Regarding #2, there are quite a few kinds of knowledge that it's possible to flaunt, at least in certain ways, and still be perceived as an anti-intellectual everyman. Sports, cars, weapons, and low-carb dieting spring readily to mind (in fact I think a big reason for the success of Atkins is that it's a "manly" diet).
But you're right about Biblical knowledge being a special case. I don't think you can call it just fact-knowing though. Evangelical classes and study groups (at least the ones I've seen) don't just memorize verses, they look to history and the original language and many other things to come up with an interpretation.
The trouble is that many of them start with the position they want to take and then find textual support for it. Given the Bible's length and all its ambiguities, this isn't hard to do. You can find support for almost anything there.
There also seems to be a general human tendency to hold in awe and reverence esoteric/ambiguous but important-sounding language, especially if it was written down a long time ago, see e.g. the Torah, Bible, Upanishads, Nostradamus, Led Zeppelin . . .
godamnit mitch! beating my sardonic post with a thoughtful one
Anyway, I think you're right. In my experience, bible-study or whathaveyou doesn't research and debate to explore whether something is false or true, but merely to support that it is, and to support what one believes should be. It's how you end of with people staunchly beliving Mary died a virgin and similar such. I'm sure many would object to my interpretations with things like, "we invite athesists to our church to debate!" But I really think there's a difference between that sort of thing, which is ultimately only done in the hopes of converting, and seriously considering the oppositions' arguments.
It's not even really a matter of detailed Bible knowledge. I've found that if you push the average evangelical Christian to tell you where in the Bible he got his opinion, they'll basically be stumped. I don't know why this isn't more obvious: Most Christians, of any denomination, never read the Bible, or at least do it very seldom.
The word "biblical" is basically an empty signifier that is often filled in with Republican talking points, free-market ideology, or whatever -- and since we have a lazy and corrupt press corps, those who claim something is "biblical" are just taken at their word. (Slacktivist writes on this pretty frequently.)
Regarding #2, there are quite a few kinds of knowledge that it's possible to flaunt, at least in certain ways, and still be perceived as an anti-intellectual everyman. Sports, cars, weapons, and low-carb dieting spring readily to mind (in fact I think a big reason for the success of Atkins is that it's a "manly" diet).
But you're right about Biblical knowledge being a special case. I don't think you can call it just fact-knowing though. Evangelical classes and study groups (at least the ones I've seen) don't just memorize verses, they look to history and the original language and many other things to come up with an interpretation.
The trouble is that many of them start with the position they want to take and then find textual support for it. Given the Bible's length and all its ambiguities, this isn't hard to do. You can find support for almost anything there.
There also seems to be a general human tendency to hold in awe and reverence esoteric/ambiguous but important-sounding language, especially if it was written down a long time ago, see e.g. the Torah, Bible, Upanishads, Nostradamus, Led Zeppelin . . .
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07- 7-04 2:16 PM
Is it because it's just fact-knowing and not critical analysis?
yeah-huh. (but i object to the usage of the word "fact")
it looks like those evangelical classes and study groups ought to be great places for intellectual debate.
no, they aren't.
dude, I am SO channeling the poor man today.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 7-04 2:18 PM
No, you aren't.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07- 7-04 2:20 PM
godamnit mitch! beating my sardonic post with a thoughtful one
Anyway, I think you're right. In my experience, bible-study or whathaveyou doesn't research and debate to explore whether something is false or true, but merely to support that it is, and to support what one believes should be. It's how you end of with people staunchly beliving Mary died a virgin and similar such. I'm sure many would object to my interpretations with things like, "we invite athesists to our church to debate!" But I really think there's a difference between that sort of thing, which is ultimately only done in the hopes of converting, and seriously considering the oppositions' arguments.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 7-04 2:28 PM
No, you aren't.
thanks for keeping me in line.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 7-04 2:35 PM
It's not even really a matter of detailed Bible knowledge. I've found that if you push the average evangelical Christian to tell you where in the Bible he got his opinion, they'll basically be stumped. I don't know why this isn't more obvious: Most Christians, of any denomination, never read the Bible, or at least do it very seldom.
The word "biblical" is basically an empty signifier that is often filled in with Republican talking points, free-market ideology, or whatever -- and since we have a lazy and corrupt press corps, those who claim something is "biblical" are just taken at their word. (Slacktivist writes on this pretty frequently.)
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 07- 7-04 9:36 PM