Our first source in this course comes to us from the more conservative, evangelical Christian end of the philosophical spectrum. We should be fair to the source and note that any source that has the words "... Made Easy" in the title is not intending to take us into the deep water. No, the intention in this pamphlet is to guide the reader in a series of reflections on the Creation and what it says about the Creator. Along the way there will be the odd mention of the possibility of people who might have different positions on some of these issues ... but they are all damned and going to Hell so we really do not need to worry about them.
The thinking university student needs to look at this source in the same way that you would a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is clear that the author is speaking from a biased position and is dismissive of other positions held even by those of the Christian faith. Being right does not mean you no longer should be fair or just (and I am not even going to allow that it is a or the right position ... I'm just sayin'). It most certainly is not an attitude that conforms to any liberal arts tradition or ideals.
What should you take away from this source? This source is the easiest to identify the authors position and bias. It will get steadily more difficult to do so as we progress through the sources in this course. But then again most Fundamentalist writers have the grace and subtlety of a boot to the head. It's true! I know I have a reputation for hyperbole and digression but really most Fundamentalist / Creationist authors write as if they did most of their work in the bathroom (by the way this is a tradition that goes way back the great Martin Luther was the 14th century version of Hank Hill's boss Mr. Buck Strickland).
In addition, I do like how Water takes us back over and over to the Creation as a guide to the attributes of the Creator. We are told in Scripture that indeed this is a correct and good thing to do. The source is not intended to be deep and is intended to provide comfort for a given faith position. That does not make anything in the source wrong but it does give us a reference point for comparison with other sources.
We needed to start somewhere. So from now on you can say ... "Water indicated that ..." and be comfortable that the position stated comes from a conservative - fundamentalist point of view. Get your boots on 'cause the mud only gets deeper from here on out.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hmm...I don't know if I got the same impression (that Water is dismissive of all other, even Christian, views) while reading this source. I know that he did not really talk about any other views, but he does mention the "how" vs. "why" of Science and Religion, which according to Peters is "a way to establish a truce" between science and religion (Peters, 5).
Wouldn't this suggest openness?
PS: I also meant to say that the how vs why from Water is on pages 32 and 33 of his book.
Water is an interesting read. It seems to be very short and repetitive but the crucial betrayal of bias is at the very end. It is not that he presents other views and proves them wrong, he makes his point and declares all other positions wrong. It is a postion that works only if you happen to be right and even then it rankles the fairminded.
Post a Comment