Unbelievable. Whenever I read about these End Times kooks, I wonder what is wrong with people.
For some Christians this means laying the groundwork for Armageddon.
With that goal in mind, mega-church pastors recently met in Inglewood to polish strategies for using global communications and aircraft to transport missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission: to make every person on Earth aware of Jesus’ message. Doing so, they believe, will bring about the end, perhaps within two decades.
The article is full of red heifers and rebuilt temples and urgent conversions to satisfy prophecy and lunatics anxious to usher in the apocalypse. These people are insane.
…Bill McCartney, a former University of Colorado football coach and co-founder of the evangelical Promise Keepers movement for men, which became huge in the 1990s, has had a devil of a time getting his own apocalyptic campaign off the ground.
It’s called The Road to Jerusalem, and its mission is to convert Jews to Christianity—while there is still time.
“Our whole purpose is to hasten the end times,” he said. “The Bible says Jews will be brought to jealousy when they see Christians and Jewish believers together as one—they’ll want to be a part of that. That’s going to signal Jesus’ return.”
Jews and others who don’t accept Jesus, he added matter-of-factly, “are toast.”
Sizzle, sizzle. Ha ha, if you don’t accept my kooky beliefs, my Impossible Space Monster will destroy you. And it’s not just Christians…all the children of Abraham get in the act of mutual hatred.
…in what has become a spectacular annual routine, Jews—hoping to rebuild the Holy Temple destroyed by the Romans in AD 70—attempt to haul the 6 1/2 -ton cornerstones by truck up to the Temple Mount, the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock shrine. Each year, they are turned back by police.
Among those turned away is Gershon Solomon, spokesman for Jerusalem’s Temple Institute. When the temple is built, he said, “Islam is over.”
Oh, and Ahmadinejad is in there with his own delusions of an all-conquering Muslim messiah. They’re nuts, too.
There’s the usual roster of American evangelical dorkwads…and an appalling statistic.
According to various polls, an estimated 40% of Americans believe that a sequence of events presaging the end times is already underway. Among the believers are pastors of some of the largest evangelical churches in America, who converged at Faith Central Bible Church in Inglewood in February to finalize plans to start 5 million new churches worldwide in 10 years.
“Jesus Christ commissioned his disciples to go to the ends of the Earth and tell everyone how they could achieve eternal life,” said James Davis, president of the Global Pastors Network’s “Billion Souls Initiative,” one of an estimated 2,000 initiatives worldwide designed to boost the Christian population.
“As we advance around the world,” Davis said, “we’ll be shortening the time needed to fulfill that Great Commission. Then, the Bible says, the end will come.”
Hasn’t this gone far enough? Where are all the rational people who look aghast at this nonsense and tell these people that there is something wrong with them? I keep hearing about these good Christians who practice a sensible and healthy religion—what do you do when your neighbors or friends or family or minister starts babbling about Armageddon? Do you sit quietly and hold your tongue, for politeness’ sake? Is that how this kind of absurdity is allowed to grow?
Do me a favor. It’s a big favor, and we need everyone to join in. Next time your brother, or your sister-in-law, or your grandmother, or some guy in the booth next to you at the coffeeshop, starts talking about the Rapture or the End Times or the Second Coming or whatever crap they want to call it, just stand up, turn to them, and say loudly and clearly so everyone around you can hear it,
And walk away. Treat them as the pariahs they should be.
This will be especially effective if you do it in your church.
Don’t argue with them. Don’t waste any effort on them. Just make your contempt loud and clear. It’s not hard. And when the conversation with others turns to those nitwits, don’t wrestle with their mental problems at all. Just say,
It’s a message we need to get out there more.
Hey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Clyde Lott, James Davis, John C. Hagee, Bill McCartney, Gershon Solomon, Ted Haggard, and all you other hucksters, con artists, televangelists, delusional wackos, self-styled prophets, and agents of ignorance and doom:
You can also start singing this song if they go off on one of their other obsessions.
I’m actually getting people in the comments telling me that this brusque dismissal is inappropriate: I’m supposed to engage these loons in serious debate. Look, people, I’ve met a few of them. You have to realize that you are proposing a rational discussion with a guy who believes that the all-powerful god of the cosmos is waiting for him to butcher the exactly right cow, and then this deity will come to earth and engage in a holy war against the people who eat bacon and clams. That is, he is a demented fuckwit.
I can tell you exactly what will happen if you engage him. He will quote Bible verses at you with absolute certainty. He will recite well-practiced dogma over and over again. He won’t falter, he won’t doubt, he won’t think. And your audience will be impressed at his unwavering command of the “facts,” and that you, O Wise and Rational Science Guy, think his story is worth arguing about, as equals.
Jason:
Is there no overlap between “atheist skeptics/critics” and “serious, educated, intelligent, rational scholars”, or is this a black-and-white dichotomy?
It’s certainly true that many “serious, educated, intelligent, rational scholars” (even Christian ones) accept that there are amazing similarities between Christianity and the Mysteries. Some go so far as to suggest that some parts of the Gospels may have been based on the story of Mithras, and others take the route of Justin Martyr in the 2nd Century, and declare that the story of Jesus was plagarised in advance by Satan so that people would be unsure as to which was Truth.
If you’ve studied the Mystery religions, you’ll know it’s nearly impossible to find a single point in which Jesus differs from Mithras. The similarities between them and Attis, Osiris, Thoth, Turana, and a dozen other godmen of the near east are also very striking.
Any serious, educated, intelligent, rational scholar would have a great deal of difficulty denying this.
Why not? That is what it was called by the early commenters of the day. It has grown since but it started out as all movements of the like do.
This has nothing to do with the claims contained therein but it is an accurate usage of the word, especially at the origin point.
to M Petersen,
Kudos on your stamina, as well as your even-tempered responses.
Of the 3-4 books you mentioned for the ‘historical’ Jesus, I have at hand only Michael Grant’s JESUS: an Historian’s Review of the Gospels (It’s not ‘Michale’ as you wrote, and my copy is dated 1977). Grant is a generally credible author for Classical history (he died in ’04; his obit in the London Times, linked to from his wikipedia entry, is fascinating).
In JESUS, he generally supports evidence of such an historical figure but is adamantly ambivalent about any supernatural claims.
For this thread though I emphasize Grant’s carefully chosen theme for his opening chapter: the pervasive zeitgeist of that generation of Jews and early Christians that they were then living in end times. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem was certainly supportive.
But they were wrong, as Grant emphasizes, although their belief shaped the core nature of Christianity – it explains its lack of interest in social justice issues, for example.
And there’s been two thousand years of wrong prophecies since. I’m surprised no one except wintermute has brought this history into the thread. It’s easily found via a Google on ‘failed prophecy end times’
64 FAILED END-OF-THE-WORLD PREDICTIONS BEFORE 1990
Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians
End times — Part of a series on Christian theology
Several historical/psychological studies have been made of groups which bet their farms on rapture, whether from Christian logic or the arrival of UFO’s. Both are discussed here:
End-Time Prophesy
–discusses 1950’s book WHEN PROPHESY FAILS, whose authors (Festinger et al) then developed notion of ‘cognitive dissonance’. This is part of a large museum exhibit about American Milllenial movements – shown in 1999, naturally enough.
I see M. Petersen had to go off to do real work. Come visit again after some sleep and reflection. And/or have a nice apocalypse – whichever comes first.
You see that on the news??? Must be some channel I don’t get.
This is a real news channel you’re talking about, right?
Ah, Fred Phelps and his merry band of fools. Yep, they really represent the entirety of Christianity, don’t they? I mean, they represent it better than the Christians who are the family, friends, and others who pay their last respects to the soldiers, right?
No, you don’t see them denying science. You see them denying people’s ideas and beliefs.
Hardly. They may want fair participation in the government, but “participation” does not equal “control.”
I don’t either, because religion isn’t what will make the world a better place. People having their hearts changed will make the world a better place.
This comment makes no sense. There is only one Jesus.
“Moral” by whose standards?
but he is dead. you can’t have the ghost without the death.
and you can’t have heaven or hell without dying.
Death Cult.
I have seen news pieces and documentaries on demented fuckwits that think the End TImes are near. Health clinics and doctors have been attacked in order to stop abortions.
Fred phelps is a christian. And I’m not saying any of these things are what MOST christians do or feel. But they are done in the name of christianity. And they claim that the bible gives them moral guidance.
So apparently these people see a different Jesus and God than you do.
Moral by my standards. I’m a moral person and I don’t need Jesus to be moral. No one does.
Evolution is science. They are denying science. What a bunch of silliness you spew. A science that is used everyday by thousands of biologists is just ideas and beliefs to you. Wasn’t it you some time up in the thread was arguing about how only theologians should talk about theology but here you dismiss science done by scientists. Ahh the dicotomous mind.
Actually it makes alot of sense and if you read more you would know this has been a staple of pyschology and, egads, theology for some time. People tend to gravitate towards the views they find most comfortable. Caring people relate and find Jesus caring, authoritarian types find in him that and so forth. So the comment makes sense to those that are informed.
Exactly, since most of the world is non-Christian and remain moral even the largesly atheistic and secular nations one may even begin to think our morality exists independently of any supernatural belief but rather is a product of the primate group dynamic we evolved from still present in a varianated form.
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2056.html
The Japanese seem very moral to me. Not alot of christians there.
Frost:
Christianity is the classic American way of dealing with fear and despair. Notice I did not say that all despair must lead to Christianity. But I would not be surprised if Christianity becomes increasingly attractive to anti-muslim racists and extremisms in Europe.
The REAL phenomenon is despair, and Christianity is just the tool that canalizes it. It could be something else. Communism, Nazism?
Last time I looked there was a legal nazi rally going on in germany. I’m told that if you are a “dark head” you must keep clear from several places unless you are looking to get killed.
“What do you mean by this? That some entity capable of controlling the world has to exist?”
Well of course, man, good grief. Any state as powerful as the US will want to make sure it dominates, that it is at the front, the best, the superior. To have their interests well-protected. Every leader of a big country knowns it is his obligation to somwhow bring it up another notch. And I’m not talking about silly secret conspiration groups meeting in dungeons and making funky rituals. No, what I’m talking about is quite plain to see. Its public, collective. But you need believable excuses, banners. You know, God, democracy, freedom and why not? Scientific superiority. We’re the best, no? The kind of arrogance and self-righteousness that allows us to run over the inferior at the slightest excuse and without too much remorse.
“There’s only presumption and megalomana as far as I can see.”
You are wrong. Religiosity increases when man feels unsatisfied with his world, such that it cannot be the “real” world. He therefore seeks refuge in the other world, and lives this world as a bad and temporary trial, a non-authentic, fake existence. The other world is the REAL world, the good one.
Rather, presumption and megalomania are hardly a brand of religion. In fact, if you analize history, presumption and megalomania of the “establishment” always precedes and kindles rebellions and revolutions. The emergence of Christianity in the 1st century is in part a response to the arrogance and megalomania of the Romans. And Christianity, as I said, is all about belittling man and his knowledge, a basic distrust from all that is established (just look at M Petersen) such that only god, and not man, can be trusted.
“The Japanese seem very moral to me. Not alot of christians there”
Bible belt states like Texas have far more murders, rapes, divorces, and other social pathologies than places like Librul Gay-Marriage Massachusetts.
*****************************************************
The film takes us back to the camp, where the children are gathered for their daily teaching. Suddenly, a camp counselor places a life-size cardboard cutout before the group. No, it’s not Jesus. It’s George Bush. Clapping erupts and Becky encourages them to “say hello to the President.” Becky claims that “President Bush has added credibility to being a Christian.”
**********************************************
Squeaky:
Clearly, they love money and power above justice and fairness.
***********************************************************Impatientpatient:
YUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jason and MP,
Why aren’t you praying for the rapture to be delayed? The longer the delay the larger the probability that people will hear the gospel more than once, isn’t it? (or is it enough that they simply hear it once, regardless of source?).
After the rapture the 5 *billion* people left will be in a horrifying situation, where *billions* will be killed by the events of the tribulation.
Why aren’t you actively trying to stop the people who want to speed up the rapture- the people wanting to rebuild the temple, have a red heifer, etc.? Are none of these things necessary for the rapture to happen?
As I asked MP earlier, it should make no difference at all to the saved when the rapture happens- what difference does a few decades delay make when even 10,000 years is like nothing in the face of eternity? But since it has an overwhelming effect on 5 billion people, the saved should be wanting to delay the rapture and to do nothing to make it happen sooner.
“No. I’m just watching, waiting and helping to spread the Gospel.”
“I have not prayed for it to be delayed, I pray for people to be saved. It’s not a question of time, a key requirement before the end of the world, is that the message will be preached throughout the world. If people will believe, and God knows whether and when they will, they will have plenty of time to accept Him because God has already delayed it to save more people.”
‘”President Bush has added credibility to being a Christian.”‘
Hah! If there were ever and credibility to this most fradulent and destructive of all religions (as Mencken said) this vignette alone would destroy it.
Any religion that regards Bush as a decent, godly man is a priori a steaming pile of horse pucky.
And to those who think insulting is the way, you don’t have much capacity of analysis, huh? In the human sciences, squeaky is right, your “brilliant proposal” would make you the dunces, the whipping boys and laughstock.
Only you guys wouldn’t know. What else can we expect for people whose greatest achievement of “human rationalism” for confronting religion is to call them “demented fuckwits”?
It is just plain INHUMAN. But no suprise. PZ has already said “I’m proud of being non human” You know, JUST the kind of guy the evolution movement needed, yeah. The petulant scientist that is proud of being inhuman, right. Just what we want them to think of scientists.
Rather than taking a higher perspective and analizing the problem in social terms to find a solution, the “insulters’ are quite happy with just being part of the problem, wearing the stripes of the team and making lots of noise and insults. Who cares if another christian president comes along? Who cares if the supreme court of the US becomes packed with more christians wanting to unite church and state? Who cares if evolutionary science must pay for the broken plates? Right now, they are just having a HELLUVA time insulting and scaring christians!!!!!! And they dont care about the consequences,cause they are sooooo right.
But you guys are not, you are dead wrong on maaany points. Insulting is just one of them. Thats why you guys hurt the cause. Badly. And though you don’t know, I’m telling all ya childish bullies: You are NOT entitled to any of the inhuman behaviour you think you are. You just ain’t so wonderfully smart. You are just arrogant.
“And to those who think insulting is the way, you don’t have much capacity of analysis, huh? In the human sciences, squeaky is right, your “brilliant proposal” would make you the dunces, the whipping boys and laughstock.”
One more time. [Takes a deep breath]. We do not think insulting people who can be reached is a good tactic. The DFs are beyond redemption, no matter how much you would wish otherwise, and they are bent on repealing the Enlightenment, retarding science, shredding the Constitution, wrecking the environment, and killing innocent people for their imaginary sky buddy of choice’s delectation. The proper response to them is saeva indignatio, scorn, and and unsparing satire. Calling them DF is shorthand for all that. We do use reason and facts to try to reach the reachable, as multiple posts here amply demonstrate. The viciousness of the Right cannot be countered with wussified make-nice politesse, however. We’ve tried that. No more Mr./Ms. Nice Liberal, thank you.
AV. You’re such a baby. Sounds like your blaming the non-christians for the problems the U.S. has. And then you start insulting us. Who’s the righteous arrogant one now?
Childish bullies. Inhuman. Not smart. Arrogant.
How uncouth.
You fail to acknowledge that we’re talking about the extremist in the public praying for armageddon…
( jews and others who don’t accept Jesus, he added matter-of-factly, “are toast.”)
And you have no proof that it wouldn’t have a positive effect.
You just assume it would hurt the cause. I think George Carlin might disagree.
I could see him saying “These people are DEMENTED FUCKWITS! Are they serious? IS anyone listening to them?”
oh my virgin hears…
Jesus. I’m away for a few hours, and I have a hundred comments to read.
I don’t acknowledge a god, and I have no idea how to comprehend the reasoning behind a god who condones stoning raped virgins. The benchmark I use is my own morality. If I were God, would I allow these things to happen?
I am not excusing myself from responsibility. Look, I don’t actually blame things on God. I am atheist. I am simply pointing out that if you believe in a god like the Christian God, then it is only logical that your god is the cause of all suffering on Earth. My reaction to suffering is much like that which you recommend. I use my brains, intellect, compassion, love, and empathy to combat suffering. I do this not because of what God promises or threatens, but because of my own morals. (Insert some point about Kohlberg’s stages of moral development here.)
Squeaky, I completely agree with you that we should use the brains and intellect that millions of years of evolution (or God) gave us. This is why I feel it is my duty to be skeptical and to question contradictions and fallacies inherent in all religions.
how insulting!
And, AV, if a little harsh language is what it takes to wake people up to the danger posed by these people, then so be it.
(If you think posters here are “unseemly”, go check out the Rude Pundit.) Moi, I think we need more of that, not less!
Shoot, got sucked in again. I think the problem may be that those few decades will make no difference in who accepts and who does not, but I cannot say for sure. The making it sooner part only affects the time Christians must spend here. Though I’m not sure that we could even speed it up, all of these events will happen when God has foreseen them to happen and the rapture will happen when God has determined it will happen.
Why does the speeding up or slowing down concern you though if there is no God?
If you wish to call the rapture rubbish, that’s your choice, and I understand where you are coming from — but why do you care?
Some here say:
– there is no God
– the Bible is a fable written by men for their own evil gain
– Jesus never existed, never claimed to be God, never died, or most certainly never rose from the dead
That’s your assessment. I highly doubt any authentic Christian will do anything stupid just to speed up the end of the world (i.e. launching a nuke) that would hurt others. Some crazy person might, but not a Christian. The Bible has been used numerous times to support craziness, I agree. But the message of the Bible, taken in context, does not support it. The Bible itself is not to blame here, but rather those who take it out of context and use it for evil.
Why didn’t God create other gods? Maybe because He didn’t know how or wasn’t able to. No, that’s not an option.
Maybe because then His creations wouldn’t obey all those instructions He put into that book and worship Him at the expense of facing reality? Because then He’d have to share all the glory? Because then His creations wouldn’t possess the ignorance to explain everything unknown with “It was He”? Because then He wouldn’t be able to exert complete control over people’s lives and afterlives?
I find all of these explanations unsatisfactory.
Then again, nothing about an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god was ever plausible to me.
So I’ve thought long and hard, and since you seem to understand God’s motives, I’d like to know your answer, Jason.
Well I realize that if I called you names, Its the language you understand. You would respecte me because I would be one of you. And belive me, I do feel like doing so. I do think you guys ruin everything, and you piss me off. I nevertheless try to bite my tongue, with more or less success. Plainly giving into that garbage is just too easy.
You guys think you are valiant princes off to fight an inquestionable, unmistakable horrible monster. Yeah, you fight the good fight, you knights of reason. All you need to do is insult and all your problems will go away, right.
Its a little more complex than that. The folks that reelected Bush do not have horns and fangs. Wake up, kids.
Actually I think it would be pretty simple to make a historical sociological argument that arrogant and confused guys who thought were defending evolution have played a major role in conflating this whole mess. It takes two to tango.
A few pieces of information for you guys to chew on:
1) The neodarwinian synthesis, towards the impecable and modernist times of the postwar 50’s, had become a triumphalist and frivolous bunch that underwent a dogmatic hardening of its ideas around Darwinism. Read Gould’s fat book.
2) Starting in the 60’s (along with social revolution, what a coincidence) the stubborness of the synthesis began to be resented as a result of data of the new molecular biology and a true renaissance of paleontology and evolutionary developmentla biology. It became plain the completeness of the scheme the darwinians were congratulating themselves about was not real. Enough to mention its total neglect of development, discarded as “non-evolutionary proximal mechanism” or ” Typological thinking”
Though we still don’t recover totally from the synthesis, the falsehood of its previous self-assurance did not go unnoticed, by scientists and creationists
3) The most adamant cultural warriors, like Dawkins, Dennet, Wilson stuff their mouths with rationality and put the citizen between the sword and the wall: Either you believe in god, or you believe in evolution. Despite the pride with which they speak of rationality, all of these guys are known to be extremist ultradarwininians and their ideas are not only controversial, but to many evolutionary biologists, juts pure BS. They are the true heirs of the bleak ultradarwinism of the synthesis. Specially dawkins and dennet have done very little for science and more abut selling paperbacks anbd picking the flag of reson to fight religion. Thtat is, placing unnecesary mixture and burden of evolution with religion.
