start getting increasingly ugly.

So is it reilgious or science people who say they don't want to do something but then goes right ahead and does it? ;)

Me and DT probably agree on like 3 issues out of 1000's in the politics thread but Jon saying "There are those who attempt, persistently but in vain, to elevate science to the level of certainty that accompanies religion." is an absurd statement and DT is completely correct to respond to that nonsense. Don't care if this makes me sound arrogant but that is a really laughable statement.

I've always thought that people who try to compare religion and science don't understand either very well.

I know very little about science and zero about the answers to life's questions but I can say with 99.999% certainty (and this doesn't involve much more than a high school logic course) that organized religion is complete bullshit. Sorry if this offends anyone. I don't question there may be a higher power but calling it Jesus and making up stories about it doesn't make that the correct answer even if 90% of the United States population believes it.