mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/09/86)
Scott Berry poses the following question [heavily edited to save space]: >I invite him to tell us all whether or not he feels the same about this >statement [referring to the Bible rather than Clarke's books] as the one >he originally wrote. >>By the same token, a lot of people, particularly children at various stages >>of life, simply aren't prepared to approach the bible with the proper sort >>of critical attitude. Well, this is a very interesting question, and the answer I must give is somewhat complicated. There's an important sense in which the Bible must be approached with a critical attitude. But the }idifferences between the Bible and Clarke's writings give cause to different approaches to the two. The most important difference, and one which I drew attention to earlier, is that Clarke's books pass off some religious teachings as science fiction (and, given }iscience fiction's traditional position with respect to reality, imply to some extent that the opinions are factual). THe Bible on the other hand, is overtly and unabashedly religious in nature, and makes no bones that it presents its own views as truth. Clarke's writings therefore don't naturally invite the same skepticism, especially for one for whom skeptical reading has not become a habit. The Bible, on the other hand, is a book which talks about religion and God, but which makes possible many Gods. It is frightfully easy to read into it all sorts of doctrine, particularly if you are into picking and choosing. It is my opinion that coming to the Bible with a theological axe to grind pretty much guarantees that it will be misread. Most children don't come equipped with the right kind of skepticism to see when they are being sold a theological bill of goods. C. Wingate
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) (09/10/86)
Thanks for responding Charley. I agreed with your points, for the most part. I'll grant you that religion in a purportedly non-religious book can "sneak up on you". (Note this is true of any subject matter, of course, not just religion.) However, I feel that any difference is overcome by the fact that not only does the Bible claim to be truth, but quite often when children are "urged" (:-) to read it by parents, the PARENTS ALSO claim it to be true. Makes it very difficult for a child to approach it with a properly "critical" attitude. There is no such "reinforcement" when reading most fiction. In any case, it's true that all people (not solely children) must be taught to *think* about what they read. On that I know we agree. ========================================= "The tyranny of what seems reasonable often impedes science." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
daveh@tekcrl.UUCP (Dave Hatcher) (09/12/86)
>> I'm going to take something Charley Wingate wrote, and substitute >> exactly two words. I invite him to tell us all whether or not he >> feels the same about this statement as the one he originally wrote. >> >> >By the same token, a lot of people, particularly children at various stages >> >of life, simply aren't prepared to approach the bible with the proper sort >> >of critical attitude. >> >> The substituted words, by the way, were "the bible" for "these books". [BERRY] >Very good point, Scott. If Charley were actually to apply his feelings >universally regarding the "dangers" to small children's minds resulting from >exposure to works such as those of Clarke, he would also have to include >the Bible in his list of books children simply aren't prepared to have the >proper critical attitude about. In the Aug 29 issue of Science page 935 is an article titled Nobelists Unite Against "Creation Science". It seems that Murray Gell-Mann, a Caltech physicist has managed to get 72 Nobel prizewinners to endorse a legal brief. The brief supports an effort to overturn a Louisiana law that requires "creation science" to be given equal time with evolution in the states public schools. The brief argues that "creation science" is religion dressed up as science and therefore should not be taught in the schools. At a press conference held to coincide with the filing, Stephen J. Gould of Harvard argued that "as a term, creation science is an oxymoron a self-contradictory and meaningless phrase--a whitewash for a specific, particular, and minority religious view in America: Biblical literalism. Francisco Ayala of University of California added: "To claim that the statements of Genesis are scientific truths is to deny all the evidence. To teach such statements in schools as if they were science would do untold harm". Dave Hatcher