4) you guys LOVE Dawkins, don’t ya?
thwaite wrote:
Yeah, after reviewing them, I don’t think they get to what I was asking for either. My own sense of the situation is that the DF strategy (1) works to energize the committed base, (2) doesn’t do much positive to change the minds of the uncommitted middle, and (3) may even harden the contrary opinion of the committed opposition.
This is all rather speculative on my part, though it is derived from my experience of arguing a Pyrrhonian skeptical position on various religious forums. And from reviewing the comments above.
Perhaps a more effective strategy would be:
– Come up with better cures for mental disorders and diseases
– Work to clarify what the Bible actually says
Rather than attempting to prove it’s not true, this may prove easier in working to help your DFs.
They are not my DF’s they are yours.
AV. What are you going on about? I don’t get it. PZ has never said the only way to deal with christians or religion is to call them all Demented Fuckwits.
Watch the 2nd and 3rd Lewis Black clips I posted and then come back and we can have a conversation. He illustrates EXACTLY the attitude we would like to take.
Dawkins does support confrontation. But if you watch some of his clips you will see he is very civil. But he’s unflinching.
M Peterson-
Did you confuse me with another commenter?
You asked “Why does the speeding up or slowing down concern you though if there is no God?”
I’ve only posted questions to you about your thoughts on the rapture. I’ve not written about the other things you seem to think I have.
Let me put this into the form of a story:
I live in a company town with about 6,000 residents, where 1,000 residents are employed by that company. Part of the employment contract is to get as many of the other residents to join the company and become employees of it.
After certain buildings in the town are rebuilt, and after everyone in the town has been told the news of how they too can join the company, then the CEO is going to destroy the town and rebuilt it in a new land.
The CEO will be using fire, floods, and other methods to tear away the old town, and many of the 5,000 remaining residents will die in its destruction. Almost all of those 5,000 remaining residents will suffer greatly during the destruction time, and their suffering might make it difficult for them to accept employment from the company.
If you’re an employee, you’ll get bused out before the CEO starts.
Given what’s going to happen to the 5,000 people, what should I ask of the CEO the next time I talk with him?
Dawkins may be civil, but he is wrong. He has presented a dichotomy: irrational religion, vs. atheism, the only rational conclusion. In the name of science, and specially, evolution.
Is Dawkins just “plain right” about his? What it does is it pitches us unnecessarily against religious people with an arguent for atheism that is rotten at the root. That science and reason have disproven god. As if they COULD have proven god!
Nice metaphor.
That Root of All Evil clip is more about morals. I like it alot.
This looks at the other side.
Why is he wrong?
I highly doubt he has said science has proven that god does not exist.
“Though we still don’t recover totally from the synthesis, the falsehood of its previous self-assurance did not go unnoticed, by scientists and creationists”
Oh, pleeeze. All your history lesson has demonstrated is that science is, after all, self-correcting (unlike religion!)
The fundies would be touting creationism regardless of what attitudes scientists took in the fifies; they did before the grand synthesis “hardened” as you say, and they did after.
They still do, because their whole world-view stands or falls on whether or not the bible is the inerrant, literal word of god. Other sciences, such as geology, astronomy and physics also falsify their beliefs, but they have traditionally fixated on “Darwinism” as the battlefield for their last stand. Don’t blame the victim.
We reason with those who can use their brains, and dismiss the fanatics as the dumbasses (or DFs) that they are. No point in arguing with nutcases; I know, I’ve tried it.
Who’s the intolerant one here?
Yes, Dawkins is just plain right. He does not claim to have disproven God; how often are you going to continue to make that completely bogus objection?
Well of course you never have had any resukts from arguing with a nutcase becasue you yourself are a nutcase too. One that believes in insults, and uses them shamelessly.
Dawkins says faith and reason are incompatible. And he says things and then “unsays” them. Or he lays the whole thing out but hasn’t got the balls to ignite the match, to draw the ultimate conclusion. He expects you to do that on your own. He is an extremist hiding behind disclaimers and unfinished arguments. Although he does say some pretty silly things straightforwardly too.
I think not one of us has not stopped at some phrase and said “well, I can’t agree with dawkins on that one”. Unless you are totally lost in his cunning-poser grin.
My point is we have quite a bunch of bad scientists, ultradarwinian and smug, who have found sense in their lives by swiniging to battle aginst religion in the name of reson (barf) Our own darling extremists.
People like this insist so much on natural selection and reson, that when many a poor biologist or layman thereafter finds something selection cannot explain, he believes he is witnessing something as incredible as jesus walking on water, “mechanisticaly unexplainable”, rolls his eyes to heaven and goes on to be an ID supporter.
If you think you know more than what you know, and procalimit to be the flower of reason and science, you invite people to intepret that which escapes from your framework as something science “can’t” explain. And most atheists a la dawkins feel they only have to point with the finger to whatever organic phenomenon and say in a grave voice “it is the result of natural selection!”. That is Ultradarwinism. Selection as mushy, all-purpose ideology. Even creationists can see something wrong is going on.
This thing of only science correcting itself is baloney. If you were just a little bit more respectful for history or social sciences you would know that not all religion is a short lived marginal sect that succumbs rather than change. Specially not so for those with massive followings, which are the ones that concern us. On the contrary, history documents quite striking changes and corrections that religion undergo according with the times. Are you uninformed enough that you need me to list a few?
“Ultradarwinism.”
That’s a funny word.
Why did dawkins talk almost exclusively to a long list of purebred religious crackpots for his video? Why didn’t he interview the dalai lama, the vaticans astronomer?
Cause to prove something as silly as “the root of all evil” you need to make a strawman, you build a teeny tiny small fence that you know you can jump.
J, you obviously know nothing aboutthe term Just can’t be such a thing as too much darwin, huh? The term is by Gould. Read him.
The other thing is that these guys obsessed with bad cultural war inevitably let their debates with creationists affect the way they think about science, as in response to their questions. However unconsciously, they are letting the creationsist establish their agenda of scientific topics.
In addition to being persuasive I find Dawkins remarkably consistent in his arguments. I would very much like to know what AV believes Dawkins says and later “unsays”.
roger: That was just restating the assertion. But thanks anyway, I didn’t expect more. The problem, of course, with “outside the universe” is that it is either radically false or out and out incoherent, depending on whether you take it “universe” to mean “outside our hubble volume” (the sloppy use of some physicists) or “everything that is”.
paleotn: Actually it is worse than that. Not only is it pretty obvious that the Josephus passage is a rather bad forgery, there are actual statements in the NT that go against Jesus having been on earth. (See Hebrews 8.) For more see also the work of Earl Doherty and others.
Steve_C: Ahem. One’s philosophy should be about reality … :)
M Petersen: More evidence for Jesus than Plato and Aristotle? You have got to be joking. And what makes you think that everything came from somewhere? (This, as a moments reflection should suggest, is self contradictory.)
PZ Myers: And an bastardization of Judaism, Neoplatonism and Stoicism.
MP,
“I do not question the existence of Aristotle, Plato, or Alexander. But also, neither does any serious historian question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.”
Others here has expounded more on this. I will merely repeat the relevant part of my earlier comment on your reasoning:
You want to show us convincing evidence to accept that christian beliefs are correct. There are text evidence from several sources that a person “Jesus” existed. That is all.
The only text that mentions remaining “facts” are biblical. That is as much worth as anecdotal evidence, ie not reliable. Here you must present evidence worthy of the science you are judged against (as in correct above). Science doesn’t accept anecdotal evidence.
Alexander,
“Well of course you never have had any resukts from arguing with a nutcase becasue you yourself are a nutcase too. One that believes in insults, and uses them shamelessly.”
??? Are you refering to PZ or Dawkins? Either way, using insults doesn’t make a nutcase.
“Dawkins says faith and reason are incompatible.”
That is a fair statement. How do you make the naturalism (observations) of science compatible with the dualisms of religion (supernaturalism, soul) or its reliance on authority?
“And he says things and then “unsays” them.”
You make some remarks on Dawkins that doesn’t really comes to much, except this one Can you give examples?
“And most atheists a la dawkins feel they only have to point with the finger to whatever organic phenomenon and say in a grave voice “it is the result of natural selection!”. That is Ultradarwinism. Selection as mushy, all-purpose ideology.”
It isnt an ideology, it is a scientific theory of evolution. The theory purports to be able to explain everything organic. (“Common descent with modification”.) Naturally we try that theory until it is proved to fail.
You are ultraconflating here. There are a lot of scientists outside biology that are atheists too, and there are a lot of extremist atheists that aren’t scientists.
“This thing of only science correcting itself is baloney.”
Science, and to a certain degree technology relying on science, has this ability since it relies heavily on observations, all the time iterating theory and practices against them.
Of course other practices does so too, but in a haphasard and nonverifiable manner. What exactly does it mean by religious “corrections”? How does one measure them and see that they are improvements? Improvements in which sense?
Dawkins, wishy washy? Youbetcha. You have to be if you want to say extremist stuff yet still expect to be taken at least half-seriously.
He makes a whole case for genes rather than organisms as units of selection but he then says both points of view are equally valid, like watching a necker cube. And after hanging the disclaimer he just goes on as if it were all about genes (Gould and Mayr don’t play into his fake postmodern appeasement proposal. To them Dawkins is quite plainly wrong)
Or he uses quite an arsenal of, to my taste, cheesy metaphors…then in a brief instant of lucidity he gives us a lecture on how deceitful and false metaphors can be… and then goes right back to using the metaphors.
And then he titles his video “the root of all evil..” but adds a question mark. Just to remind you it may all be BS, but he wants to say it anyway.
That’s the Dawkins style.
You may think dawkins is very persuasive. Try reading his best phrases, but instead of genes, substitute for the word “zoltron”
“The zoltrons have created us, body and mind…”
“we are but lumbering robots controlled by the zoltrons”
Hi, Alexander Vargas.
I was just commenting on how funny the word “ultradarwinism” was. It looks funny. It’s a funny word.
Don’t shoot! I beg you!
Good Lord.
Dawkins is persuasive in the way that AV is not. The former uses carefully constructed arguments supported by evidence. Like most detractors the latter merely rants about Dawkins’ faulty logic and so forth, but does not provide evidence. So what are the examples of Dawkins reversing his position (“unsaying” things) as was claimed?
And in what way does substituting funny words weaken the selfish gene argument? Easier than coming up with a genuine rebuttal, but again, hardly persuasive.
The term “ultradarwinism” doesn’t get many hits.
First use seems to be Ernst Haeckel 1909. He used it, as Gould later, to attack orthodox neodarwinism for its reliance on natural selection, a mistake Darwin himself didn’t do. ( http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/modern-science/chapter08.html ).
Modern evolution with sexual selection, evodevo et cetera is more than this.
Well of course you never have had any resukts from arguing with a nutcase becasue you yourself are a nutcase too. One that believes in insults, and uses them shamelessly.
??? Are you refering to PZ or Dawkins? Either way, using insults doesn’t make a nutcase.”
No, I was answering to Maitre Alcofriba’s last post where he said “No point in arguing with nutcases; I know, I’ve tried it”.
Of course saying an insult is not unforgivable and many times comprehensible, but you will soon discover it helps you in nothing, and is nothing to be proud of. It is a weakness indulged.
(I feel like I’m talking to eight year olds having to explain such things about insulting).
“Dawkins says faith and reason are incompatible.That is a fair statement. How do you make the naturalism (observations) of science compatible with the dualisms of religion (supernaturalism, soul) or its reliance on authority?”
Cause they have nothing to do with each other. Religion has no business telling science what to do, nor science has any business telling religion what to do. As human endeavors neither science or religion are entirely rational or irrational. And they deal with quite different purposes. They may steal society’s thunder from each other every now and then, society turns more to one, and when it gets tired, it turns to the other. It’s pretty easy to observe in history, though sometimes the turnover may take a while… What Dawkins does is that he misrepresents and underestimates religion gravely. It’s a human-oriented enterprise like any other and as such cannot be “mere superstition” and “irrationality”. Cause humans whether they like it or not are forced to use reason. Think about it.
” You make some remarks on Dawkins that doesn’t really comes to much, except this one Can you give examples?”
See the post above.
“It isnt an ideology, it is a scientific theory of evolution. The theory purports to be able to explain everything organic. (“Common descent with modification”.) ”
I said selection, not common descent with modification. Very different things. And many had already realized common descent with modification before Darwin. Darwinism is the idea that selection is the main force directing organic evolution. Natural selection is not an ideology, it’s a quite plainthing in examples like the peppered moth and darwins finches. But it can be ideologically invoked, in a mushy and imprecise fashion. For example, you can look at the mammalian middle ear and say “aaah such perfect adaptation. The result of the perfecting competition of natural selection”. So? Is it just plainly explained by that? Will you get pissed if a creationist tells you that is not enough? Many would. But you still have not explained how the jaw bones ended in the ear while keeping a functional jaw. You would have to look at fossils to understand that, and understand the role of exaptation. In any complex adaptation, from the bacterial flagellum to the eye, you will find that exaptation is a crucial part of understanding how it came to be.
“Naturally we try that theory until it is proved to fail”
Nonsense. Please let me know what kind of evidence you think would make common descent and modification to be discarded. You will always have to invoke something supernatural or unscientific. I would reach out for a stool to wait for that kind of evidence, and evidence against continental drift, round earth… you know, well established scientific facts.
“You are ultraconflating here. There are a lot of scientists outside biology that are atheists too, and there are a lot of extremist atheists that aren’t scientists”
So? I don’t get why that invalidates my criticism
“Of course other practices does so too, but in a haphasard and nonverifiable manner. What exactly does it mean by religious “corrections”? How does one measure them and see that they are improvements? Improvements in which sense?”
Easy. Toward the XVth century the church recognized the importance of woman and included her importantly. Virgin Mary has realunched in great style, along with several female saints. Just so happens many queens were showing up around the time. Church was moving alongside society.
And then we have the recognition by the church of the fact of evolution. Which helps scientists in many catholic countries breathe more easily as they know they wont have as much problems as in you popeless evangelical countries. They also stay away from a lot of trouble that way.
People are not inclined to believe the arguments put forward by religious people because:
They argue from ignorance (“you can’t prove he doesn’t exist”). Example:
“Maybe you could try to succeed where Lewis failed, and give us a proof of how the Bible isn’t true.” M.Petersen.
They use circular reaoning (“He/It exists because the Bible says so”). Example:
“There are quite a few reasons why the Bible is true, least of which is that the Bible says so.” M.Petersen.
They shift the burden of proof (“your science fails to answer all my questions”). Example:
“Biblical creation offers God as an explanation for what was before my aforementioned starting point. What does evolution offer before the Big Bang?” A.Vargas.
All of these and more have been repeated on this blog over and over and over again. They don’t convince people of anything and they never will.
You lack evidence. See Doug’s comment above.
“I said selection, not common descent with modification.”
I had to back up a comment of yours. It seems you are saying that Dawkins et al aren’t supporting usual evolution, merely orthodox neodarwinism. What is the evidence for that?
“But it can be ideologically invoked, in a mushy and imprecise fashion.”
It is the default explanation. After it is proven invalid, another explanation is attempted. There is nothing special with default hypotheses in biology as opposed to other sciences.
“Please let me know what kind of evidence you think would make common descent and modification to be discarded.”
A rabbit fossil from the Cambrian.
“So? I don’t get why that invalidates my criticism”
A faulty assumption invalidates any argument. Here it means that the atheism of Dawkins is beside the point, obviously.
“Easy.”
You present examples that you say are “corrections”. The first, recognizing “the importance of woman” is indeed a change in the practice and theory of religion. It was a somewhat random reaction to changes in society, not a proactive measure due to a development program within the church (for example reviewing the different groups of society) somewhat similar to working on new theories in science. How much of an improvement it was (measurability) isn’t clear. What rights did women get formally and how much did they get in reality? It exemplifies what I said about “a haphasard and nonverifiable manner”.
The second, recognizing “the fact of evolution” didn’t affect the religion as such. On the contrary you say that it “helps scientists in many catholic countries breathe more easily as they know they wont have as much problems as in you popeless evangelical countries”. This means that also the inappropriate power of the religion didn’t change.
Ooops. My cut and paste was faulty. I repeat:
“It is a weakness indulged.”
I don’t see where you support that an insult makes Maitre a nutcase. Or don’t you believe he had valid reasons for his statement so you think you are replying in kind?
“Religion has no business telling science what to do, nor science has any business telling religion what to do.”
That is a fine wish, but it has nothing to do with reality. I remarked that as both being world views they have several incompatibilities. So a successful science says that other world views have different and questionable tools and practices for no good reason.
Moreover, science is an unconstrained tool to research reality with. It is hard (impossible really) to predict what it can or cannot say. Currently it says that supernatural explanations, souls, origins, vitalism, animism and other dualisms are bad or invalid concepts. That is incompatible with the core of religions.
“It’s a human-oriented enterprise like any other and as such cannot be “mere superstition” and “irrationality”.”
Superstition *is* a very human-oriented enterprise. Religions that incorporates such bad ideas as sin are internally irrational, and such bad ideas as rapture, creationism (all forms) or the above breaks with good practices (science) are externally irrational. Of course there is a rationale behind; that doesn’t make it rational.
“See the post above.”
You lack evidence. See Doug’s comment above.
“I said selection, not common descent with modification.”
I had to back up a comment of yours. It seems you are saying that Dawkins et al aren’t supporting usual evolution, merely orthodox neodarwinism. What is the evidence for that?
“But it can be ideologically invoked, in a mushy and imprecise fashion.”
It is the default explanation. After it is proven invalid, another explanation is attempted. There is nothing special with default hypotheses in biology as opposed to other sciences.
“Please let me know what kind of evidence you think would make common descent and modification to be discarded.”
A rabbit fossil from the Cambrian.
“So? I don’t get why that invalidates my criticism”
A faulty assumption invalidates any argument. Here it means that the atheism of Dawkins is beside the point, obviously.
“Easy.”
You present examples that you say are “corrections”. The first, recognizing “the importance of woman” is indeed a change in the practice and theory of religion. It was a somewhat random reaction to changes in society, not a proactive measure due to a development program within the church (for example reviewing the different groups of society) somewhat similar to working on new theories in science. How much of an improvement it was (measurability) isn’t clear. What rights did women get formally and how much did they get in reality? It exemplifies what I said about “a haphasard and nonverifiable manner”.
The second, recognizing “the fact of evolution” didn’t affect the religion as such. On the contrary you say that it “helps scientists in many catholic countries breathe more easily as they know they wont have as much problems as in you popeless evangelical countries”. This means that also the inappropriate power of the religion didn’t change.
BTW, what does “evangelical countries” countries mean here? Evangelical for what?
My apologies for attributing a particular belief to you that you did not claim.
I understand the premise of the story and I believe I have demonstrated that I understand your point. However, I disagree with it and have stated the reasons why, yet I get no response to what I’ve said.
Let me just recap here:
– Only God knows and controls when the rapture will happen
– God also knows who and when all people will accept or deny Him
– God is patient, not wanting anyone to come to destruction
– The rapture will happen at a certain time such that number of people who accept or deny God is larger than if it were moved either forward or backward in time
– The point at which the rapture will happen is not necessarily the point of no return. It may actually contribute to more people believing after it occurs.
Am I being unclear in explaining my point of view?
A mammal whose genetic information is not coded in DNA.
A given protein (eg hæmoglobin A) in rabbits being more similar to the same protein in chickens than in hares.
Human hands growning out of a completely different embrionic structure than a horse’s foreleg.
