Quick Links
Categories
My iTunes
My Flickr
My Blogroll
Archives and Links
Browse archives by date
My Old Blog
My Homepage
100 Things About Me
My Book List
My Husband
My Church
MoreLight Presbyterians
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Monkey Sphere
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Miss Manners
My Old Blog
My Homepage
100 Things About Me
My Book List
My Husband
My Church
MoreLight Presbyterians
The Presbyterian Church USA
The Monkey Sphere
Mark Morford, SF Gate
Miss Manners
XML/RSS Feed
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 07, 2009 10:28 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 07, 2009 10:28 AM
Naive Conceptions...
In science education there's this idea of naive
conceptions, sometimes called naive theories, or misconceptions. These are the
theories that children develop about how the world works before they receive any
formal education on a topic. They're notoriously difficult to dislodge, even
when you challenge students with multiple experiences that demonstrate that
these misconceptions are wrong. There's an entire literature in science
education on these misconceptions across
disciplines.
For example, if you ask a child why is it warmer in the summer and colder in the winter, they'll often tell you it's because the Earth is closer to the Sun in the summer, and farther away in the winter. Then, even after years of science classes in which they learn that when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's winter in the Southern Hemisphere, lots of people will still cling to that misconception about the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, instead of the real answer about the Earth being tilted on its axis.
It occurred on me recently that some of the problems that religious folk have when they disagree with each other are similar to the problem with misconceptions in science.
For example, I think a lot of Christians (left, right, and middle) may say that they understand that salvation is by Grace alone. But I think many (particularly, I'd argue, the fundies) still cling to the naive conception that many of us had as children: God's in heaven with a gigantic tote-board and he makes a check every time you're naughty or nice. If, at the end, the nice checks outnumber the naughty checks, then you go to Heaven. If not, you get to experience an eternity in Perdition's flames. I've named this the "God as Angry Santa" misconception. This is, by the way, how I pictured God until I was about 18, even after confirmation classes, Sunday School classes, youth group, etc., etc., etc. In science classes a good instructor can, sometimes, dislodge naive concepts about science by exposing students to a number of discrepant events in which the naive concepts simply can't explain what's going on. It's really hard to do that in religion.
As we've seen recently in the Presbyterian Church, people (again, primarily the fundies) also seem to have a rather naive understanding of ministers in the church. I think people expect them to be magic. Now some Christian traditions do take clericism far more seriously, and impose special regulations on ministers (eg. vows of chastity.) Presbyterians however, don't believe in nor require such things. Well, at least we say we don't believe in such things. We say that ministers are just like everyone else, they're not more holy, they're not magic radios to God, they're not nicer people, they're not somehow magically less sinful than anyone else. Yet, even though they say the right words, some folks in the Presbyterian Church still cling to these naive conceptions of what ministers are and should be like. Thus the bans on ordaining LGBT people. For even though every minister is a sinner, there is this naive conception that they're supposed to be without sin, and here's a "sin" that some ministers, elders, and deacons are admitting! For shame!
This idea of naive religious concepts came to me after reading a blog post elsewhere about Communion, and the need some folks have to "protect" the Communion table from naughty people. Now those folks (again, I'd argue, the fundies) say the right words, acknowledging that it is the Lord's Supper, not ours. But in the end, I wonder if their need to protect Communion from naughty people stems from a naive understanding that Communion is not just a symbol, but is some sort of magic spell. Eat the bread and all your sins you committed since the last Communion get forgiven. Again, I admit that when I was little, that's what I thought. In fact, I was always a little concerned that we only had Communion once a month, which seemed far too infrequent for a little cube of Wonderbread and a shot-glass of grape juice to wash away all my sins for an entire month. (Yeah, I was probably 8 years old, I'm not sure exactly what I thought I had to worry about.)
So maybe some of the problems in our religious arguments in Christian denominations in general, and the PCUSA specifically are related to people still clinging to naive concepts of God, salvation, sin, forgiveness, and repentance. Folks might even be able to say the right words, but when they're pressed on it, they return to their naive conceptions.
Someone should do a study.
For example, if you ask a child why is it warmer in the summer and colder in the winter, they'll often tell you it's because the Earth is closer to the Sun in the summer, and farther away in the winter. Then, even after years of science classes in which they learn that when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's winter in the Southern Hemisphere, lots of people will still cling to that misconception about the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, instead of the real answer about the Earth being tilted on its axis.
It occurred on me recently that some of the problems that religious folk have when they disagree with each other are similar to the problem with misconceptions in science.
For example, I think a lot of Christians (left, right, and middle) may say that they understand that salvation is by Grace alone. But I think many (particularly, I'd argue, the fundies) still cling to the naive conception that many of us had as children: God's in heaven with a gigantic tote-board and he makes a check every time you're naughty or nice. If, at the end, the nice checks outnumber the naughty checks, then you go to Heaven. If not, you get to experience an eternity in Perdition's flames. I've named this the "God as Angry Santa" misconception. This is, by the way, how I pictured God until I was about 18, even after confirmation classes, Sunday School classes, youth group, etc., etc., etc. In science classes a good instructor can, sometimes, dislodge naive concepts about science by exposing students to a number of discrepant events in which the naive concepts simply can't explain what's going on. It's really hard to do that in religion.
As we've seen recently in the Presbyterian Church, people (again, primarily the fundies) also seem to have a rather naive understanding of ministers in the church. I think people expect them to be magic. Now some Christian traditions do take clericism far more seriously, and impose special regulations on ministers (eg. vows of chastity.) Presbyterians however, don't believe in nor require such things. Well, at least we say we don't believe in such things. We say that ministers are just like everyone else, they're not more holy, they're not magic radios to God, they're not nicer people, they're not somehow magically less sinful than anyone else. Yet, even though they say the right words, some folks in the Presbyterian Church still cling to these naive conceptions of what ministers are and should be like. Thus the bans on ordaining LGBT people. For even though every minister is a sinner, there is this naive conception that they're supposed to be without sin, and here's a "sin" that some ministers, elders, and deacons are admitting! For shame!
This idea of naive religious concepts came to me after reading a blog post elsewhere about Communion, and the need some folks have to "protect" the Communion table from naughty people. Now those folks (again, I'd argue, the fundies) say the right words, acknowledging that it is the Lord's Supper, not ours. But in the end, I wonder if their need to protect Communion from naughty people stems from a naive understanding that Communion is not just a symbol, but is some sort of magic spell. Eat the bread and all your sins you committed since the last Communion get forgiven. Again, I admit that when I was little, that's what I thought. In fact, I was always a little concerned that we only had Communion once a month, which seemed far too infrequent for a little cube of Wonderbread and a shot-glass of grape juice to wash away all my sins for an entire month. (Yeah, I was probably 8 years old, I'm not sure exactly what I thought I had to worry about.)
So maybe some of the problems in our religious arguments in Christian denominations in general, and the PCUSA specifically are related to people still clinging to naive concepts of God, salvation, sin, forgiveness, and repentance. Folks might even be able to say the right words, but when they're pressed on it, they return to their naive conceptions.
Someone should do a study.
Posted: Mon - October 6, 2008 at 09:57 AM