Link Believe It, or Not By Nicholas D. Kristof Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times Friday, August 15, 2003 Posted: 9:49 AM EDT (1349 GMT) Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent). So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith. Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea. Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in this column, go to www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.) The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll. My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of Episcopalians has dropped almost in half. The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America. Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way: "God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice." The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America's emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary's assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian Hans Küng puts it in "On Being a Christian," the Virgin Birth is a "collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary" narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world. Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel). Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians. I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. And I don't pretend to know why America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world. But I do think that we're in the middle of another religious Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society. But mostly, I'm troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I've spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain. Nicholas D. Kristof is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times.
The virgin bitrh is a nice story, but that's all it is. A story. I just don't believe those stats... oomp
Sadly, I don't think the stats are funky ... There is some evidence to suggest that the pre-evangical Jesus bible stories have their roots in much earlier Greek and Indian stories/myths.
No Worries -- or how about from the Book of Isaiah, which is quoted extensively in the New Testament...it talks very specifically about a virgin birth.
There is also eveidence to suggest that Mary may have been raped by a Roman Centurion--Obviously she would be "un-clean" by the Semetic laws of the time. If that were true, I can't think of a better way for God's son to enter existance on the earth as he left it--by an act of cruelty. It's more fitting to the nature of Jesus' message and his defence of the down-trodden, poor, diseased etc... Most likely, the man was never witnssed by more than a couple of thousand people, yet look at how his message spread. I'm one of those wacky Episcopalians who believes in evolution. Rich stuff, I think....
As soon as I get the reference you will be the first to know--that knowledge was aquired second hand by a Priest I knew, I can understand your dubiouness....
yeah...i mean..."new" evidence about events that purportedly happened 2,000 years ago should be met with some skepticism.
Does it matter whether the stories are 'factual' in a literal sense?? To me it doesn't. Not one little bit. It's the ideas, the spirituality, the philosophies and beliefs represented by the stories that inspire me. But, I'm not as versed in religious thinking as many of you. So -- bible thumpers out there (totally meant in jest -- it's been a long week) -- do you find it useful or interesting at all to debate the did she or didn't she literally, and would you be any less fomfotable if you learned some of the events depicted were parables and representations rather than documentaries
the virgin birth is not necessary for me...i believe it happened...but if it didn't, it doesn't shake my faith in who Jesus was.
There is no new evidence of this claim...there is a new construction of known 'facts' which suggests that this interpretation might explain facets of the biblical account of the virgin birth, Joseph's initial reluctance to marry, er Mary, the pariah status they seem to have had, and the fact that Joseph 'forgave' her her pregnancy while knowing he was not the father. It is possible that a man might have forgiven her, and that the couple would then have had to leave the community, as happened, because no matter Joseph's opinion, a woman raped by a Roman would have been ostracized from her Hebrew family and community. This is a theory which has been recently proposed, not a new revelation of evidence.
I like how he compares the decline of Episcopalians (read: smart Christians) with Pentecostalists (i.e., stupid Christians). And, I assume when he says his father was a devout Presbyterian elder, he means in the PCUSA and not the PCA, which would run him out if they heard him say the Virgin Birth is a fiction and evolution the reality. And, in my vast experience, churches don't get much more intellectual than the Presbyterians. This idea of his that belief in the Virgin Birth stems from a lack of critical thinking is half-baked. Even so, these statistics make me wonder about a wag-the-dog phenomenon. If we're really so Christian in this country, why has evolution in class and eliminating God from our coins gained so much ground? With numbers like this guy is reporting (and, of course, he doesn't describe the methodology), you'd expect Christians to give all that nonsense a smack-down.
I misspoke then, I never intended to suggest that it was a new "revelation"--only that I had some loose knowledge of the reference and you filled in the holes nicely...
Because it's my belief. Like the Illiad or Odyssey the entire Bible is a fantastic historical document. You can get a real sense of the times and beliefs that were prevalant to the writers who wrote them, at the time they wrote them (which in the Bible's case is several years removed). That doesn't mean that they are true though. \ Does Medusa exist? No. Virgin birth? No. I am convinced because I attended a very religious college with a top notch religion dept. I studied Islam and the Apocrypha from a guy who actually helped translate the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am by no means an expert, but if I had any inkling of religious belief going into those classes, they were blown out the window by the time the trimester ended. oomp
And the eastern (Indian) myths pre-date Isaiah. There is a very strong possibility that Judaish borrowed heavily from existing religions as it developed.
This Gallup poll on evolution in the classroom suggests a more widespread acceptance of evolution. Also, Gallup apparently charges for access to older polls. I am assuming that this is accurate.
The article you linked shows 47% favoring the belief that humans sprank up in the past 10,000, and 49% for the evolution side, taking a million or more years to produce humankind. We know we didn't pop up within the last 10,000 years, but we did pop up some time before that. We sprang up 200,000 years ago, made a significant leap 35,000 years ago, and have been virtually unchanged since then. Some believe in "intelligent design" - which does not accept the Biblical version represented by the 47%, but does not accept the evolution version accepted by 49% either. Some believe the Biblical version is correct in a sense - it describes creation in a somewhat literal sense. I believe it has most of the details wrong, most of the timing wrong, and it has a world of mythology and borrowed stories. Something created us, - we didn't just happen. Whether our creator is God as he is known in the Bible, or something from Orion's Belt or beyond is open to debate. The jump from ape to Neanderthal man is too radical to be the result of evolution. The appearance of Cromagnon is not explicable by evolution.
In the same drawer as the evidence that the "real killers" from the OJ mess are on a golf course in Florida.