A goat giving birth to a cow.
In short, if two creatures appear to be closely related but turn out not to be, then that would be a serious blow for common descent.
Huh? I fail to see how it is self-contradictory — can you explain this further?
Is there not such a thing as causality, The Principle of Cause and Effect? Matter, time, energy don’t just *appear*. Are you trying to say that these things just existed infinitely before the universe began? Is this a serious scientific hypothesis considered by anyone here? Any quantum theorists in the house?
You claim the biblical evidence is anecdotal, why?
From http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/appearances.html:
Professor A.N. Sherwin-White, an eminent historian of Roman and Greek history, has studied the rate at which myths were formed in the ancient Near East. He chides New Testament critics for not recognizing the quality of the New Testament documents compared to the sources he must work with in Roman and Greek history. Those sources are usually removed from the events they describe by generations or even centuries. Despite when they were written though and the typically biased approach of the writers, he says historians can confidently reconstruct what actually happened.
In stark contrast, Professor Sherwin-White tells us that for the gospels to be legendary, more generations would have been needed between the events and their compilation. He has found that even the span of two full generations (50-80 years) is not long enough for legend to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.7 Even the late dating of the gospels meets that criteria, let alone the early dating! In addition, there is no example in history where legendary stories supplanted the historical core in the same geographical location in less than two generations. The legends about Jesus the critics are looking for do exist, but they arose in the second century – consistent with the two-generation time frame discovered by Professor Sherwin-White – when all the eyewitnesses had died off. Thus, the trust-worthiness of the gospel accounts is highly probable because there just wasn’t enough time for mythical tendencies to creep in and prevail over historical fact.
If you don’t like Sherwin-White, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(1919-1983):
John A.T. Robinson
Robinson concluded that New Testament was written before AD 64, partly based on his judgement there is little textual evidence that the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple’s AD 70 destruction. C. H. Dodd, in a frank letter to Robinson wrote: “I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic’s prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud.” [1] Robinson’s call for redating the New Testament was echoed by subsequent scholarship such as John Wenham’s work Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Other subsequent works calling for redating of some or all of the gospels were written by such scholars as Claude Tresmontant, Gunther Zuntz, Carsten Peter Thiede, Eta Linneman, Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard. [2]
In relation to the four gospels dates of authorship, according to Norman Geisler, “Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65.” [3] Robinson went on to state that the book of James was penned by a brother of the Jesus Christ within twenty years of Jesus’ death, that Paul authored all the books that bear his name, and that John, the apostle, wrote the fourth Gospel. Dr. Robinson believed the result of his investigations argued for the rewriting of many theologies of the New Testament.[4] [5]
MPete: You have the little fish.
M Petersen:
He means that there must have been a “first thing” that existed without a cause, or you never have anything that can cause the “first thign” to exist, and thus, nothing can ever be caused to exist.
Many Christians state that it’s completely illogical to imagine the Universe existing without a cause, thus God must exist, without ever explaining why it’s any more logical for God to be the “first thing” than the Universe.
Dear Alexander Vargas,
I left right after my last post last evening, so I didn’t get to see your reasoned and temperate response until this morning. [/snark/]
It wasn’t I who called you names or impugned your ability to think in any of my posts; it was you, sir, who said, “[w]ell of course you never have had any resukts [sic] from arguing with a nutcase becasue [sic] you yourself are a nutcase too”.
Let the record reflect that I did not reply in kind.
You persist in missing the point; we do not start out insulting people and fighting on their own gutter level–it is when and only when they prove themselves to be unable to engage in a reasoned back-and-forth, that we throw up our hands and say, “well, thou art a Demented Fuckwit; begone, sirrah, from my presence, for thou art a waste of time!”
Got it? Good. Allrighty then.
M Petersen:
You may as well believe you are invisible.
Thanks for the recap, M.Petersen:
Let me just recap here:
– Only God knows and controls when the rapture will happen
– God also knows who and when all people will accept or deny Him
– God is patient, not wanting anyone to come to destruction
– The rapture will happen at a certain time such that number of people who accept or deny God is larger than if it were moved either forward or backward in time
– The point at which the rapture will happen is not necessarily the point of no return. It may actually contribute to more people believing after it occurs.
Am I being unclear in explaining my point of view?
Take a break. Come back in a week, a month, a year. Reread your words. Ask yourself if you really, really want to live in a world where anything goes, where beliefs held without any evidence are okay. Do you really want to be in the same camp as the terrorists who think they are going to have lots of virgins in heaven after they blow themselves up? ‘Cause that’s where you are right now. On the fringe. In the fantasy. Lost. WAKE UP!
“I don’t see where you support that an insult makes Maitre a nutcase. Or don’t you believe he had valid reasons for his statement so you think you are replying in kind?”
What is nutty about Maitre is not that he may not be able refrain from insult now and then, but that he BELIEVES in insulting. Which is an extremist crackpot proposal devoid of any realism as far as human relationships go.
“Religion has no business telling science what to do, nor science has any business telling religion what to do.
-That is a fine wish, but it has nothing to do with reality.”
I’m talking about philosophy and logic. You are intrinsically wrong when you go into religious matters and say there is no god, because science nor reason will ever prove or disprove god. The whole “God” issue is none of science’s concern.
“So a successful science says that other world views have different and questionable tools and practices for no good reason.”
Not at all. It just has to display its results. Man does not need to kill religion in order to become more interested in the natural world. Again, you ignore history. The renaissance did not question religion. Actually the relaunching of the greeks occurred first in the heart of the church (specially St Thomas)
“Moreover, science is an unconstrained tool to research reality with. It is hard (impossible really) to predict what it can or cannot say. Currently it says that supernatural explanations, souls, origins, vitalism, animism and other dualisms are bad or invalid concepts. That is incompatible with the core of religions.”
Those are non though-out assertions. Science cannot say anything about the supernatural and does not want to say anything about the supernatural: or it ceases to be science. And why on earth did you include the word ORIGINS along with the ghosts? It seems to me you hide some aberrant self-argument.
“Superstition *is* a very human-oriented enterprise. Religions that incorporates such bad ideas as sin are internally irrational, and such bad ideas as rapture, creationism (all forms) or the above breaks with good practices (science) are externally irrational. Of course there is a rationale behind; that doesn’t make it rational.”
Walking under the ladder is just not comparable with the rationalizations of religion on several moral subjects. Religion is a whole complex social and existential machinery. Superstition is anecdotal.If you underestimate religion you will never see it coming. Some still don’t.
“You lack evidence. See Doug’s comment above”.
Not at all. If you know Dawkins you know what I said is true. With such unsincerity it is hard to keep a discussion.
“I had to back up a comment of yours. It seems you are saying that Dawkins et al aren’t supporting usual evolution, merely orthodox neodarwinism. What is the evidence for that?”
What do you mean by “usual” evolution???. To Dawkins and to most that’s darwinism.
“It is the default explanation. After it is proven invalid, another explanation is attempted. There is nothing special with default hypotheses in biology as opposed to other sciences.”
No. In the example I gave seletion alone simply COULDN’t explin the mammalian middle ear. You need exapatation. So the “default” was in fact incomplete from the beginning. Its not like it was a perfectly good explanation but it just happened to be something else. Because it was an ideological use of selection.
“Please let me know what kind of evidence you think would make common descent and modification to be discarded.”
-A rabbit fossil from the Cambrian.”
How would this refute common descent in favor of some unknown process of sudden appearance of complex organisms? It would show a grave incoherence in the narration of the evolutionary , but science would not suddenly be concerned with the supernatural. Science would still be science.
The old Cambrian rabbit chestnut is like saying that geometry would be refuted by a square circle. Because we know what a circle is and a square is, we can see that would be absurd. Because we know what the Cambrian is, and what rabbits are, we can fabricate an absurd statement. Ultimately it is an unsincere argument. Nobody is expecting a square circle or a cambrian rabbit COULD show up. This is what I the Vargas call “Fake eclectic chap empiricism” and it’s the reason why we have creationists, as I hope you will come to understand.
Think about this. Show an extraterrestrial the Cambrian fauna and slip a rabbit into it. Would he see evidence against common descent? Would he feel the need to invoke the supernatural?
Ok I’m leaving it here for you, but please follow up my next post….
“A mammal whose genetic information is not coded in DNA.
A given protein (eg hæmoglobin A) in rabbits being more similar to the same protein in chickens than in hares.
Human hands growning out of a completely different embrionic structure than a horse’s foreleg.
A goat giving birth to a cow.
In short, if two creatures appear to be closely related but turn out not to be, then that would be a serious blow for common descent.”
Not at all. It means the phyloegenetic tree was wrong, but it by no means implies evidence for any alternative of common descent (the supernatural phenomenon of creation, for instance). It just means that the closest relative of that organism may be another than was previously thought. The two first example shappen, but singletraits do not disprove relatedness. Th goat giving birth to a cow has not ahppend but it would obviously not refute common descent either. It simply does not logically follow.
ALL YA FAKE ECLECTIC EMPIRICISTS!!!! THIS is what you get when you don’t acknowledge that all alternatives to common descent are non scientific, like if evidence “could” refute common descent. You get people thinking they have FOUND such evidence and that it can be scientific to say that common descent is not true. Creationism is the consequence of the sloppy epistemology you yourselves have promoted.
MP wrote:
“This gets back to the question of why is there suffering? I’ve read many posts here that point fingers at God accusing Him of not caring about His creation. If He cared, wouldn’t He have created a perfect world without even the possibility of suffering? However, isn’t it possible that blaming God for our suffering is just a way of excusing yourself from responsibility? Yes, there is suffering in the world. And we shake our fist at God and say, “Why don’t you do something about this?” when perhaps it is God’s intent that WE do something about it. We ask, “Why won’t God do anything about suffering if he is so all powerful and loving?” I would say He did. He created YOU with brains and intellect and gave you the ability to have compassion and love and empathy for the people around you. Yes, there is suffering in the world, but is it more the result of a God who isn’t doing His job, or a people He created who aren’t doing the job He gave them?
Very good point.”
Huh? It is NOT a good point. It is an evasive escape clause that allows you to heap all the praise on your “God,” and place all the blame on people who “are not doing the job He gave them, ” i.e. worshipping your God, in the way you think is right.
Look, I work in a hospital. And I have respect for the positive aspects of a strong faith. I’ve seen religion act as a powerful crutch for families going through very tough times. But I personally “lost” my religion in medical school, when I saw kids with cancer, and kids with other horrible illnesses, suffer, suffer, suffer. Explain to me how that is part of “God’s” plan? Oh, and don’t you dare tell me it is because of something their parents did or didn’t do. Those kids are from every race, religion, and group in the world. Why is it that every time something “miraculous” happens, you people all yell “praise Jesus,” but when something positive fails to happen, Jesus is off the hook? What “job” are people not doing that causes kids to get cancer?
Please notice I refrained from calling you a Demented Fuckwit. (I may have thought it, though.)
Dear Alexander Vargas,
It only dawned on me after fininshing my first cup of coffee this morning that you might have taken my comment about arguing with nutcases as referring to you, personally.
Good Goober, Man, nothing of the kind. I was talking about a certain class of indiduals (let us stipulate that there are actually Demented Fuckwits out there, for the sake of this argument) who are utterly impervious to any fact or argument which contradicts their cherished Weltanschauung.
I speak from bitter experience when I say that arguing with such people is a waste of time which could be better spent plaiting one’s nose hairs or watching reruns of the Dukes of Hazzard. I have always been polite on this thread to M Petersen the person, whom I respect, although I have savaged his beliefs. There’s a big a difference.
Now, having clarified things, I repeat my question: which one of us on this thread has used the very same insulting language which you vociferously condemn, you or I? In a later post, you again referred to me as “nutty”. Well?
Thank you for clarifying that. I would agree here then.
Seems more logical to me.
So what you’re saying is that the universe didn’t actually come into existence a few billion years ago, it was much longer. I guess it was a very dull boring universe before then, and all of the sudden it decided to explode. So it had infinity to distribute matter evenly before it went boom. I have a tough time believing string theory, loop quantum theory, or inflationary cosmology.
A more probable explanation to me is that there exists a creator, who had the power to cause the universe to come into existence and designed all matter, time, and energy.
We all have exactly the same evidence available to us to support either way of thinking. The problem is when we argue about the evidence, we are arguing about our interpretations based on our presuppositions (i.e. starting beliefs). Of course it is sometimes possible just by presenting the evidence, a person could be convinced that a particular scientific argument makes sense for evolution “on the facts”.
My presupposition is that the Bible is true, and that is the basis by which I understand the universe and interpret the facts. Natural selection, genetic drift, etc can be explained just fine and make sense based on the Bible.
What are your presuppositions?
George:
I don’t appreciate being put in the same category as terrorists — and I do not think it’s warranted given my comments.
I am hardly lost at all. I’ve found everything I need in Jesus. Have you found everything you need?
Anyone want to open a book on whether this thread will break 1,000 posts? ;)
Couple of points:
@AVargas: A point of information: Dawkins didn’t actually want to call his series the Root of All Evil. That decision was made by executives at UK’s Channel 4. If you want me to find the citation for that, I can.
Further – The point of Dawkins’ arguments (as I understand them ) that I agree with is that if you use scientific thinking to examine the phenomenon of organised religion, the answer you get is religious belief rests on a foundation that is not based on verifiable evidence. If you want to be scientifically rigourous, then you can’t also be religious. Religion exists, therefore it is open to study by science. Hence the conflict between the two.
@M Petersen: You are very clear in explaining your point of view. The problem I think a lot of people have is with the logic of that point of view.
You say:
“- God also knows who and when all people will accept or deny Him”
Does this count infants or those mentally incapable of understanding the concept and precepts of Christanity?
You also say:
“- God is patient, not wanting anyone to come to destruction”
If he doesn’t want anyone to come to destruction, then why destroy anything? If he can make the perfect world that old mad Apocolypse John tells us about, why not do that in the first place?
This connects with the point that Jason seems to find so laughable – wouldn’t an all-powerful god of love want everyone to have the same advantages as he does – no death, no suffering, infinate compassion? If he can do anything, and is all wise, why the convoluted obstacle course?
Further:
“- The rapture will happen at a certain time such that number of people who accept or deny God is larger than if it were moved either forward or backward in time.”
So it won’t happen until human beings stop being born? Every human that’s born adds to the number of people who can possibly accept or deny god. I mean, doesn’t pulling the plug, say tomorrow, deny all those potential unborn souls a crack at paradise?
Also – it admit I’ve only skimmed the bible, but where is all this in depth rapture information included? Wasn’t there something about not knowing the day or the hour (which contradicts your largest number statement above).
And let me say – I don’t believe in or care about the rapture. What I do care about is that some dangerous people do beleive it to the point where they’re prepared to destroy everyone else on the planet in the misguided attempt to bring about the New Jerusalem. The purpose of debating you here is to attempt (vainly, I think) to point out the logical holes in your belief.
As to Professor Sherwin-White finding that: “even the span of two full generations (50-80 years) is not long enough for legend to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.”
I point to the myths that have grown up around Elvis Presley’s death, the Kennedy Assassination and 9/11. All of these events happened less than 50 years ago and even in this highly literate age, outlandish myths have grown up around them that small groups of people really, honestly believe (see also UFOs, alien abductions, big-foot etcetc). Think of how these myths would have grown and blossomed in a credulous, and largely illiterate world being swept by the conviction that the end times were nigh and that a messiah was coming?
If you don’t think religions can rapidly spring up from little or nothing, then explain Scientology.
And finally:
“The Bible has been used numerous times to support craziness, I agree. But the message of the Bible, taken in context, does not support it. The Bible itself is not to blame here, but rather those who take it out of context and use it for evil.”
Ok – so what context should the good Christian interpret this verse in (from Numbers 31, I beleive):
“Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe’or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
My questions are
(a): Should Christians kill the male children of idolators (say for example Hindus – not that I have anything against Hindus, I hasten to add), kill all non-virigin women, and keep the virgins as slaves?
(b): If not, then why did the god of love allow this into the book of his word?
(c): As he didn’t exercise due diligence in editorial control, aren’t Christians justified in citing this as the word of god to go and commit similar atrocities.
Here’s another verse – same questions:
“So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them–the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city–men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.”
And why does a god of love condone slavery:
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
Should Christians keep slaves?
If not, why not, since your god seems to be quite tolerant of slavekeeping (and beating)?
These are not the actions or the opinions of a god of love.
Keith: The good point part was merely referring to the need for us to do better at curing disease, that’s all. Isn’t that a common goal for us all to strive?
Please read all of my comments on suffering (also regarding how things work together for the ultimate good) – you should find my answer there.
MPETE: When did the bible start to not contradict itself? ;)
Maitre, let’s not obssess. I’m glad you have at least moved to saying that first we talk to them, try and reason; but I still think that when you find the person along this process to to be unassailable, to decide to top it off by shouting “well, you are you demented fuckwit!!” is not only childish, silly, and unnecesary but inhuman and an invitation to complete future mutual exclusion.
This thread is like an itch, you shouldn’t scratch it, but you just can’t help it…
Anyhoo: MP, my good man – if have a problem with the big bang “just happening”, then where did god come from? Was he always “just there”? If you need cause and effect, what’s the cause of god?
When it comes to ultimate beginnings, both science and christianity have a blind spot. The thing that makes the scientific view more convincing to me is that it’s based on observation and evidence, not on a book written by men thousands of years ago.
And though you directed the question at George – I’ll answer by saying that having an atheistic view of the universe based on science does satisfy and fulfil me personally. I know that in a few decades I will cease to be. In the meantime, I hope to spend the time I have well, to try to see things as they truely are, to try to be good to people, not because I expect any reward for it, but because I have empathy with my fellow man. I don’t believe that biological life has any purpose beyond the perpetuation of itself and I don’t think my life has any inherent meaning beyond what I give it. It satisfies me that though what science has discovered I can grasp something of what the world and the universe is. While I don’t have everything I need (a raise and a house in southern Italy would be nice), I don’t feel any need to resort to religion to fulfil the needs I have. Only the real world can provide that.
Paul, this is a long one:
I believe God has mercy on infants, though I do not know the answer to this – it is not mentioned in the Bible.
I believe I answered this question already. I offerred some guesses, but the short version is I don’t know.
Perhaps, again I don’t know.
If you have some time, please look at:
http://contenderministries.org/prophecy/rapturetrib.php
The information is all over the place.
The other thing you’re referring to I think is Matthew 24:36-44
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
I would hardly put these myths in the same category as when some claim the Bible is myth.
Numbers 31 and other verse answers:
(a): No.
(b): Under the old Law, this was the punishment dictated by God. But we are under a new Law, where we must love our neighbour as Jesus loved us and gave His life for us.
(c): No.
Christians should not keep slaves. Please refer to the following article:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/07/mice_can_feel_cagemates_pain.php?utm_source=SB-rightcol&utm_medium=linklist&utm_campaign=internal%2Blinkshare
Peterson- Read this link. It explains suffereing- mouse suffering- and how even MICE can feel another mouse’s pain.
As for suffering- please, please please, once again, tell me HOW EXACTLY unremitting 24/7 non-curable pain is meant to help anyone.
Please.
Because I refuse to believe or accept that.
There is nothing noble in that kind of pain.
There has been nothing noble in my response to it. I have done what I can to help, I have been involved in the whole process, and that is all I can do.
It has not made me a better person. It has not made me a worse person. It has just made it so that life is all fucked up. Completely. Tell me the VALUE of losing one’s job please, because I would like ANOTHER Christian perspective on this. Tell me the value of financial instability please. All the “Christians” I have met during this whole fucking mess have essentially seen it as a judgement from god, or an indication of personal weakness that this happened. The non-theists are the ones in there offering help on a consistent basis. What can I do? What do you need? vs I am praying for you. Hmmm….
What would you say is the value of Christianity here????
Yeah. Please – I am extremely curious as to what the fuck lesson I am supposed to learn through all of this. Please M- you seem to have a hell of a lot of answers- I would like to see one more pertaining specifically to my situation.
