07-05-2021, 04:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2021, 04:20 AM by Eric the Green.)
The fanatical ideas of some evangelicals and fundamentalists are not fruitful ones, because they damage the mind and good thinking. Some followers of those religions may be inspired to be ethical and support others charitably and help their community. But the main purpose of the most foolish preachers is to scare people into supporting them financially and culturally.
But where do they fit on the political spectrum? These are not necessarily political views, unless they are used for politics. Many are conservatives and thus blue or blue/yellow on Captain's diagram, but some evangelicals are actually liberals.
I don't find that evolution as science still usually teaches it is an adequate explanation of life at all. That is beside the point on the political circle, I think. But holding on to rigid and life-denying theories like Darwinian Evolution can also distort and lower thinking and culture, if not supplemented by other ideas.
It's not totally wrong either, by any means, and evolution itself seems a virtually-certain fact. To deny it is like denying that the Earth is round. But it's the explanations that can be a problem, and they can also have evil political consequences, as when Darwinism is applied to justify racist ideas or economic competitive ideas. That comes under the heading of Social Darwinism, a very insidious and destructive ideology.
Biology itself has updated its view of evolution through such findings as epigenetics, which makes it a lot more palatable to the moral imagination, and other theories exist which are also more in harmony with life as it actually is, and does not reduce our idea of what life is in the same harmful way that plain Darwinism does.
Life is a miracle, and to reduce it is to deny it. It can't be explained mechanically. Nor can arbitrary myths about a superhuman creator from 4004 BC explain it. But whether one's view of life should influence where we put them on the political circles, is another question. Unless their ideas lead to political views, probably not. And the same metaphysical and physical philosophies can lead to contrary politics, and vice versa.
But where do they fit on the political spectrum? These are not necessarily political views, unless they are used for politics. Many are conservatives and thus blue or blue/yellow on Captain's diagram, but some evangelicals are actually liberals.
I don't find that evolution as science still usually teaches it is an adequate explanation of life at all. That is beside the point on the political circle, I think. But holding on to rigid and life-denying theories like Darwinian Evolution can also distort and lower thinking and culture, if not supplemented by other ideas.
It's not totally wrong either, by any means, and evolution itself seems a virtually-certain fact. To deny it is like denying that the Earth is round. But it's the explanations that can be a problem, and they can also have evil political consequences, as when Darwinism is applied to justify racist ideas or economic competitive ideas. That comes under the heading of Social Darwinism, a very insidious and destructive ideology.
Biology itself has updated its view of evolution through such findings as epigenetics, which makes it a lot more palatable to the moral imagination, and other theories exist which are also more in harmony with life as it actually is, and does not reduce our idea of what life is in the same harmful way that plain Darwinism does.
Life is a miracle, and to reduce it is to deny it. It can't be explained mechanically. Nor can arbitrary myths about a superhuman creator from 4004 BC explain it. But whether one's view of life should influence where we put them on the political circles, is another question. Unless their ideas lead to political views, probably not. And the same metaphysical and physical philosophies can lead to contrary politics, and vice versa.