 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
2009.08.03, 0828 Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim Daylight Time – For decades, arguments have raged about whether science invalidates the Bible. A new Univ. of Michigan study (2009.07.31) reveals that today those arguments, which arose in the previous century, have been mostly resolved among the more educated public. The educated public has mostly recognized that the impossible contradictions to known science lie within the impossible interpretations of ignorant, fabulizing—insisting on fantastic interpretations: the supernatural and miraculous—interpreters of the Bible, not the Bible itself.
However, this dragon having been slain, it has immediately been displaced by a new Sâ•tânꞋ rearing its head against the veracity of the Bible: relativism. (Don't confuse relativism with the scientific Theory of Relativity).
Often called "post-modernism" (to be deliberately elitist and throw off non-scholars), relativism recognizes no absolutes. "Everything is relative." According to relativism (post-modernism), there is no authoritative definition of right or wrong, good or evil, etc. An action or event is right or wrong, good or evil, only relative to—within the frame of reference of or compared to—another action or event. Consequently, the inevitable conclusion is what we see in the Middle East: since there is no right or wrong, no historical absolutes, both Israel and Arabs must be treated tit for tat, quid quo pro: requiring an endless stream of which action is in retaliation for what and who did what first rather than the indigenous historical rights—or lack thereof—of either people. Relativism sees a violent attack is no different, no worse, than violent defense; violence is violence. Ergo, whoever causes the most damage is evil regardless of who attacked, who provoked or who was simply defending themselves against barbaric, savage and even suicial tactics.
Thus, relativism is the demon that drives political correctness, the continuing war against the Bible, the conflict in the Middle East, an infinite number of other conflicts and arguments and the transformation of the U.S. by the relativist Left, led by Hollywood and Pres. Obama, into the world's largest civilizational train wreck. Moreover, since (according to relativism) there is no absolute moral right or wrong, materialistic hedonism—the "me" culture—has become prevalent with its bottomless descent into immorality with the accompanying rise in divorces—and even eschewing marriage altogether for temporary fornication arrangements resulting in single parents, broken homes and fractured and distorted value systems and personalities—and all-consuming depravity, e.g., the "coming out" of homosexuals, pedophiles, oediphiles, serial rapists and serial murderers, etc.
The Univ. of Michigan study corroborates this trend, finding that those who study the sciences (including physics and evolution) in college tend to become more religious in practice (as measured by attendance), while those who study arts, humanities and the "soft sciences" (including, interestingly, archeology), which emphasize relativism ("post-modernism"), tend to become less religious. Simultaneously, with the single exception of the vocational / clerical "majors" (?), even while their religious practice increases, they develop an increasingly negative view of the importance of institutions ("religiosity") – a dilemma (attendance to an institution?), to be sure. Hence, the increasing popularity of "off grid" religious groups and mi•nᵊyânꞋs at the expense of the larger Churches and Synagogues.
This further suggests that, as archeology becomes more scientific, it will follow the other sciences in learning to corroborate with historical documentation and science, thus in greater harmony with the Bible rather than, as in the past, become intransigent against the Bible because an anti-Bible stance is widely mistaken by arts and humanities bohemians as "scientific," politically correct and, most importantly, "career correct".
 |
 Religiosity vs College Major |
According to their study, "College students who major in the social sciences and humanities are likely to become less religious, while those majoring in education are likely to become more religious. The Univ. of Michigan graph shows the predicted change in religiosity six years out from high school for different college majors compared to the predicted change in religiosity if the student had not gone to college. Source: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 2009."
"But students majoring in biology and physical sciences remain just about as religious as they were when they started college."
"Education majors are clearly safe havens for the religious," said U-M economist Miles Kimball, who co-authored the study. "Highly religious people seem to prefer education majors, tend to stay in that major, and tend to become more religious by the time they graduate."
"Of those who did not attend college right away, those who were more religious were more likely to attend college eventually…" Thus, whether one argues causality (intelligence & education lead to religiosity; or vice-versa) or not, there is a direct and positive link between education and religiosity—and, conversely, a link between scientific ignorance, on the one hand, and irreligiosity, ignorance, hedonism and resulting immorality on the other.
"For the analysis of impact of college major on religiosity, the researchers used business majors as a reference point. "We wanted a major that was culturally neutral and that attracted a large number of students," Kimball said. "The content of most business courses does not touch on values."
"There are important differences among the college majors in world views and overall philosophies of life," Kimball said. "At the same time, students recognize to some degree the differences among majors and chose a major based, at least in part, on religiosity."
"Our results suggest that it is post-modernism [i.e., relativism], not Science, that is the bête noir of religiosity. One reason may be that the key ideas of post-modernism are newer than the key scientific ideas that challenge religion. For example, religions have had 150 years to develop resistance or tolerance for the late 19th century idea of Evolution, but much less time to develop resistance or tolerance for the key ideas of post-modernism, which gained great strength over the course of the 20th century."
See also my paper, "Relativism, Religion of Satan (2005.06.21)" in our Web Café Archives
 |
|
 |