Quick question- have you EVER suffered in your life?? I mean like the kind of physical suffering that makes you want to rip off a body part? Have you lived with someone who has?? Cuz, personally, I figure you are a little tiny thing, still wet behind the ears and full of piss and vinegar. Idealistic and all that jazz. Not knowing n awful lot about how fucked up REAL life can get despite the best laid plans of mice and men.
Paul:
Yes, God was just there. He is not limited by time because He created time in the beginning. I need a cause for matter, energy, and time.
Well, then I guess your brain, and your thought processes, are just the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. You don’t even know if you’re making correct statements.
I cannot accept that life has no meaning. I don’t understand why you would care about anything other than yourself, if the only reason we’re here is to perpetuate life.
They seem to like his message AV. And oh no he calls them PSYCHOTIC!!!!
Those people there on the fence are going to be annoyed that he’s being offensive.
More Lewis. His anger and wit make him GREAT.
Maybe you should read Dawkins.
He thinks that Altruism is a trait that is genetically passed down through evolution.
People with a lack of empathy are not desireable to the survival of species.
Maybe we’re just “moral” because we’ve developed that way.
Sometimes people say things way better than I can…..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html
Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.
The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe — at this very moment — that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No.
The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence — and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.
Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.
Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.
As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.
Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is — and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.
Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.
There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion — to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources — is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.
AV: One last piece on Lewis Black. Have you bothered to watch any?
He’s uses the EXACT atittude we want. And he is MAINTSTREAM.
PZ nor any of us are extremists.
Lewis Black? man he ain’t that funny. He is just predictable and partisan hyperbole. Gimme Steve Colbert anyday, much more funny and subtle. He’s hilarious!!
I can’t belive you chose a humorist as your philosophical emblen. A funnier one at least, Steve.
AV,
At the risk of “obsessing”: a close reading of my posts will reveal that all along I’ve advocated reason and respect, with the “nucular option” only as a last resort. At some point, even the best-intentioned debater must realize that some folks are simply not arguing in good faith. An obscenity at that juncture will not make things any worse.
I’m glad you didn’t insult me in your last reply!
Time as we know it has only existed since the Big Bang. Anything that happened before that, happened outside time as we know it, and outside any laws of nature that we can even begin to understand. I’m not suggesting that the Universe exsted before the Big Bang; quite the opposite. I’m suggesting that the Big Bang did not have a cause. Counterintuitive, I know, but hardly forbidden by modern cosmology.
So, if the Universe must have a cause and a creator, why doesn’t the same logic apply to God?
He’s an example of someone who is quite POPULAR for his attitude.
The attitude you claim will hurt the cause.
I don’t care if you find him funny. He proves PZ’s point. Disproves yours.
So quit giving us shit for being CRAZY and EXTREME. We’re not.
Stop being such a pussie.
You’re seriously claiming that the first two points I listed actually exist in nature? That is to say, 1) a major order life form that doesn’t use DNA, and yet otherwise appears to fit neatly into our taxonomy, and 2) an organism such that a given protein is more closely shared with wildly different organisms than with very similar ones.
What are they, and can you provide references? Because I’m 100% sure that such a thing has never been found, and would destroy common descent if they did, simply by proving that there are no relationships between given organisms.
And as for goats giving birth to cows (a known, pre-existing species not especially closely related to goats) not being a disproof of evolution: Evolution clearly states that major changes don’t happen in a single genration, and that a given species won’t evolve again. If this was observed to happen, it would be pretty much a slam-dunk proof of special creation.
As a hint, if someone tells you “this is what would convince me I’m wrong”, it’s mroe productive to see if you can demonstrate the evidence they’re asking for than to simply tell them that they’re lying. If you can show that any of the things I listed exist, then I’ll happily renounce common descent. And I don’t think I’ll be in a minority, either.
M.Petersen said:Yes, God was just there. He is not limited by time because He created time in the beginning. I need a cause for matter, energy, and time.
This is more of the same: everything “just is” the way I say it is. At least be intellectually honest and admit that you are making this up and that you could be wrong.
There is no value in that kind of “Christianity”. In fact, they are treating you exactly as Job’s supposed friends did. Words, and prayer, are cheap.
To those “Christians” I would quote James 2:14-26:
Seriously though, is there anything I can do to help in a tangible way? I am quite serious, if you don’t believe me, put me to the test.
I have suffered myself and personally, it helps me to know that God experiences human suffering also. When you look at a lonely, tortured man on a cross, nails through his hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding, mouth dry, stuck in darkness, you see the suffering of God. Jesus doesn’t just sympathize with human suffering, he knows it first hand.
From John Stott’s book The Cross of Christ:
“I could never myself believe in God if it were not for the cross. In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? The only God I believe in is the one Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the cross”. That is the God for me!”
Everybody is going to suffer in some way. We have no choice about that. The choice we do have is whether we suffer alone or in the hands of a God who is all-powerful and all-loving and whose hands are forever scarred by his own suffering.
So the “answer” to the problem of suffering is not a formula or an intellectual argument, but a relationship with God who is all-powerful yet has suffered and still does suffer with his creatures. But that’s not the end of it, because he not only knows about suffering and death. The Christian God knows about victory over suffering and death, because he conquered it in rising from the dead. One day, death and suffering will come to an end and everything will be made right. (Perhaps that is why some are trying to speed it up, if they could).
I cannot claim credit for God existing. Once again, I will repeat that I could be wrong – I don’t think I am obviously. I haven’t heard one of you say that phrase about the stance that God doesn’t exist.
M.Petersen:
Do you believe in a God who is going to destroy all unbelievers at the Battle of Armaggedon?
If so, I don’t quite know why you should not be lumped in with the Islamic terrorists who believe in the destruction of Western society.
Do you look forward to all the bad stuff that the Bible predicts?
You don’t get it.
You have to make a leap of faith to consider that God even MIGHT exist.
Nost of us are willing to do that. You seem to make that leap willy nilly and almost without thought.
Why not say there’s a Zeus or a Flying Spaghetti Monster? The only requirement is
FAITH. There is no evidence of them either. The bible is not evidence. It’s not that you could be wrong… you ARE wrong.
Unicorns could exist but there is no evidence for them, therefore I am not going to waste my time investing them with a lot of significance. Same with God.
Sorry, I meant your proposals 2 and 3. Obviously a mammal without DNA does not exist. But it would not disprove common descent. Just no logical connection there.
Your proposals 2 and 3 were
“A given protein (eg hæmoglobin A) in rabbits being more similar to the same protein in chickens than in hares”
Birds are closer to retiles than to ammlas, yet birds and ammlas can share similarities of their haemoglobins that are absent in reptiles because both are warm-blooded and carry plenty of oxigen. The point being that molecular convergence can exist and has been documented. And what you seem to miss entirely: One trait does not make a phylogeny. That is, birds are STILL closer to reptiles.
“Human hands growning out of a completely different embrionic structure than a horse’s foreleg”
This kind of stuff happens all the time. Anterior somites of amphioxus, for example, develop as evaginations of the endodermal foregut, but they condense from mesenchyme in other chordates.
Didin;t you mention the same species cannot occur twice? Well , the same evolutionary cahnge can be undergone in parallel. For example species of drosophila with hairless larvae have evolved from hairy ancestors more than once. Of you looked only at the larvae you wid think the hairless species to be more closely related. Not true when you look at the molecular phylogeny.
It’s all within the evolutionary possibilites of change.
What are you going to do now, wintermute? Happily renounce common descent to embrace supernatural or unscientific explanations of sudden appearance?
And why on earth would you do something so silly???? You know perfectky well all those happenstances do not exclude common descent. At most they will indicate a wrinkle in the theory, by no chance a total invalidation of common descent.
If you exclude common descent, all you have left is the supernatural. So when you say you would happily abandon common descent what you are actually saying is that you would happily abandon being scientific, just “given the evidence”. HA!!
What an ugly mess.
If I manage to piss you off so nicely, I cannot be so lame, huh, Steve? Learn from the master.
I don’t care if Lewis, Bush or swingin butt to the macarena are the most popular. See, I don’t believe we still are living in a huge high school like you insulters who quite plainly think its all about bullying, humilation and popularity *Barf*
It would prove that that species did not share descent with the rest of the mammals, despite being “related enough” to e classified amongst them. It would strongly indicate that there was no reason to assume that any other two mammals were related to each other.
No, sorry. Bird hæmoglobins are more similar to their equivilent in reptiles than in mammals. The changes that occured in the evolution of birds are dinstinct from those that occured in the mammalian lineage, and hæmoglobin demonstrates as well as anything else that birds and mammals are both distantly related to reptles, via different paths.
Once again, I’m not looking for convergent evolution of some feature of a given protein, but actual similarity of the proteins themselves. There is a difference.
I just disproved your statements about incivility being unpopular. You keep claiming we’re the extremists… the mean ones that will lose face. I showed you that statement… true? Not so much. Lewis Black is wildly popular because he’s calling BULLSHIT when he sees it and mocking those spouting it.
I’m not going to wussify my arguments or stance in order to not offend. It’s not about bullying. Humiliation perhaps. They should be humiliated, they are spouting CRAZY SHIT. Racists deserve it. Homophobes deserve it. Misogynists deserve it. And weak religious people trying to spread the “word” in order to hasten armageddon deserve it.
Learn from the master? huh? Barf?
Your mammal without DNA is like the round circle or the cambrian rabbit. To absurd to count as honest evidence. And no, it owuld STILL not be at odds with common descent, though it would cetainly be challenging and bring uo lots if different answers. Truth is, just like the cambrian rabbit, people juts would not know what to make of it. But its not going to happen you know. Cause its internally absurd, self incoherent strawmen. Dishonest, fake “empiricism”
Wintermute, I’m pretty sure endothermy has produced convergences in the haemoglobins. For example, I believe affinity of oxigen binding in both is reduced delivering oxigen more quickly to the tissue, whereas affinity to binding oxygen in reptiles is greater.
Yeah, somites are just that, and they develop from previous embryonic strucutres. You know: ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. And what we find is that somites may develop from endoderm in one chordate, from mesoderm in the other.
Not enough?
The collumnella of birds may develop from mesenchyme or from ectomesenchyme.
Lenses in salamanders can develop from the ectoderm but also from the iris
Digits 1,2 and 3 develop from embryonic condensations 1,2 and 3 in lizard forelimbs but 2,3 and 4 in the bird wing.
So, wintermute? Did you actually offer evidence that refuted common descent? I still can’t get WHY you thought these things were at odds with common descent.
Sheesh. Took awhile to catch up, and this is from a couple hundred back or so, but I thought deserved comment.
“Yes, there is suffering in the world, but is it more the result of a God who isn’t doing His job, or a people He created who aren’t doing the job He gave them?”
From the point of view of the sufferer, it doesn’t make any damned bit of difference. “Sorry, sweetie, you have to die horribly of malnutrition because all those other people around you aren’t helping. What, me? No, I’m only God, I can’t do anything, I’m relying on all those people down there to do the job.”
By that reasoning, he would be even more of a bastard.
When I say learn from the master, I expect a minimum of sense of humor.
And Lewis Black has been around for some while calling bullshit by its name (what a genius), but he did not stop Bush. I guess you cynic “geniuses” will just have to work a liiiittle harder, huh? Before the supreme court looks like a church, please.
Are you even from the U.S.? Do you have any idea how it works over here? Apparently not.
We’ve been TOO nice to the fundies… and trying not to offend them for decades.
Get a grip.
Think about this Steve. I’m acting harsh, but not even close to the demented fuckwit level. A llitle bit of your own recipe, yeah, only veeery diluted. And there you are, you and maitre, complaining.
George:
Yes. But we are a loooong way off from the Battle of Armageddon.
Rather lengthy, but an excellent explanation nonetheless:
http://contenderministries.org/prophecy/blessedhope.php
Let me attempt to summarize it:
Rapture of the Church
1. Church is raptured.
2. Church is judged.
3. Church receives a special celebration at the marriage supper of the Lamb.
4. Sun and moon darkened, stars will fall, heavenly bodies shaken.
5. Rise of the antichrist, war of gog and magog.
6. Jesus comes to Earth to establish his kingdom, everyone will see Him, everyone will mourn who is not prepared (because it’s too late to believe now).
7. Second rapture of those who believe after the first rapture.
Battles (more than one, but will occur in one day)
8.
a) The Battle of Armageddon – The armies of the world will be gathered against Jesus in the Valley of Megiddo where He will destroy them. Revelation 16:12-16; Ezekiel 39:17-22; Revelation 19:15
b) The Battle of the Valley of Jehoshaphat – More armies of the nations will battle Christ. He will reap a judgment harvest on the nations of the earth for their persecution of the nation of Israel. Joel 3:1-2; 9-17, Revelation 14:14-20
c) The Battle of Jerusalem – The final battle in the war of the Great Day of the Lord. Satan will make one final attempt to destroy Jerusalem. In this final battle Satan, the Antichrist, and his armies are defeated. Zechariah 12:1-9, Revelation 16:17-21.
9. The antichrist and the false prophet are judged and condemned.
10. Separation of those who did or did not believe during the tribulation, those who didn’t are cast into the lake of fire and die.
11. Earth is destroyed and renovated by fire.
12. Jesus will reign on Earth for 1000 years. Satan is bound and nobody will be tempted or deceived.
13. Those believers who lived through the tribulation are still alive in the flesh and will populate the millenial kingdom.
14. Those born during this time will be free to choose to follow Jesus or not, proving that people are not inherently good and it’s their environment that makes them bad.
15. At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is released and some will side with him in his final battle and defeat.
16. Great white throne of judgment. All non-believers are resurrected, body reunited with soul from its place in torment, and judged. Why the 2nd judgement? All the condemned will have to make account for what they have done.
17. New heaven and earth created.
18. Believers spend eternity with God in their new glorified bodies (given to them at the two raptures).
I would encourage you to also read what the new heaven and earth will be like at the end of the article. Not nearly as “boring” as some of my aethist friends seem to think.
And don’t give me that foreignizing BS, Steve. Anyone can realize how its working out here. You are a sorely divided country. Each little self righteous sect makes no effort to make bridges, but just wishes they had a paradise of their own, and pretend the rest don’t exist.
Which is at the root of the problem. Yet you propose nothing but to perpetuate this. AND, you may lose. It takes much less than what you think. You guys feel so lucky, so sure that things will eventually go your way, that you will dodge the christians. I sincerely hope so, but I would no count on it. At the very least they will still be lurking, ready for the next chance. Or they wiull take control and end the separation of church an state. And then they are going to be around for a looooong, loooong time, Stevie, oh you will love it.
Have you ever been in an argument?
Is there a third party standing on the sidelines of this discussion I don’t know about?
You’re NOT acting harsh just dense.
eh… you start to get all… he went red dinnit…
Very funny.
It’s edited..the whole floater thing made me burst my ribs the first time I saw it … I could not stop laughing
Ali G is cooler than Lewis too haha
Steve_C,
Careful, or he’ll tell you not to obsess! ;-)(Pot…kettle…black.)
Now there Maitre, don’t obsess on the don’t obsess thing… I know perfectly well when I’m putting firecrackers in someone’s pants. Sorry about that heeheee
You’re wrong. You don’t get it. We’re not the ones causing the divisions.
Plus you think we’ve distilled our entire argument on everything to
YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT. You’re being dense.
This country is actually (when polled) in agreement on most things. The opportunists
manage to prey upon the fears and hatreds of a pretty distinct minority that will go
vote on single issues such as gay marriage. All it takes is 4-6 percent of the populatuon to say “you know what I’m not going to let these demented fuckwits elect another dimwit, who can’t govern, into office.”
And if you haven’t noticed I’m already pretty pissed off how things are going already.
Its the whole package that screams extremism, steve.
1) You guys follow Dawkins, Dennet: the ultradarwinists. They are extremists in biology. This, totally regardles of what anyone has to say about the god debate.
2) As dawkins, you guys favor a view of science and reason at war with faith and religion. That again is quite an easy, simplistic and comfortable corner, that is, extremism.
3) And, oh, what a coincidence. You guys favor using insults. I do not care how murky you are about WHEN it is good to use insults (cause you have gone to and fro without risking anything much too clear) but to any reasonable person that is silly, always. Insulting, however, always enjoys a cozy corner in the heart of the extremist.
4) Extremists never acknowledge they are extremists. This is why they are willing to make great spectacles of themselves, with hyperbole, extreme words, extreme actions. Because they want to show they are just SO sure of what they think. But of course, such actions tell them off right away as extremists. Funny, though. they are alienated and can’t realize how they look from the outside.
Any normal person readings PZ post sees “You are a demented fuckwit” in big bold letters repeated thrice in perfect propangada style. Goebbels could not have done it better.
And then you all pat each other’s shoulders and wink at each other on just how reasonable and non extremists you guys are. Pleeeeze!!!!!!
M.Petersen, thanks for the summary. It’s quite the opposite of boring. Question:
4. Sun and moon darkened, stars will fall, heavenly bodies shaken.
5. Rise of the antichrist, war of gog and magog.
6. Jesus comes to Earth to establish his kingdom, everyone will see Him, everyone will mourn who is not prepared (because it’s too late to believe now).
Ummm, how is anyone going to see Him (6) if there is no light (4). Are the wars taking place in complete darkness? Also, when the fighting starts, how will people know who to smite in the dark? Do they distribute special night-vision goggles or something?
I’m sure you have an easy answer. Please clarify. This would make a great movie.
AND you failed to see that a wildly popular mainstream comedian that’s on TV every week has a popular new book called “Nothing’s Sacred” has the same attitude we do.
We’re not extreme.
What the fuck is an ultradarwinist? Is that something like and UltraBigBangamist?
Someone mentioned this thread is like an itch.
I think it’s more like a Hydra.
A few things I wished to comment on:
Let’s see. I have my ability to reason and to question. I have freedom and responsibility. I have the promise of eternal death that awaits me. Yes, I have found everything I need.
And yet somehow, I do care about things other than myself. I wonder how I do it.
The comment about not accepting that life has no meaning is intriguing to me. I suggest to anyone who’s still following this thread to read Ernest Becker’s Denial of Death. Terror management theory and existential anguish are so interesting. The extent to which people are willing to go to deny their own mortality is amazing to me.
Read Gould. You know, someone who has actually contributed to evolutionary biology. Jeeez how naïve! No such thing as ultradarwinsim, hahahaha yeah, right.
Remember, evolution was already a major topic on the table because of Lamarck, who was popular and influential before Darwin. Darwinism = evolution is simply not true. Darwinism = natural selection is the main force behind evolution. That is true.
Which turned out to be mostly wishful thinking.
I still don’t know what you’re talking about.
What constitutes and Ultradarwinist?
Yes, read Gould. The term is not “ultradarwinism,” but “ultradarwinian.” It refers to someone who is not a pluralist, who insists that all evolutionary explanations must be in terms of selection. You will less often see it referred to as an “ism” in science…creationists prefer to make that association with ideology.
I disagree with some significant specifics of Dawkins’ ideas about evolution. I agree with his rejection of religion. I’m much more in line with Gould’s ideas about evolution, but I disagree completely with his NOMA nonsense. That’s OK — this is not an ideological debate where we all have to line up on one side of every argument.
A good overview of the faults of the ultra-darwinian paradigm can be found in Gould’s “The Pleasures of Pluralism”.
I’ve just started reading the Selfish Gene so I don’t know how I could be an “Ultradarwinian”. I’m not even in the sciences. I went to art school.
I can understand why you feel you have been too nice to the fundies. And you have. You have let them do basically whatever they wanted. You tolerated them. But you did not respect them, and you continue not to.
Let me stop to expalin what tolerance and respect mean to me, which is not the usual thing (I lifted it off from biophilosopher Humberto Maturana).
You can tolerate what youthin is no menace. It does not matter how much you disagree. Yo see it as ridiculous and demented, and you can’t see how it could go anywhere. Therefore, you let it be, and you do nothing against it. You tolerate it. It requires no action.
In turn, you respect that which may bring you trouble. Interestingly, you respect even if you don’t like it or look upward to it. I would not try pulling a wedgy on stone cold, if you know what I mean. I would not dart into a neonazi rally and call them fartheads, even if they are. See, respect and admiration are totally different things, and they truly do not always go together.
Now by this I obviously o not mean that you should bow your head to the crazy powerful. No, I mean that you KNOW that unless you DO something, they WILL walk over you. You cannot tolerate it. You cannot remain indifferent.
And you guys never had any respect for the fundies and creationists. So you tolerated them. But they have grown. They have accumulated power. The lack of respect and therefore the inaction of tolerance was clearly a big mistake. Basically, you underestimated them.
Much like the UK authorities did not respect Hitler, and they tolerated and tolerated him until it was too late. Only Churchill, who respected Hitler, dealed with the true situation (anybody going to pull the godwin law on me now?)
But the funny thing is, you guys STILL have no respect for them!!! You still underestimate them, and your purported strategy right now, is to go pull a wedgy on the monster to provoke him. Its really, really stupid. What he will do is rip your head off. You need to get real, guys. Start respecting the monster.
They have traction. Enough traction to have a president that is condescending. So analize this. Analize why do they have this traction. Cause one thing I can tell ya: It is not going to be easy. Do not continue underestamating them.
Vargas, remember, you are the one who came here to post comments for three days straight. We are a community of godless liberals. Go post somewhere else if you want respect and toleration. No one is underestimating the nutcases. That is why we are here – to show our opposition and to make some pretty good arguments for why people should not listen to the likes of you.
Vargas. I just think you’re failing to see strategy.
Of course we fight them on the facts and the science and the lack of coherent morals or consistency. But we also call them on their bullshit when they are being Batshit crazy.
It’s NOT tolerating the bullshit relentlessly and PART of that is saying “The apocalypse? Creationism? Are you out of your fucking gourd?! Take your nonsense somewhere else we’re going to talk about something that matters like helathcare and our fucked energy policy.”
It’s Friday, How about a song to lighten things up:
UltraBigBangalanga,
Beebop shabooty
BigaBangalanga ding dong!
I say “darwinism,”!
You say “darwinian”!
‘ism, ‘ian,
‘nism, ‘nian,
Oh, let’s call the whole thing off!
We haven’t made it to comment 666 yet. Don’t stop commenting. We can make it!
WiTH POST 666 THE RAPTURE WILL BEGIN!
Now that is interesting. The sorest responses, for what I thought was quite an inoccuous post in comparison to others. Stevie, all it takes is one dissenting voice and you’ll join the riot? You are quite ready to label and throw me away, ain’t ya.
Just trying to help here!! Good grief. If you can’t take some opposition, and want to hear only comforting reasurance on your certainties, go build yourselves your own kind of church.
I’m not saying you have to like the monster, my dear extremy’os. I’m only saying that if you are smart, you will not be content with just insulting the monster in the face. Rather, you will move before IT does. Because you guys failed to acknowledge there was monster. And the monster moved first, and it was ahead of you, not because it was smarter. Out of pure will and affirmation. It gained precious ground.
The dover trial was a great thing. And it was NOT based on insult. Scientists cared. We had cool guys like Padian there to show the fossils. We had the historical social proof of what the ID movement really was: Creationism, the questioning of nothing less than the fact of common descent. It was a beautiful victory. The ID has lost a huge amount of thunder, you can truly tell. THAT was action. Filing lawsuits. Not stupid insulting tactics.
But beware!!! Evolution is a bit safer, but for how long? christians still want their revolution and they may still get yet another presidency, more power. Yeah and democrats can “christianize” themselves too.
M Petersen, you obviously have a very specific religious belief.
I would like to know: If I belonged to your religion and came to realize that evolution is a fact, would I be able to be outspoken about it in your specific religious community? Would I be able to talk to the elders or whatever to make my case and try to make the religion as a whole aware of this?
Or would I be expelled, shunned by all including my very own family, cut off from all my friends within the religion and never spoken to again? Would I be declared apostate?
Ooops ok Steve, I misread your post… you don’t hate me… yet!!!!!
Mr Vargas, you are the one who has been doing a frantic desperate monkey dance here, expressing your personal affront. And yes, you definitely do seem to have taken everything personally.
No, filing lawsuits is not the way to win. I think our side’s commitment to constantly fighting a defensive action, using the courts to brush back outbreaks of stupidity, is disastrous. It is not science, either. We can take comfort in our current string of victories, but the problem is that for this strategy to work, we have to win them all. The creationists only have to win one. What are you going to do if, for example, the Kansas state supreme court endorses teaching ID in the classroom, and our right-leaning Supreme Court denies an appeal? It could happen, you know.
Filing lawsuits to enforce reason is simply idiotic. It’s the rearguard action of the losing side…and the creationists know it.
Nope. Just ignorance. There’s nothing extreme about me or my views.
I think you just don’t understand the strategy of marginlization.
uhg. marginalization. And it works. Look at Rick Santorum. He needs a M Petersen miracle in order to win his election.
Yes Vargas–
“Filing lawsuits to enforce reason is simply idiotic.”
It is far more rational to just scream “you demented fuckwit!” instead.
Filing lawsuit in a situation like that in Dover seems to be much more precise and effective than thetruky silly idea of the insulting lifestyle. And no, by no means have I said we must act defensively, on the contrary what I said is that we have to move first. We are being defensive because we sunderestimated and tolerated them too much. Notice I say we do not tolerate them, that we respect them; that is take action. Real action, not this insulting nonsense which only warns them and makes them even more pro-active
They always take the first step. So that is a modus operandi they have worked, to their advantage. And what I am saying is that WE should move first.
If you guys are hinging on Kansas, and then we lose, what can I say. It would be the most evident testimony to your failure. And you just would’nt be able to understand why, huh? All you could do is shake your fist at the skies and convince yourself, there was nothing you could have done, and it was never your fault. It was all those darn demented fuckwits, yeah.
Vargas, put down the beer. You aren’t making sense anymore.
Let me help you: everything that happens is part of God’s design, so if the atheists lose, we win, and if the atheists win, we win. Keep it simple.
Whats up with you Georgy? Come sit on Vargas’s knee and tell him what did he say that made you so so angry
Do not be so condescending, Vargas. This is a long thread, and I notice that almost 10% of the comments here are from just you…while you’ve troubled yourself to make a grand total of 2 comments elsewhere on the site.
We ought to be asking you what has made you so angry and obsessed.
One of the things that makes me angry, Alexander Vargas, is your original post from 3 days ago. In it, you said:
It is despair that makes them give up on control of their lives and believe only the big G can save them.
People have been giving up control of their lives for centuries, throwing themselves into the hands of God and committing the worst atrocities it is possible to conceive, from the St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre to the Inquisition to the positively idiotic, senseless mayhem we see in the Middle East today.
Giving up control is stupid, it is counter-productive, it turns people into pawns of the powerful, it is an excuse to say and do terrible, terrible things in the name of some made-up higher power. People who give up control don’t have to care about the destruction of the planet due to overpopulation and global warming.
We get a precious gift at birth, a brain that can be used to explore the universe and make positive contributions to knowledge and to society. You have decided to waste yours researching a bunch of 2,000 year-old bunk. That makes me angry.
Sorry Vargas–My comment above was meant to be sarcastic–Reading it again, I’m not sure you could tell that. PZ says filing lawsuits is irrational. As if it is more irrational to do that than it is to fling insults. Maybe both are, but I still can’t support any rationality that says flinging insults is a way for educated, intelligent adults to express outrage about any situation.
Vargas, consider my beer comment retracted. That was unfair.
I truly wonder what happens with george. Does he think I’m a theist? Or he could not deal with my criticism to the insulting silliness? I wonder. Not much hopes aon the answer though. Probably he will just continue to disapprove without adding any content. he may just be, you know, “marginalizing” hahaha
And yes of course PZ. I AM angry. Insulting is, for good reason, a no-no to most people, they are brought up with it. You dont even aknowledge it is aprickly point you should back off from, reason has endowed you superiorly you are absolutley right and proud of being non human. What a load of crap, please.
See you promote insulting, but your proposed limits are unclear. In other blogs I have been insulted right away for questioning the omnipotence of natural selection, something you understand is wrong (at least from the mouth outwards). Yeah, there are those who will insult you on the spot if you say pointing to the eye and saying “natural selection” is not good enough. What can I say if the creationists stumble mostly upon this kind of assholes to argue with? They don’t even know science, all they need is to have read a single dawkins book to walk around the world calling names to anyone who does not think like them.
The point being, PZ, that tnayone can tell that there istoo much insulting going by suquareheaded, ignorant people who don’t even know crucial stuff, and all you do condescend and encourage it!! It’s justified!!!!
I’ve seriously never seen someon so wrong, peeing against the wind and fundamnetally misled as you PZ onthis topic. It is so blatantly wrong, you really have to wonder: Why? It seems so cardborad, so fake in a scientist. Is it to get more popularity with the customers, a crowd of typical internet masters of insult ? Is this an internet guy kind of thing, to “epraise the insult as virtue ???
How easy to see the screen is thicker than air, that you can write down what you would not never be able to say to someone in the face.
Yeah, it’s all fake I guess.
Squeaky, I could tell right away, don’t worry. I know you well enough, oh squeaky one!
George, I just read your comment. I agree with you. I hate it that people wont even TRY taking control. But insulting them does not work.
The thing is, WHY is there so much despair in the first place. Becasue not all times have been desperate like this. Bring back the greeks, the reanaissance, the sixties!!! What happened in THOSE times? What is the key, the secret to more enlightening and positive times, times with man confident in himself and with his eyes open to nature??
Hey–we’re only at 632. Why slow down now?
Vargas–you make a lot of sense to me. I really don’t know why people don’t seem to understand what you are saying. Maybe it’s getting filtered through their biases or something.
You are absolutely right, though–I believe Gould outlined the history of Creationism in Rocks of Ages, and said basically the same thing. Scientists didn’t take creationists seriously, and by the time they realized they were a force to be reckoned with, it was all out of control.
Look, as far as the insulting thing…I don’t have kids, but I know when I was a kid, I was taught if you don’t have anything nice to say to someone, don’t say anything at all. And I would protest “but Mom! My mean brother called me such and such!” Never once did she say, “well, in that case, calling him that name was completely justified.” I’m sure most of you who are parents teach your own kids this same principal. You teach them that calling people names for any reason is not acceptable. You don’t qualify that statement for your children. Why do you qualify it for yourself? Sheesh, I don’t believe I have to resort to Robert Fulghum psychology to try to make this point!
I’ve said this before, but children resort to name calling because they do not have the maturity and vocabulary to express their emotions (now I’m resorting to Dr. Phil psychology). Are you telling me you have not developed beyond that?
Well, Vargas–I wonder if we’re the last ones here…Perhaps 666 was just a pipe dream…
I started visiting this site in January, and I quickly began to notice how very similar the rhetoric here is when compared to Answersingenesis or that Dr. Dino site of Hovind’s. I was a little surprised because rumor had it that atheists and agnostics are more…enlightened, and intelligent, and humanistic, and tolerant…huh…
Some of the similarities I have found are that both sides are condescending to the other side, both sides resort to insults to get their point across, and both sides present an ultimatum to us poor schmucks who have our feet firmly planted in the middle ground: either you believe in God, or you believe in science.
I noticed that PZ and others kept making the claim that, in essence, science disproves God.
So, I suggested NOMA with the rationality that it makes so much more sense to promote the fact that the Bible has very little to say about science, and that, really, science doesn’t necessarily contradict the Bible, anyway (if people would read their Bibles, they might actually notice that). Both can live side by side in perfect harmony (I resorted to the “Can’t we all just get along?” psychology).
And also, hey, doesn’t it make sense to stop saying things like “Science disproves God” when, first of all, religion is outside the realm of science (you can just as well say “science disproves love” and it makes about as much sense”), and second of all, and more importantly, all you are doing when you say stuff like that is perpetuating the very fears that motivate the Christian right. In essence, you are shooting yourself in the foot. You are making things worse. You are confirming the fears of your adversary, which only causes them to become further entrenched in their beliefs. Walls go up, and they will never listen when you say that.
Wouldn’t the NOMA approach cut down on the fear and suspicion between the groups? Wouldn’t it make sense to recruit scientists who are Christians to the cause of educating people on this totally unecessary culture war?
I was shot down. “We’ve tried that” I was told. “It didn’t work, so no more Mr. Nice Guy.” Forget that whole “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” psychology…
Look, I don’t know what the best answer is here. I suspect education would be a pretty major step. But I do know that insults don’t get anyone very far, and if you think people who are in the middle ground on this debate will see things your way when you lob verbal grenades at the other side, think again.
I am pissed as a scientist. If you are throwing the message, camouflaged or not, that science disproves god, you imply that science COULD prove god. So it actually feeds into the core logic of creationism, as I explained above.
MP,
“Is there not such a thing as causality, The Principle of Cause and Effect? Matter, time, energy don’t just *appear*. Are you trying to say that these things just existed infinitely before the universe began? Is this a serious scientific hypothesis considered by anyone here?”
Causality is a large subject. The usual causality is tied up with spacetime. (The Lorentz invariance of relativity.) Spacetime certainly appears during a bigbang. It is unclear which physical principles works in such a singularity. Time and its ordering principle is a strong candidate.
But yes, there are a couple of noncaused cosmologies. (The sane ones are, since they must.) One type is indeed infinite time variants of endless inflation multiverses. Another type is no-boundary cosmology multiverses. Such universas can literally pop out of nothing since they lack boundary, ie no first cause. (“What is south of the south pole?”) Yet another type is symmetrical-time cosmology multiverses, where there are endless inflation multiversas from a preuniverse that is situated in the middle and again uncaused, by the symmetry.
All these contenders for observable cosmologies has at time or other been described over at the Cosmic Variance group blog by cosmologists and others. Inflation has been verified, and they hope that the coming Planck probe will restrict cosmologies better. (Some not mentioned above have been eliminated already.)
Since there are no First Causator that science can use as a hypotheses many “serious scientific hypothesis considered” for cosmologies are noncaused in some manner.
Hey Torbhorn,
How’s it going? Just wanted to say hi.
Cheers
“I started visiting this site in January, and I quickly began to notice how very similar the rhetoric here is when compared to Answersingenesis or that Dr. Dino site of Hovind’s. I was a little surprised because rumor had it that atheists and agnostics are more…enlightened, and intelligent, and humanistic, and tolerant…huh…”
You have to also keep in mind that this is a godless science blog. I might feel obligated to smile and stay pleasant when my grandmother spouts off about Jesus to me, but I know that I can come here and complain about all the demented fuckwits and know other people will understand. Don’t forget the nature of this environment; people are often more strident than they are in meatworld, especially among their peers.
And the “tolerance” you are referring to is that of people with valid, different opinions. There is no call, nor any good use, in tolerating sheer stupidity or self-delusion. I would not “tolerate” a friend who thinks it’s ok to play tag on the freeway at rush hour. I would not “tolerate” a student who keeps writing on tests that 2+2=5. Some things are just wrong, and should be called so.
This is exactly my point. You DONT tolerate them. Tolerance is inaction. You must DO something. But don’t insult, that shows you have nothing to say. You can speak your mind and thats it. You dont need to get him to ackowledge anything. But something may linger in their mind whether they like it or not. Humans can’t ignore reason, even when they do their best to do so. And on the least they will realize that not everyone bys, and specially, that not anyone who does not buy it acts like a goddam asshole.
I understand you let your anger out here, but not everyone that gets insulted here deserves it, really. M peterson did not deserve the load of insults. Even if MP can’t avoid being dismissive on such great things as science and the humanities (liking the bible so much).
“What is nutty about Maitre is not that he may not be able refrain from insult now and then, but that he BELIEVES in insulting. Which is an extremist crackpot proposal devoid of any realism as far as human relationships go.”
I see, That makes PZ and me nutcases and extremist crackpots. Maitre explained one problem with that view.
“You are intrinsically wrong when you go into religious matters and say there is no god, because science nor reason will ever prove or disprove god. The whole “God” issue is none of science’s concern.”
If science is successful as a world view explaining observations, and religion isn’t, it implicitly says that religions tools and ideas are inferior. Since those tools are in conflict (testing vs authority) it also implicitly says that religions tools and ideas should be dropped. That isn’t science fault or intention, it is religion that doesn’t measure up anymore.
Science is an unconstrained tool to understand observations whose results are hard to describe a priori. But as such its increased knowledge on natural phenomena increasingly constrain the dualisms of religion. The unobservable soul is replaced by the observable mind, for example. I have said, and I will continue to say until proven wrong, that effects that eventual supernatural causes have on the causal, massenergy constrained universe is observable and describable. That may one day mean that we can verify a theory for or against nonnatural agents. Again, that isn’t the fault or intention of science, it is religion that doesn’t measure up anymore.
“”So a successful science says that other world views have different and questionable tools and practices for no good reason.”
Not at all. It just has to display its results. Man does not need to kill religion in order to become more interested in the natural world. Again, you ignore history. The renaissance did not question religion.”
You are dismissing the incompatibilities and conflicts I describe. Modern science is young, the knowledge expanding exponentially, and the questions change over time.
“Those are non though-out assertions. Science cannot say anything about the supernatural and does not want to say anything about the supernatural: or it ceases to be science.”
I have discussed these ideas for quite some time now, here and elsewhere. See above on science and the supernatural for a short overview.
“And why on earth did you include the word ORIGINS along with the ghosts? It seems to me you hide some aberrant self-argument.”
Origins (first causes) are examples of a dualistic religious explanation (creationism), as much as the other dualisms.
“Walking under the ladder is just not comparable with the rationalizations of religion on several moral subjects.”
Many concepts of large religions started out as superstition. To name a few remaining as superstitions: miracles, prayer, transubstantiation, absolution, healing, demonology.
“Not at all. If you know Dawkins you know what I said is true. With such unsincerity it is hard to keep a discussion.”
That isn’t evidence. BTW, I haven’t read Dawkins at all. Why did you assume that?
“What do you mean by “usual” evolution???. To Dawkins and to most that’s darwinism.”
Are you a creationist, mentioning darwinism? Darwinism is the theory before neodarwinism AFAIK. Evolution today is natural selection, sexual selection, mutations, neutral drift, evodevo, coevolution, …. The problem that you relate with ortodox neodarwinism is that they seem to have assumed that natural selection was the essential mechanism. (A mistake Darwin didn’t make.)
“”It is the default explanation. After it is proven invalid, another explanation is attempted. There is nothing special with default hypotheses in biology as opposed to other sciences.”
No. In the example I gave seletion alone simply COULDN’t explin the mammalian middle ear. You need exapatation. So the “default” was in fact incomplete from the beginning. Its not like it was a perfectly good explanation but it just happened to be something else. Because it was an ideological use of selection.”
You are in effect saying what I was saying. The difference is that you don’t understand the meaning of a default or null hypotheses.
“”Please let me know what kind of evidence you think would make common descent and modification to be discarded.”
-A rabbit fossil from the Cambrian.”
How would this refute common descent in favor of some unknown process of sudden appearance of complex organisms? It would show a grave incoherence in the narration of the evolutionary , but science would not suddenly be concerned with the supernatural. Science would still be science.”
You are moving the goal posts from discarding evolution to proving creationism. Where did that come from? Again, are you a creationist? You sure reason like one. But the fact is that disproving one theory doesn’t prove another. As you somehow *also* manage to say.
“The old Cambrian rabbit chestnut is like saying that geometry would be refuted by a square circle.”
We aren’t discussing math here, but observationable theories. The only way that common descent and modification can be discarded is an observation that invalidates it. (Assuming such a verified theory doesn’t have a large fault in it.) I mentioned one, new fossils that are inconsistent with the theory. wintermute mentioned a bunt of others.
“Show an extraterrestrial the Cambrian fauna and slip a rabbit into it. Would he see evidence against common descent?”
This part of your comment makes no sense. Obviously he observes that no similar creature existed in that strata – too many new structures. So no common descent. Similarly with wintermute’s examples.
Again I note a complete misunderstanding of what science is. In principle observations shouldn’t depend on whether we do them or extraterrestrials. The fossil record is such an observation.
And sometimes both sides, as well as those in the middle, make generalizations that don’t fit everyone in any group. I would certainly hope that I have not been condescending, insulting, or threatening.
I know biologists who are Christian. I know scientists who do good research while believing in God. I don’t know how they resolve their cognitive dissonance, but I’m not about to call them demented fuckwits.
“Ok I’m leaving it here for you, but please follow up my next post….”
“Not at all. It means the phyloegenetic tree was wrong, but it by no means implies evidence for any alternative of common descent (the supernatural phenomenon of creation, for instance).”
Again you are moving goalposts and assuming disproof of a theory mean proof of another, as a pure creationist. I’m sure this argument and behaviour makes some sense for you. Unfortunately it doesn’t for others.
Stop with “the phyloegenetic tree was wrong” and you see that you have agreed with what was to be demonstrated, a method of disproving common descent with modification.
I thought we were very tolerant of MP.
No one asked him to be banned. But we did ridicule and criticize his beliefs, as they should be. But he isn’t even a fence sitter, so it is kind of pointless. He has found all he needs to know or wants to know. He wlll not become enlightened here. He’s here to prove his faith among the godless. Which is kind of pointless. Ask him a question and he quotes the bible. A book most of us see as fiction.
You’re whole point seems to be one of politeness as if all the discourse is maintained at a nice cocktail party or in a college seminar course.
Was MP insulted? I don’t think so.
Anyone who thinks that I have claimed that science disproves gods when I have repeatedly and plainly stated otherwise is a dishonest and ignorant fool. Continue whining by all means, but you have amply demonstrated that you simply are not listening, and therefore can be ignored.
Not at all. The particular structure of phylogenetic trees has been corrected several times, If you find out that hipopotamus was actually more related to pig than to elephant, it does not refute common descent. It does not mean a tree does not exist, only that this branch was actually closer to that other.
And if you think common decent could be refuted, please give us the scientific explanation for the mechansism that brings full blown complex organism like humans into existence, since they would not have descended from other organisms, specifically primates.
“ALL YA FAKE ECLECTIC EMPIRICISTS!!!! THIS is what you get when you don’t acknowledge that all alternatives to common descent are non scientific, like if evidence “could” refute common descent. You get people thinking they have FOUND such evidence and that it can be scientific to say that common descent is not true. Creationism is the consequence of the sloppy epistemology you yourselves have promoted.”
Ah, I see! So since evolution is an ideology according to you, you are disappointed when it behaves as the science it is. So on one hand you are complaining since you (falsely) thinks it behaves as an ideology. But on the other you are complaining since it doesn’t behave as an ideology.
This confusion makes about as much sense as the other arguments you do.
That evolution is such a verified theory and we can’t see any realistic alternatives doesn’t mean that we don’t know how it could still be falsified. This is a property it shares with other wellestablished theories like QM and relativity. It is actually an interesting discussion. Similar difficulties have been discussed on physics blogs, but I haven’t kept those references.
PZ, everyone knows you think ALL religion is irrational and basically silly. Its one of your great sources of popularity. You sneer at evolution supporting religious people and treat them like idiots. You don’t need to spell it out. You may even mouth the words to the contrary. But you can’t hide what you really think.
Dawkins is also fake, it takes a TV producer the balls to write down the title that really reflects what his documentary wants to say.
I’d say you have pretty much ignored me all the time PZ. And you will continue to ignore me, and live “the life” you know, the godless liberal warrior. No extremes, no fun.
“So what you’re saying is that the universe didn’t actually come into existence a few billion years ago, it was much longer. I guess it was a very dull boring universe before then, and all of the sudden it decided to explode. So it had infinity to distribute matter evenly before it went boom.”
Matterenergy wouldn’t exist in a preuniverse. But anyway, such a universe wouldn’t work.
Let us look at one working proposal instead: endless inflation multiversas. The model is that new universas wormholes away (as small wormholes) from old ones with a small probability. After wormholing, inflation blows them up exactly as we know it did for our universe. So there is action all the time.
That I don’t support naïve empiricism does not mean evolution is ideology, good grief. Denying common descent is unscientific, period. It leaves no scientific alternatives.
If you’re such an empiricial chap you should ponder the question: What is evidence? Do please let me know when you’ve figured out what would be, indeed, evidence to deny common descent, continental drift, or such well established facts.
At least, you have ackoweldged the subject is not simple. We´re not just sitting there absorbing the facts, ya know. Experience does not baby-feed scientifci theories into the brain with a spoon. We have to be creative and inspired to understand. You may want to read some discussion about this we had in the in the thread “a quick reply…”
I know religious scientists, too, and agree that many of them are very good scientists. “God” does not come into play in any way in their research, however, and I can’t imagine how it would.
I am not suggesting that you call them demented fuckwits. Read the post. Here are some examples that might help.
Ken Miller: NOT a demented fuckwit.
Pat Robertson: Demented fuckwit.
Simon Conway Morris: NOT a demented fuckwit.
Carl Baugh: Demented fuckwit.
My mom: NOT a demented fuckwit.
We have people running around who think the end is nigh and want to hasten it with all kinds of flaky magical behaviors. THEY are demented fuckwits. We are not helping to end their too-great influence by pretending that they’re just nice people with some odd but interesting ideas. They are dangerous loons who have acquired an astonishing amount of power…and we’ve got a lot of people here who want to close their eyes to their extremism and be nice to them.
Alexander Vargas, just curious – do you also post on religious blogs, telling people to be less nasty to one another?
Squeky,
Hi! Unfortunately I read the thread a bit at a time today.
Alexander,
I have now read enough later post to see that you say [those] creationists. So you can forget my confused questions about that specifically above.
Larsson, we are talking about common descent. Its a very, very basic fact. If we cannot bring in any alternative without invoking the fantastic, without implying irrational things, does this mean evolution is ideology? Of course not. Evolutionary mechanisms, phylogenetic trees, fossils are being resolved in increasing detail and data continues to accumulate. And we continue to move forward. We find new certainties, facts that under the new data could only be questioned if you suspend reason. But of course it is not all about accumulating data, but tying it together. Great ideas, like the mathematization of phylogenic analysis by Willi Hennig, have helped enormously.
People don’t waste time figuring what evidence could refute continental drif. Its just silly, you would need extremely weird things to explain data without it. People continue to reconstruct the details of paleobiogeography and tectonics. Same thing with evolution. Ee don’t waste time like if it were a knowledge on the brink of disproof, you know. But if you are ignorant enough about data and theory, you may delude yourself into thinking that is the situation.
I wouldn’t say Simon Conway Morris is a DF but he sure has not been able to avoid a bad mixture of religion and science going on that pisses me off much like Dawkins own associations between evolution and atheism.
You know what george maybe I should, but I would miss the flavor of science in the air
If I had an opportunity to talk to Pat Robertson, I would not be satisfied with shouting to him “demented fuckwit”. I would certainly not try to convert him either. I’think I’d try to see what story does he turn out about how he deals with all that money, or get him to make some wacky predictions or interpretations, play him into saying some really cuckoo things. Should be fun, and informative.
And if it were in public I would ask hima a well-thought out question. No DF’s for me.
“That I don’t support naïve empiricism does not mean evolution is ideology, good grief.”
So are we discussing philosophy instead of science now? I’m sorry, my expertice is in science. I don’t know what naive empiricism is. I do know how to do science and make theories, but not in biology.
Null hypotheses in biology are as null hypotheses in other sciences. You call that ideology, without reason.
“Denying common descent is unscientific, period. It leaves no scientific alternatives.”
No one is denying a verified theory. You wanted to know what observations that could possibly falsify evolution, early on or now. (The difficulty here is what is easily accepted as a falsifying observation for a new theory isn’t so for a welltested one, and there are fewer predictions left to be tested. Thus the discussion.)
“If you’re such an empiricial chap you should ponder the question: What is evidence? Do please let me know when you’ve figured out what would be, indeed, evidence to deny common descent, continental drift, or such well established facts.”
This has been rehashed over and over on blogs such as these. You are demanding much for nothing, and throw in philosophy, which is never here nor there when discussing theory. The fact that you don’t see a problem with a fossil rabbit in the Cambrium doesn’t mean that biologists doesn’t. It is suggested at talkorigins.
“At least, you have ackoweldged the subject is not simple.”
I never say so. Science is hard to describe and its result even more so. Which is why I don’t see much use of philosophy here. What is evidence at specific places in specific theories are one such contingent question. But specific questions in science are easier. The status of a null hypotheses, or what falsifies evolution, are among those.
“People don’t waste time figuring what evidence could refute continental drif. Its just silly, you would need extremely weird things to explain data without it. People continue to reconstruct the details of paleobiogeography and tectonics. Same thing with evolution. Ee don’t waste time like if it were a knowledge on the brink of disproof, you know. But if you are ignorant enough about data and theory, you may delude yourself into thinking that is the situation.”
You are conflating the question about what could invalidate a theory when, what could invalidate it now, how established it is, and especially what theory could possibly replace it. Of course no other theory can explain the old or even worse the new hypothesed data.
Yes, no one waste time on these hypothetical questions, except creationists and philosophers that makes special pleadings to try to problematise a theory as you did. My mistake for trying.
So you look down your nose on Philosophy. Pure fluff, nothing to do with science. You don’t need that, the scientific method delivers truth to you on a silver plater. You are rational, objective. All you need is the data. Hahaha. Yet your view in itself a philosophicval assertion, an epistemological posture. A greatly eroded one. Man has found himself many a time in a swarm of data without knowing what to make out of it.
It’s because you are dismissive of philosophy and therefore mediocre at it, that you think simplistically of science and have not known how to handle the creationist problem, but actually fueled it.
There is obviously a great problem with a rabbit in the cambrian. I would not know what to make of it anymore than a pepsi can in the mesozoic or square circle. It certainly does not refute common descent in any straight forward, mechanistic way. I think you did not read all posts where I discussed how easy it is to porpose things that we know would be absurd.
Anyway, read my following post about continental drift and other facts which we don’t spend a second questioninig. It becomes silly and unscientific.
When one of you guys says “just show me the evidence and I’ll discard common descent” It’s juts like you saying “well If I’d seen the resurrection of the battered jesus corpse I’d believe in it”
You just didn’t happen to see it huh? Who cares if all you know about physiology, anatomy, medicine etc would have to be false.
Its plainly dishonest. To “play” the empirical chap, you act in fact as a traitor to science.
I never tried to polemize the theory, Larsson. YOU did. YOU think evidence is still possible that may refute common descent, just to defend a totally fake “empirical” attitude. And yet you still do not deliver. WHAT evidence, larsson. Don’t be soapy. Answer.
Is calling someone a nasty name ever appropriate? Sure. When? It depends. Everyone will draw the line for him/herself. Insult can be an effective weapon. It has the power to shock. It drew people’s attention to the persons in question. I might have skipped over PZ’s post if DEMENTED FUCKWIT has not been written there in big bold letters several times. He wants to rile people up, his atheist audience as much as any religious person who might be stopping by.
Some people deserve to be treated courteously, some don’t. The nuts PZ has identified are doing a lot of damage. They are going mainstream and they are truly scary.
Maybe we aren’t the most polite culture anymore, but at the blog level, at a remove from direct confrontation, a certain amount of name-calling is to be expected. People vent. People get angry. That’s what is great about blogs. They provide a venue where people can express the frustration they feel with politics, religion, etc. If people feel disaffected by the language PZ uses, they will go somewhere else. They can start their own blogs! (Hint, hint, Alexander). PZ is doing a great service for the atheists who haven’t had much of a voice for a long time, and I, for one, like his confrontational style.
Just spent a few minutes on Rapture Ready, for the first time. Scary, scary stuff. A war beetween Israel and Lebanon is being welcomed(!):
Hizbullah, though primarily in Lebanon & Israel is currently holding Lebanon accountable, is under SYRIAN Control (with the help of Iranian funding and support). The fact that they have just today kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers and Olmert has declared this an ACT of WAR (against Lebanon for now), it’s not hard to see how this could easily and rapidly escalate into the fulfillment of the Isaiah 17 prophecy.
Incredible times that God is allowing us to live in – May He be Praised !!!
The site owner, Todd Strandberg, has claimed:
When the Rapture takes place, I think I’ll probably have more hits in one day than I’ve had in the past 10 years. That is really the day I am looking forward to.
Demented. Fuckwit.
If I read the signs right, George’s 3:51 A.M. posting was #666.
What do we have for the lucky winner?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that your post meant I should call your mom a demented fuckwit. I really do see the distinction. I was responding to Squeaky’s comment about how both sides resort to insults, and “demented fuckwit” was the first insult that came to mind. I actually don’t know anyone who thinks the world is about to end. Perhaps my environment is too sheltered or something.
I missed the Rapture? I’ve been left behind!! What do I do?
I would think by now this thread is dead…but…
PZ–
“Anyone who thinks that I have claimed that science disproves gods when I have repeatedly and plainly stated otherwise is a dishonest and ignorant fool. Continue whining by all means, but you have amply demonstrated that you simply are not listening, and therefore can be ignored.”
I’m not sure how you can blame someone for missing this. You expect us to pick out what you are actually saying through a very thick screen of ranting and insults and “I abandoned Christianity because I discovered science.” It is clearly a case of miscommunication. Much in the same way that Vargas’ comments don’t seem to be understood very well, when they actually make perfect sense.
“We have people running around who think the end is nigh and want to hasten it with all kinds of flaky magical behaviors. THEY are demented fuckwits. We are not helping to end their too-great influence by pretending that they’re just nice people with some odd but interesting ideas. They are dangerous loons who have acquired an astonishing amount of power…and we’ve got a lot of people here who want to close their eyes to their extremism and be nice to them.”
I fully agree. But the point I tried to make, and that Vargas tried to make repeatedly, is that if all you have in answer to this very dire threat is “you demented fuckwit”, to the casual observer, the only one who looks like a demented fuckwit is you. I’m afraid you are perpetuating the myth that scientists spend all their time in the lab and are completely clueless when it comes to effective communication.
And George:
“Is calling someone a nasty name ever appropriate? Sure. When? It depends. Everyone will draw the line for him/herself. Insult can be an effective weapon. It has the power to shock. It drew people’s attention to the persons in question. I might have skipped over PZ’s post if DEMENTED FUCKWIT has not been written there in big bold letters several times. He wants to rile people up, his atheist audience as much as any religious person who might be stopping by.
Some people deserve to be treated courteously, some don’t.”
Is this REALLY the advice you give your children? Again, I defer to Robert Fulghum…
Adieu
I’m with PZ; it’s long past time we call bullshit on these Demented Fuckwits, and in just the 30 years or so since I was awakened to their insane, delusional ideas and their desire to codify it by force of law I’ve seen things get worse, not better.
The way I see it, sometimes the only way to shake people out of their complacency and comfort in their delusions (which inarguably do great harm by fostering ignorance and blind devotion) is to shock and offend.
As insults go, I fail to see how characterizing people who believe in the Rapture demented fuckwits, and not being afraid to say so to their faces, is more grievous than… say…
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” — Bush the Elder
These rapture-ready demented fuckwits are a dangerous threat to MY liberty, MY future and the planet MY descendents will inhabit. And while I have absolutely no problem with “insulting” them for their delusional thinking, I would NEVER go so far as to deny their being “fit” to be Americans or patriots simply on the basis of their worldview being different from mine.
MPetersen, whom I will give credit for remaining civil, clearly proves PZ’s theory above. And really, is there any atheist who’s been arguing with religious people for longer than a week who hasn’t observed that statement to be true, and predicted the outcome as PZ did?
Well damn… I just missed my chance to use PZ’s DF Method on Jehovah’s Witnesses. So I suppose Hubby’s “Get the fuck off my private property! Did you not notice that you had to open a closed wrought iron gate to get to the door?” will have to suffice.
Hmmm… it occurs to me that perhaps boiling one’s brains traipsing around in the desert heat selling religion may contribute to the lamentable condition of demented fuckwitism. But I’m no scientist.
Squeaky:
I can’t speak for George, but for myself, as a mother…
YES, I do.
OB
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” — Bush the Elder
Yes, a very stupid statement. However, if an atheist then counters with “you demented f***wit!” don’t you think that would only polarize those that share Bush’s belief? Look at Bush’s statement as an opportunity to set the record straight. Someone out there is listening and will be effected by even-handed, intelligent responses, even if they seem to be firmly entrenched in the other camp.
I can’t speak for George, but for myself, as a mother…
YES, I do.
(edited to fix html – anyone with access feel free to delete broken one!)
j: I missed the Rapture? I’ve been left behind!! What do I do?
j, as far as I can tell, the “hour of testing” has passed. We might be in the “Day of the Lord” but this Rapture stuff is new to me and very confusing. I’ve tried to find Spark Notes, there aren’t any.
This site is useful. It has handy charts:
Rapture Research
http://www.pretribulationrapture.com/
Have you heard any trumpets? I had my headphones on for a while this morning and might have missed them.
The point being, Larsson, you are naïve when you belive that science is “a matter of evidence”. Without boundaries as to waht evidence can prove, what IS evidence. That is why you get creationists to belive they have scientifically proved the intervention of god. Anything is possible, no? It’s just a matter of evidence, huh.
NO. Scientific explanation is about explaining experiences thorugh other experiences. To put together and make coherent and understandable on the basis of other understood and known principles and facts. Of course there are limits of what we know and what we can explain. But there are spaces, stretches where data and logic all fall together and scientific explanation is achieved in total coherence, in a very satisfactory way. And in these circumstances, invoking the possibility that some unknow “evidence” could refute it provides nothing to the task of scientific explanation. Given scientific explanation has already been achieved, there could hardly be a more UNSCIENTIFIC attitude in these bogus, “empiricist ” doubts.
See science is all about HOW. And this is why supernatural explanations are useless to science , because they are suoer-natural, and provide no how, rather than invoke previous understanding, they invoke what we cannot study, that is by defintion SUPER – natural. get it?
Same thing for proposals like “the extraterrestrials created earth’s organisms” HOW? No idea, they just did it. Super cool, buddy, but scientifically, worthless. We want mechanism.
So I may be quite unaware of most evidence on evolution, but be capable of making the PHIOLOSOPHICAL distinction: Common descent with modification is a clear how a scientific hiw with no invocation of what we do not know. Sudden appearance not only has no HOW, it demands we assume some “whatever” we have never seen and know nothing about.
Which of both philosophical attitudes do you think is truly scientific, Larsson?
Or we can avoid ourselves these philosiophical reflections and hope the EVIDENCE will be the only thing that can decide?
Are you so bent on your “empirical” caricature of science you think anyone questioning it is a creationist?
How very, very sad. You actually teach your children to disrespect people. If I had children, I would teach them to treat others with respect, no matter what their beliefs. I would teach them how to intelligently counter irrational viewpoints, rather than resorting to irrational insults.
People here seem to think this is not possible. They equate respecting someone with agreeing with someone. I would teach my children that there is a very, very big difference between the two.
Insults perpetuate a fight. They polarize people. They do not advance the cause.
Let me ask you–when did Martin Luther King or Ghandi resort to insults? Were they ineffective in reaching their goals even though they decided to take the road of peace?
Insolence is a recurrent thing in times of social crisis. If you watch both sides from a distance, you can’t tell which is which.
You guys continue your behavior, I’m taking notes.
This is exactly what the propagators of evil nonsense most desire: that we raise our children with no sense of discrimination at all, so that they will fall easy prey to their lies, and the cycle will continue forever.
The problem is, they are already polarized, and seated in places of power, primarily because everyone’s been allowing them to revel in their ignorance so as not to seem “intolerant.”
If nothing else, just as the demented fuckwits attract people with their dramatic behaviors, those of us who wish to warn our neighbors about the dire threat we observe/postulate certainly DO garner more attention (good and bad) by using drama as a way to engage the curious truth seekers. The way I see it, attracting a larger audience initially means a far larger number of people who’ll get past the dramatics that led them there and stick around and listen to the even-handed intelligent arguments – the desire for which drives us in the first place.
As I recall from bible stories, Jesus himself knew quite well the value of creating a stir…
Squeaky:
No, I teach my child to disrespect IDEAS if they are irrational. I teach her that everyone has the right to believe whatever the hell they wish, but that delusional and superstitious thinking has no place in society except amongst those who adopt such thinking. She has been taught that all ideas and opinions are NOT equal, and that quite often she will have to resort to being offensive in order to get whackjobs to back off. She has been taught that it is both her right AND her duty to live by, and defend, the Constitution of the United States is all its godless glory. She’s been WARNED that she will be vilified, censored and chastised for “disrespecting” delusional people because they’re in places of power, and the majority of the world is clinging to one delusion or another as a response to humans’ fear of death.
Yes, there is a big difference between the two, just as there’s a difference between disrespecting a person and failing to respect their foolish notions.
PZ:
Exactly! Just as the enRaptured masses feel threatened by secularism and science, I as a mother consider their delusional thinking a dire threat to children, especially since they’ve infiltrated the schools she attends as well as their nonsense and lies being omnipresent (and overlooked as “harmless”) in everyday life.
Bumper stickers give a glimpse into one’s passions or motivations. Here’re mine:
Information is Power
Don’t Lie to Kids
My job as a parent is to give my kid the tools she will need to survive. Here in the REAL world. So I send links to this site and others to her. Thank you, PZ… and every other blogger whose knowledge and expertise serves to further encourage my daughter to think for herself and not just “go with the flow.”
grrrr Apologies… apparently I am html-challenged today. How annoying.
Sounds to me your are giving your child a mere set of idealized attitudes without any true logic as to when they apply. If applied incorrectly, insulting makes you look cuckoo or gets you into some pretty undesirable situations.
I believe insults are truly worthless and unnecessary and we can do perfecty fine, and are etter without them. You can get the crap beaten out of you, no matter how “right” you are. thi is why I would never DREAM of doing something as silly a stelling my children insulting is OK. The consequences can be quite nasty, and I’d actually care for their safety. I don’t want them to be self righteous pricks either.
Maybe your kids will get beaten OB, and then the WORLD would have taught them not to insult and thus undo this wonderful training of yours.
I can’t see how teaching kids not to insult is “lying” to them. Seeems to me you got quite a muddle in your connections and self assertions.
Nor do I think all ways of thinking are equal, and your insult mongering specifically ranks down at the lowest gutter.
Ooh, thanks for the link! It has all these pretty diagrams of people rising up in giant arrows while the Lord has sparks flying out of His head!
I overslept this morning; I think that’s why I missed the Rapture. And I’m a heavy sleeper, so I would have slept right through the trumpets.
This debate makes me think back to that brouhaha over the cartoon Muhammad in the Danish newspaper. Now there was an insult. Freedom of speech is vital, but does there have to be some consideration given for what a society considers sacred? I honestly don’t know.
PZ had some thoughts at the time:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/one_more_time.php
But here’s the thing, that liberal-lefty perspective: those Muslims are people. You know, human beings with needs and desires and families and aspirations, etc. We have to live with them, unless you’re calling for their extermination or banishment (and no, we aren’t. I hope.) They’ve got this horrible, evil idea of religion stuck in their heads, and the long-term solution is to educate them and imbed more secular ideals in their communities–my objection is that I don’t see that the Danish newspaper was trying to do that.
…
I’m all for ripping into religion with wild abandon. I just think it’s obvious, though, that there is another dimension to this problem than simply the god business, and too many of us are ignoring the human/social issue to blame only a convenient religious handle on the riots.
AV, if you’re a parent, you must know that “actions carry consequences” is something you teach kids from the time they are toddlers.
There’s a time and place for everything, AV, including insults. I’d be remiss in my parental duties if I weren’t explaining to my daughter that one must be fully aware of, and accept, whatever consequences might result from ANY action or comment – especially when arguing against closely-held beliefs, or in a manner or place that could be considered “inappropriate” by some people. As long as she’s willing to face the consequences that may result, it is entirely her prerogative as to how she makes herself heard if she’s got a point to discuss.
Teaching kids that they should “respect” fiction as though it is on equal footing with fact, simply because lots of people have mistaken it for fact IS LYING to them. Leading them in daily recitations that claim we are a nation “under God” IS LYING to them.
I couldn’t tell my daughter that insults are never useful or appropriate, because I’d be LYING. Many times, they are. It all depends on what one is trying to achieve – and public condemnation of irrationality is just one example of when they can be both useful and appropriate.
FWIW, she uses sarcasm and irony far more often than insults. She’s just that sorta kid.
I can’t see how teaching kids not to insult is “lying” to them. Seeems to me you got quite a muddle in your connections and self assertions.
“-Teaching kids that they should “respect” fiction as though it is on equal footing with fact, simply because lots of people have mistaken it for fact IS LYING to them. Leading them in daily recitations that claim we are a nation “under God” IS LYING to them.”
Again. I can’t see how teaching kids not to use insults implies they should respect fiction. So you get all pissed at someone saying “a nation under god”, you feel like shrieking “That is a foul LIE!!!!!” Whatever. It did not wash YOUR brain too hard, didn’t it. Its just an old thing and it stuck. Only uptight and paranoid people feel everything must be just how they like it.
“I couldn’t tell my daughter that insults are never useful or appropriate, because I’d be LYING.”
No, you are wrong. I have discovered they never are useful. Pure hot air. Never did a bit of good to anyone. You are dishing out “what’s true” to your daughter
“she uses sarcasm and irony far more often than insults. She’s just that sorta kid”
No, its not in her nucleotides. Simply, despite you, she has learnt on her own that insulting does not highlight her as a very intelligent person.
For Alexander and Squeaky, a random insult generator:
Shakespearean insulter:
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/
Happy practicing. Thou errant onion-eyed clotpoles!
Simply, despite you, she has learnt on her own that insulting does not highlight her as a very intelligent person.
What kind of demented fuckwit intends to insult somebody and her daughter by claiming insulting highlights them as not very intelligent?
Yet another highlight in the insult comedy stylings of Alexander Vargas.
[Insults] Never did a bit of good to anyone.
Well, that covers a lot of ground. Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself. You better beat it – I hear they’re going to tear you down and put up an office building where you’re standing. You can leave in a taxi. If you can’t get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that’s too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff. You know, you haven’t stopped talking since I came here? You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle. /Groucho Marx
The matter at hand is whether preposterous religious ideology deserves “respect” and to me, it does not. And in this time and place, the generations of “go along to get along” philosophy with regard to Christianity has gotten us into a situation that rational people the world over recognize as a march toward theocracy as fundievangelicals gain power.
Furthermore, I do not “get all pissed” nor “feel like shrieking” when I hear the bastardized Pledge; what I feel is SAD, that I don’t get to say it without it being a LIE on my lips. And no, having to recite it did NOT “wash my brain too hard” because its having been turned from patriotic oath to prayer (only 8 years before I was born, mind you) was addressed in family conversation when I was in grade school – and was why I stopped saying it when I was 10. Dad & I also spoke of how religion, and that of Abraham in particular has, is and ever shall be wielded as a tool of control. I support restoring the Pledge to the pre-1954 version due to the unconstitutionality of adding a religious component to a civil oath, and my position that neutrality is the only position allowed to government in matters of conscience.
Are you trying to insult me in order to effect some change of thought on my part, that to you would be a positive result? Are you insulting me because you believe it might “wake me up” or make me pay attention to your argument? That’s useless y’know. ;-)
The demented fuckwits think everything must be just how they like it, too. In fact, they BELIEVE they have the RIGHT to have it their way – to the extent that they’ll attempt to rewrite history, repress science, censor free speech and twist themselves into pretzels attempting to justify their claims that our secular constitution is “proof” that we’re a Christian nation, and that God’s Laws are somehow the basis of our founding laws.
Jeez kenny, its you that choses to read me. Just skip me.
As I said, these insulting extremists, pro and anti-god, could be easily confused from a distance. And I don’t like either of them. They both consider each other monstruous and talk like we are at the verge of apocalypse because of “their” fault. Just read PZ’s last comment, for example. How else could they justify their love of verbal violence?
“This is exactly what the propagators of evil nonsense most desire: that we raise our children with no sense of discrimination at all, so that they will fall easy prey to their lies”
Jeez, bring out the garlic and crosses!!!
That’s just paranoid talk.
Lets cut the crap. It’s not the fundies, nor the godless liberals that are “ruining america”
Hate to rub this once again in your faces, but Bush got re-elected. Despite his flagrant mistakes. Despite all the lies. Despite a world that hated him. Despite everything!!!
The Democrats quite lamely failed despite such favorable conditions.
So my question to you guys is, do you think the people that voted for Bush are stupid?
That they were all crackpot religious fundamentalists?
Were they thinking about the rapture, or about destroying evolution, when they vboted for bush?
Or did they just consider religion as a plus?
If we take steve’s data, as much as 50% of americans would say he is spiritual, but NOT “religious” Where did all the fundies go then?
Truth is that Americans that voted for bush, did so because they thought he was what was best for America, and not for purely religious reasons. They basically bought Bush’s war scheme and ways of strengthening national unity and identity. Religion is subservient to this purpose. The tool. NOT the cause!!!!
People in general are not stupid. People saw a fairly easy-to-understand plan to bring the US up a notch, and OK’d it. See, the plan was, mind you, irrealistic. A very bad plan. But people will rather be working on a plan, even if it is a wrong plan, than to have no plan at all.
And another thing. If someone puts a cross in one room of a school, it’s not going to brainwash your children into fundamentalism.
Let me be clear about this. In Chile, for example, church and state are separate. But for historical reasons, there has always been religion class in most schools. Kids who have other than catholic religion or whose parents just don’t like it, can go outside and play during religion class.
Now probably OB is horrorized and cannot understand how Chile does not end up full of fundies, without total exclusion of even the slightest religious mention from public school.
Yet chileans will never have the problem of religious people trying to get some of their ideas into the BIOLOGY class. The religion professor in Chile, can say all he wants against evolution and teach creation willy nilly (I’ve never heard of any. Naturally they much rather talk about the bible), but that would NOT be in the biology class!!! It would always be under the label: “RELIGION”. And the religious people don’t feeel the need to force their views into biology class or other silly, desperate things like illegally make all the students pray like in US schools. Because religious people they can knock themselves out talking religion and make them pray all they want in RELIGION class.
You may want to analyse that specific case.
See, religion is religion. Not the fanged monster, not the root of all evil. Just religion. Everyone knows it is not a knowledge like science, and most people who have religion are not fundamentalists.
Oh, and for the record… The current president of chile is a socialist atheist woman. The previous one was a socialist atheist.
But you know, *reasonable* atheists.. like myself (hehe)
Only people who use insults are extremists?
Please.
Where did I say it would? However, if placed in a public school classroom it WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment rights of non-Christian children. Hanging a large pentagram in a classroom won’t brainwash kids into becoming Pagans or Satanists, either (and is just as unconstitutional), but imagine the hue and cry from fundies (and most likely “moderate”) Christians were someone to suggest such a thing is “harmless.” The ACLU’s phone would be ringing off the hook.
That’s great. I’m not against cultural traditions, by any means. It’s an overwhelmingly Catholic country, and it would appear they’re comfortable with having religious classes in their schools (and that non-Catholics are free to not attend), so good on ’em. It’s interesting that a Catholic country has one of the first female (and atheist) president. Seems to me it’ll take a hell of a lot longer than I’ll be alive before we see that combo in a president here in America, where Protestants are the majority.
Horrorized? Is that a word? ;-p (I’m just teasing, no offense meant) Not in the least. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to point out exactly WHERE I opined that there should be “total exclusion of the slightest religious mention from public school.” It takes a pretty big jump to come to that conclusion from what I actually said, which was that mandatory recitation of the bastardized Pledge is unconstitutional, and as a violation of the Establishment clause, the addition of the words “under God” in 1954 should be repealed.
No doubt you’ll be amazed to learn that, as a fan of mythology and ritual, I’d love to see religion in classrooms; in the form of comparative religion classes beginning in 6th grade or so. But that’ll never happen, because Christians simply won’t have their belief system being represented as in any way not superior to “false religions.” So, I guess I’ll have to settle for the neutral position the constitution mandates in public school, while private schools continue to teach their religion to their students. And [gasp] parents can teach it at home.
And, according to this article I found it would appear that evangelical Christianity is indeed on the rise in Latin America. They’re such a minority, however, that they’ve got a long way to go before they’d have positions of power like in our government. I’m also guessing that if the people of Chile are already progressive enough to have elected an atheist woman, they’re hardly in the same danger of being fearmongered into fundamentalism, especially of the Protestant variety, as I feel we now face in the US.
Just thinking out loud…
Not that there would be NO light, just darkened, as in darker than usual. Though I’m quite sure the great and terrible US army can see just fine in the dark.
Everyone is most certainly entitled to their opinion and to voice it. And I am quite sure the elders would be more than willing to hear what you would have to say about evolution, listen to the case you would present, consider the evidence, and come to their own conclusions. However, the elders are not the only ones who dictate my church, we have regular meetings to discuss important issues and it may be that they would put it to a vote.
That brings a question though: Would you leave a church that voted against evolution? If you weren’t shunned or ostracized in any way, but rather loved and accepted, would you stick around even if everyone disagreed with you?
Torbjörn:
Thank you for the explanation – I admit I need to further study the subject.
just darkened, as in darker than usual
Thanks, M.Petersen. I thought so. I’m not sure I understand all the physics, but what the hell, it’s your Rapture not mine. While I am burning in a lake of fire, sounds like you will have nice living arrangments (I’m happy for you):
“Wow! … a cubic mile of space in a beautiful city. It sure beats my little yard in the middle of a less than spectacular and nowhere-near-holy North American metropolis.”
“Would you leave a church that voted against evolution?”
Wow. So scientific theories get put up to a vote in your church, and if they are rejected, it means they’re false in God’s eyes?
Hell yes, I would leave a church that thinks truth operates under majority rule.
“Only people who use insults are extremists? Please.”
Of course not, but many do. The SMARTER ones don’t. You know, scumbags like Pat Robertson manage to thus maintain a patina of sainthood (combined with a poser meek tone of the voice)
Would’nt we LOVE it if Pat just lost his head and started screaming that atheists are demented fuckwits???
MP. I’m glad your church would not expell you, but I am not sure I understood correctly that hey would still keep you even if you remain open about your evolutionary views AFTER an explicit vote AGAINST evolution has been passed.
Other “end times” churches, specifically the Jehovah Witnesses, have already decided on the evolution topic and will not have someone defending evolution. They will expell him, and expulsion means that he must be shunned, and not spoken to. Those who are found speaking to him risk nothing else than expulsion, too. They are very worried about doubts that can spread.
Then again, taking it that the church votes against evolution, without expelling me for being open about what I think about evolution, I may choose to reamin in that church; yet I would know in my inside, whther I like it or not, that I am not staying in the church because I belive its doctrine is the absolute truth. I would alredy know that it is a half-truth, and that I stay in ti because of the people, and becuase I am human. Because I need to belong, to join others in a comforting, loving sameness.
Deep inside me, I would know something does not fit. My faith would be broken, and I would be hiding it, carryiing out what I know is a half-fake existence.
Well, OB, It is a bit difficult for me to understand why you think the recitation of the “bastardized” pledge, with the words “under god” (BTW you say they were popped in in 1954? I sincerely thought this was in the original texts but I wouldn’t know)
You have made an good argument that it is illegal, but then why do you actually CARE? In this country you can make a big deal over spilling hot coffe, if you WANT. Why are you angry, referring to it as “bastardized”??
Attitudes like this can make religious people think that the separation of state and church turns the state into an atheist oppressive machinery that wants to destroy any mention of religion for paranoid reasons.
“We have people running around who think the end is nigh and want to hasten it with all kinds of flaky magical behaviors. THEY are demented fuckwits. We are not helping to end their too-great influence by pretending that they’re just nice people with some odd but interesting ideas. They are dangerous loons who have acquired an astonishing amount of power…and we’ve got a lot of people here who want to close their eyes to their extremism and be nice to them.”
Why is it so hard to understand that there is a distinction between disagreeing with someone, even vehemently, and insulting them mindlessly? I never said that these are just people w/ “odd but interesting ideas.” Is there no middle ground between “closing one’s eyes and being nice”, and screaming obscenities at them? Really, it is baffling to me that a scientist can’t see this distinction. You can disagree with them. FORCEFULLY. Say you think they are wrong, and explain why. Maybe you will change their minds. Likely not. But you more likely WILL gain the respect of bystanders (in your church, coffee shop, etc.). Shouting obscentities at the top of your lungs isn’t going to impress anyone, save maybe the middle school crowd.
It is sad, really, how much you sound akin to very the fundies you so despise.
“‘If I had children, I would teach them to treat others with respect, no matter what their beliefs.’ This is exactly what the propagators of evil nonsense most desire: that we raise our children with no sense of discrimination at all, so that they will fall easy prey to their lies, and the cycle will continue forever.”
“Propagators of evil nonsense”? Our children falling “easy prey to their lies”? Phrases ripped right from the fundie playbook.
Keith Wolter,
Well said. It’s been said about 200 times on this thread already, and very clearly, I might add. And yet, still people don’t get it.
OB:
George said: “Some people deserve to be treated courteously, some don’t.”
This is what you say you are teaching your children. I agree when you say that some VIEWS deserve to be treated courteously, some don’t.” What I disagree with is saying “Some PEOPLE deserve to be treated courteously, some don’t.” There’s a huge distinction between the two. And it is possible to vehemently disagree with the VIEW without insulting the PERSON. Why is this difficult to understand?
PZ’s response to my statement:
“If I had children, I would teach them to treat others with respect, no matter what their beliefs.”
was:
“This is exactly what the propagators of evil nonsense most desire: that we raise our children with no sense of discrimination at all, so that they will fall easy prey to their lies, and the cycle will continue forever.”
Again, you equate respect for a person with respect for an idea. Raise your children to discriminate between good and dangerous ideas! Absolutely! I’m not trying to argue against that. I am arguing against disrespecting the PERSON when their ideas are dangerous. You can do this! You can get your point across! It isn’t even that difficult! I am NOT telling you to sit idly by as dangerous ideas are promoted all around you. I am NOT saying to curb your passion and keep your outrage to yourself. I AM saying do something about it! But do something about it using all the skills of rhetoric and communication that you have. I am NOT advocating taking the Jerry Springer approach!
I’m going to go home and talk to the wall for a little while. I’m sure the wall will understand what I am saying far more clearly than y’all.
All I can say is that fundies like Pat Robertson just LOVE it when atheists give in to rage and use of foul language. Better still if they make it their shameless belief. They will give these fundies a treat almost every day.
Pat Roberston is a demented fuckwit.
And I’d bet a good 60% or more of americans feel the same way.
Noooo. He’s not demented at all. What, with all that money?? I guess he is not precisely waiting for the rapture. Do you think the man takes what he says that seriously?
He’s doing his thing, to adjust to his crowd, to say the extreme and clear cut BS they want, and they reward him for it with money.
He’s just a scumbag, and if you call him demented fuckwit, you’ll make his day.
“The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that’s what’s been happening.” — Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981
“NOW is saying that in order to be a woman, you’ve got to be a lesbian.”–Pat Robertson, “The 700 Club,” 12/3/97
“I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”– George Bush
TWO DEMENTED FUCKWITS.
I don’t think you guys are getting the point. Maybe I’ll join squeaky in talking to that wall.
One of these “demented fuckwits” was president of the united states. The other is a goddam millionaire.
If they were demented fuckwits, you would deceive yourselves that these declarations would reflect their neurological problems.These guys knew exactly what they were doing: they want to rally support from their most reliable bases by appearing clear-cut, and well-defined.
I don’t say Bush does not actually FEEL that way (and I don’t think it was the smartest move to say that. He overdid it. Even Junior knows better!)
But he would never be stupid enough to delude himself into actually trying to DO something to make that real. In the end, he knew perfectly was trying to rally support by the old means of talking out of the ass.
And one of the reasons these phrases may actually work in pulling up some support is that some atheists are silly enough to go around pissing believers off or scaring them by calling them names.
And again, you won’t understand whta is going on if you think these are simply “demented fuckwits”
He’s just a scumbag, and if you call him demented fuckwit, you’ll make his day.
What’s with the fallacy of the excluded middle, you demented fuckwit scumbag?
Yu guys can rally each other. We hate them. We will unite under the cover of however is willing to shout they are demented fuckwits.
But are they just demented fuckwits? You know what, I wish they were. But they ain’t.
We end up doing the exact same as them, creating unity by opossition to them, by saying things that cabalize brute feeling…but in fact, are not true. That’s easy, but, I insist, not the best tactic.
You know, I’m perfectly willing to see “sc*mbag” substituted for “demented fuckwit”. It will require some finer distinctions, though, if we’re going to have to start splitting hairs this way.
George Bush and Pat Robertson, sc*mbags, sure, but Yoko Ono is no demented fuckwit.
“You have made an good argument that it is illegal, but then why do you actually CARE?…Attitudes like this can make religious people think that the separation of state and church turns the state into an atheist oppressive machinery that wants to destroy any mention of religion for paranoid reasons.”
See, this is what bothers me. Of course the separation of church and state SHOULD make the state appear “atheist.” The state is supposed to neither advance nor inhibit religion. The only way to accomplish this is to not deal with religion, period. The state’s operation in the lives of its citizens should NOT be promoting religion. In this, of course the state is going to appear “atheistic.” It *has* to. That’s what it means for it to be separate from religion–the religion just shouldn’t be there.
I also kinda hate the implication that atheists shouldn’t care about infringements of our constitutional rights because we’re a minority, and it would be rocking the boat to raise a ruckus. I hate the implication that atheists have no right to be angry about unconstitutional actions because somehow our beliefs, or lack thereof, are worthy of less respect than religious beliefs. The state is supposed to neither advance nor inhibit religion. If we were to replace “under God” in the pledge (which, yes, was added in 1954) with “Vishnu preserve us,” you can BET that it would be a big deal. Can you imagine being faced with a classroom full of angry Christian parents on parent/teacher conference day, and saying, “C’mon, what does it really matter? It’s just words.” Or what if we added, “and God would be a jackass, if he actually existed” at the end? Surely people who believe in god would feel that their constitutional rights were being violated, as well they should. You can argue whether or not challenging the addition in court is a good move *politically,* if you’re a bit more of a Machiavellian. Or you can say that it just doesn’t bother you that much, personally. But to imply that we have less right to be angry when our constitutional rights are violated than people with religious views just sets me off. I get annoyed when I hear things that basically indicate, it’s fine to be an atheist in our country so long as you’re quiet about it…freedom of religion and all, just don’t take that too seriously.
I care because the Constitution, and in particular the First Amendment are as sacred to me as the Bible is to any Christian, and it is my duty as an American to live by and defend it. It is what makes us FREE. It is not an expression of anger to call the insertion of the words “under God” a bastardization of the Pledge, but an accurate description of what those words did to this country’s official, secular, patriotic oath.
Main Entry: bas·tard·ize
1 : to reduce from a higher to a lower state or condition : DEBASE
2 : to declare or prove to be a bastard
3 : to modify especially by introducing discordant or disparate elements
There is NO question that the addition in 1954 was done for purely religious reasons, with explicitly anti-atheist intent. Here’s a little history, from Restore the Pledge:
As he signed the bill, Eisenhower said, “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”
I don’t know about anyone else, but Congress’ and Eisenhower’s statements put the lie to the argument that it’s simply “ceremonial deism” (whatever the hell that means), or that it’s just “acknowledgement” of some generic higher power (which is unconstitutional as well, and therefore fails as an argument, IMO). Similarly, the argument has been made that including God is “tradition” and should therefore be left alone. The Pledge was secular until 1954, so I’d argue that the Christian version has a shorter history, and is therefore LESS traditional than the earlier version. And no matter how you look at it, the version proclaiming us “one nation, indivisible” discriminates against no one… with the addition of “under God,” it serves to discriminate against anyone who doesn’t believe in the Christian God whose name is “God” with a capital G.
I’ve been in this fight for over 25 years now, my friend, and it’s not some genericized “religious people,” but specifically Christians, who are mischaracterizing the demand by those citizens whose rights are being violated that government return to the constitutionally-mandated position of neutrality in matters of conscience as the destruction of “any mention of religion.”
Christians have enjoyed special privileges and government endorsement since the McCarthy era, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Now that some of us would like to fix those laws that favor their religion (or a belief in “God” in general) over other faiths, or the non-religious, they claim they’re being persecuted or discriminated against, which is a total crock of shit.
The thing is, even if every law that unfairly gives Christians more rights than anyone else were repealed and corrected, it’s not as though they’d be losing anything beyond that special status. Their churches will still be on every corner (there are 168 of them within 5 miles of my house!), they’ll still be able to teach their kids the way they want to, etc.
As I said, I’ve been at this for a long, long, time; and I’ve been calm, rational, civil and courteous to those Christians I’ve attempted to argue with – until and unless they start attacking me. Then the gloves come off.
I’m not so much angry as I am tired… tired of trying to have rational discussions with irrational people who have adopted an air of superiority because they feel justified in doing so by virtue of their having been granted more rights than non-Christians.
Since they’re not afraid to call people who don’t believe as they do terrible names (as they so often do), or tell us we’re going to hell, we’re immoral, we’re murderers, we shouldn’t be citizens, we’re anti-American; I fail to see any reason I should NOT call someone whose ideas are patently ridiculous and delusional a demented fuckwit… or any equally offensive, but inarguably true term that would apply.
Their time is up.
Well, OK I hope you guys can forgive me for my ignorance, obviously this pledge has a historical charge that reflects the very worst times, and for these resons it is understandable to want to modify it.
I still don’t think it brainwashes your kids into fundamentalism, though.
But see, even McArthy went down with a big thud. Because he relied on extremism. And history has spat on his grave.
And I believe the fundies have played it wrong, their extremism and their silly talk just doesn’t gather that much momentum, and it eventually bounces right back in their faces.
Its not a very bright technique, to be extremist.
We don’t want to be the same. I assure, you, if they go away (I hope so) its not going to be because you guys decided to go insolent. Its because THEIR own insolence, bigotry and silly talk will have weared them out and made them look phony.
Now I think the biggest problem of religion in schools is how to balance the different religions. Maybe the parents of any specific religion who want it taught to their kids at school should be allowed to propose a special class be made for their children to attend to. I believe not too much leverage would exist for Satanism classes, believe me. And even so, only the kids of parents that WANT them to learn all about satanism would be attending.
I think that properly labeled as religion, and parents chosing whether they want their kids to assist or not, would be OK and would be an effective way of keeping affirmations of faith outside the more general activites and of course, outside biology class!!!
AV:
No religion in schools PERIOD. If they want to have a history class and do a section on
religions of the world, so students have an understanding of the foundations of various
religions and they’re history and geographic and sociological importance, fine.
But I don’t want there to be moments of prayer. Religious plays, songs or clubs.
They have a church feel free to use their facitlities and money.
Not with my tax paying dollars.
I don’t want my kid to feel wrong for not being part of the flock.
I want him to think for himself.
If you want your kid to think for himself, you’ll want him to practice by actually staying away from some flocks, not by avoiding exposure to flocks altogether.
As a kid I thought it was mega cool to be different and skip religion class and do nothing for a while. I drawed dinosaurs and read books in the library.
The money issue is certainly valid. But maybe alternatives can be found. Such as the churches financing the teachers? Just thinking out loud.
The point is, Steve, let’s say religious people find a mechanism to put religion into schools, without using your tax dollars, and without your kids having to take part of it.
Would you still say “no religion in schools, period”? How would you make that look balanced and non-repressive? You just don’t want anyone praying, even if its none of your kids and tghrefore, none of your business?.
All you are showing as an atheist towards religion in general, is the same hostility that a christian may show against any mention of satanism, in general.
And you are not stopping to think how this would keep religion out of biology class.
I mean sanctioned by schools. Which is already done in some form in chirstmas pageants and school holiday performances. Which aren’t a big deal but still bend the rules.
And I have every intention of my son being exposed to religion. But I as a parent want to have a say in how they are framed. I want him to know that there are many religions and variations. I don’t want other kids trying to recruit him in school. That’s not repression that’s respect for other students need to not be assailed with that crap in the halls.
I don’t think the sanctioning argument would be good enough at all. I don’t know where do you get these paranoid visions of students being assailed with religion in the halls. Certainly does not happen in Chile. The idea being, precisely, that religion class is for everything religious, not the halls, not biology class. And that message should be easy enough to enforce, because anyone can understand it.
If you don’t allow any means to release religious enthusiasm, it begins to be expressed in inadequate times and places like the hallways, biology class and other aberrations sprouting all over the USA.
You’ve never lived in the south. You really don’t understand what goes on here.
They feel entitled and even obligated to try and convert fellow students.
They spend weekend going door to door and knocking on doors.
Think of it as missionaries only packaged in unassuming “nice kids”.
It really is apparent that you don’t understand the pervasiveness of it.
Or West Virginia. I mean, we had prayers at the beginning of various major school events (like my high school graduation). Think we actually learned about evolution, aside a token mention that it was in the state-wide syllabus, accompanied with eye rolls? Not on your life.
My mother taught various high school science classes in our county high school and subsequently, in the neighboring county high school. By the time she changed careers, she was the only science teacher in that high school that wasn’t a creationist.
Had the school district known she was an atheist, she would have lost her job.
I should add, I don’t think adding a “Christianity class” would actually help decrease religion in schools. It would simply tell people that the government was endorsing Christianity. If it wasn’t, why is it being taught in public schools?
And no, it would not be “cool” to be exempt from religion (Christianity) class. Your car would be keyed and people would break the windows of your house, to say nothing of the treatment you would actually get in school.
Why have religion classes at all? What purpose do they serve? People already have religion class–it’s called Bible study. They do it on Sundays, usually, often after church. Why do we need to implement it in a public school?
I didn’t mean a RELIGION class. I meant in history or political science class.
You have to cover the motivation of various religious groups and what drives them.
When you take art history you have to cover relgious art. Doesn’t mean it’s a religion class.
Someone I know was ostracized in grade school for being an atheist. Her Dad was a professor of anthropology and the religious nuts would sign up for his classes so that they could interrupt his lectures with their anti-evolution arguments.
But somehow, OB, you turned out just fine, didn’t you.
SPECIALLY in those places, having a formal release vent could stop it from showing up in the wrong place. Can’t get much worse anyway, huh?
“And no, it would not be “cool” to be exempt from religion (Christianity) class. Your car would be keyed and people would break the windows of your house, to say nothing of the treatment you would actually get in school”
Horror stories don’t make for an argument. They are just an inivitation to despair and fling your arms into the air. Hey guys if stuff is as bad as that, NO solution is going to work, right ? Does it mean we shoud not have this discussion? Does it mean that the solution I propose is not the best, because places like that may exist? That’s just superficial “thinking”.
Actually this kind of horror stories are from people who have attempted stopping religious expressions in place in schools. Obviously, a direct confrontation like that is much more difficult to digest for the community than a kid that politely steps out of religion class to do something else. I’m not saying it would be rosy heaven for that kid, courage is needed but I hope you guys are smart enough to understand the situation is radically different from forcing everyone else not to do wat they do.
You just don’t know what would happen in this much milder, non confrontational scenario. I’m pretty sure, nothing like these hellish scenarios you guys peddle all the time.
I guess that people who generate most antibodies are people like jews that are orthodox enough to make their children wear the little hat wherever they go, or extremists atheists who aren’t quite tactful about their (wrongful) thinking that religion is just stupid superstition. In fact, they are silly enough even to encourage insulting.
It’s not only THEM that seem pig-headed to me.
I’m starting to think you really are dense.
Who’s confronting who? the religious are bringing religion into the schools.
Not the other way around. The non-religious kid should NEVER have to step out of
class EVER. This is exactly what we’ve been talking about when it comes to tolerating
the bullshit every single day. “hey, what’s the big deal?”
I’m not saying they should be calling other students DFs. But they shouldn’t have to speak up to call bullshit either. Atheists are always the tolerant. They’ve always had to be.
You’re advocating creating a “milder, non confrontational scenario” by violating the Constitution. Of course Christians will feel less confronted by provisions that come closer to establishing Christianity as a state religion. That’s seriously your solution?
The “horror stories” aren’t meant as arguments in themselves, they’re meant as individual anecdotes on the power that Christianity has over public life in American schools. Your solution appears to be, let’s bend the Constitution and give them MORE power. Surely appeasing them is the solution.
The government is allowed to neither advance nor inhibit religion. What you’re proposing is governmental advancement of specific religions. Maybe you’re right; maybe this whole experiment with constitutional freedoms will never work out, but I’m not willing to give up on it yet.
Hey, I’m just responding, putting myself in these worst- case scenarios, of these southern bible-belt towns you guys know everything about, and I’m telling you, that politely stepping outside the class can be little tough there, but not neraly as tough as the current only option of telling everyone to stop doing what they have always done.
In other places of the US, of course, kids would make fun of other kids that are forced by their parents to attend religion class.
If we atheist always have to be the more tolerant, that makes us better.
Alexander – what exactly is the point in bringing religion into schools? This is an honest question. School time is extremely limited, teachers are pushed to the brink as it is, scores in both basic and higher-level skills are way behind other first-world countries. What could possibly be gained by substituting religion classes for something else that is already in the curriculum? And yes, it would have to be substituted – kids aren’t exactly lolling around in hours and hours of empty study hall time these days. I simply don’t see the point. Religion can be a small portion of history or politics classes as they apply (can’t talk about the Inquisition without a little religious background knowledge), but there is simply no reason to add religious instruction of any kind in an already-crammed school day, especially since there’s no way to decide which religion to teach. The absolute best I could see would be an optional elective comparative religions class for those kids who have already met all the requirements for graduation, but then the same conservative parents who wanted religion in school in the first place will scream bloody murder when their children come home talking about Nirvana.
What’s wrong with learning about religion on Sunday at church? That’s what it’s there for.
So we should take the easy way out because it’s too tough to demand that schools be constitutional and religion-free? As for “telling everyone to stop doing what they have always done,” well, we’re not doing that. We’re not saying that they cannot worship as they choose, just not in a public, taxpayer-funded school.
You also say that in some places in the US, atheist kids make fun of kids who go to religion class. Really? Have you heard of such an instance? Because I haven’t.
Finally, being more tolerant doesn’t make us better. It gives us a lesser voice. You can choose to be tolerant if you wish, but it shouldn’t be a required tolerance. That’s just dumb.
Good grief.
Of course there is a reason. That parents don’t feel religion is “banned” by the oppressive state in schools that are atheist-producing machineries, and so will stop comming up with these attempts that evolution be placed under question , or that biology class be mixed with religion, or for everyone to pray in inadecuate situations.
If it takes some time, so be it. In Chile its 45 to 90 minutes a week.
No I’m not talking about assorted religon class, that’s stupid as you yourself point out.
And no, your kids would not be forced to attend. Only kids that would end up praying anyway would pray at the school. And why do you care that other people have their kids take some religon class????? Steve says “I dont want any praying going on at school” jeez man I honestly can’t undertand why if you are not being forced to pary you have to force all others not to pray.
Same silly thing with christmas plays. Sure, they are unconstitutiobal. Doesn’t mean you would be less of an uptight and paranoid creep to have them removed. And no, people would not take kindly to that, they would be all pissed and you know what? I would side with them, being atheist and all. Cause its silly, its anti-culture.
You guys wrongly think that any religion is “just stupid” or a waste of time. You demand that shools do not relfect what is a social reality inplenty of places in America: That religion is a long held and much endeared tradition.
Lets compare getting evolution taught straight in the bible belts, with doing the same thing in islamic countires like say, Iran!!!! where religion is quite obviously taught at schools
So, our genius plan is, before we start teaching evolution, first step is to tell them we are going to ban aaaaall religion from the schoosl. No more of that nonse!!!!!!
It just happens that we wiped out religion and began teaching evolution. How are they suppossed to understand anything else than evolution is their enemy, and that they must reject it?
See, this is how by seeing everything in black and white and extremist fashion you end up with your head buried in your ass.
J, read well. I did not say that was a reality, its hypothetical and in case you have not noticed, there is no rleigon clss in US public schools.
And what I’m saying is that we be tolerant with religion in itself, labeled as religion, and TOTALLY INTOLERANT, with the mixture of religion and science class and other aberrations that you have earned yourselves from being intolerant with religion on even frivolous matters.
I hope you can read it out closer this time. jeez
What do you think the separation of church and state means?
NO STATE SANCTIONED RELIGION. Schools are to be secular. PERIOD.
Kids can pray all they want in school. Pray before every exam. Pray they win a game.
Pray they have pizza today in the cafeteria. Pray Tara wears a tight white sweater. Whatever…
I’m talking about a teacher lead prayer or a prayer over the intercom system.
Or a bible studies club after school on school grounds. Or school sponsored
assmblies where someone comes to preach about the evils of drugs and then
instructs students to find jesus instead.
You really are dense.
It’s not the state that’s oppressive when it comes to religion.
What is oppressive about teaching evolution???
Nothing is oppressive about teaching evolution. But if you prohibit religion at schools, religious people are going to try to get it in somehow, and that where theyr are going to start, at the evolution topic, cause they have their own scientists saying it is bullshit and and at least they want that, see
Again, praying on the speakers is not the religion class I propose, but your pathetic reality. Doesn’t happen in chile EVER, mind you. Yet you as as society are so religious that even whe its illegal you have these religious outbreaks all the time. And what I’m saying is that you have religion class and be DONE with it, and like that you can clear religion form all activities where you would be FORCED to hear about it (which yeah, I totally agree SUCKS!!!!)
You guys are at odds with your own culture and don’t offer but unrealistic and extreme solutions that will go nowhere. You had anti evolution in the schools in the 50s, in the 80’s, now, and you can bet your sweet ass you’ll have them again if you keep going this way about it. I have no doubt at all!!!!!
“If it takes some time, so be it. In Chile its 45 to 90 minutes a week.”
You’re serious. You don’t care if public school students spend 45 to 90 minutes a week praying when they can barely add and subtract?
“And no, your kids would not be forced to attend. Only kids that would end up praying anyway would pray at the school.”
I think perhaps we’re talking about different things then. There are certainly students who pray during school hours, and no one is forcing them not to pray. However, school-sanctioned, teacher-led prayer is completely out of bounds.
“Sure, they are unconstitutiobal. Doesn’t mean you would be less of an uptight and paranoid creep to have them removed.”
So placating the religious parents is more important than upholding the Constitution. I see that we have our priorities straight.
“You guys wrongly think that any religion is “just stupid” or a waste of time. You demand that shools do not relfect what is a social reality inplenty of places in America: That religion is a long held and much endeared tradition.”
A tradition for some. Not for all. Religious people can go keep their traditions outside the classroom. Is that so much to ask? The purpose of schools is not to reflect social reality (although they are inefficient and bureaucratic, but I think that’s just a coincidence). The purpose of schools is to educate. School prayer does not educate.
If I understand your argument correctly, you believe that we should allow religion in public schools as a concession for teaching evolution. This way religious parents will not interpret the teaching of evolution as a threat by those extremist scientists with their heads buried in their asses.
I don’t think your reasoning is accurate.
1. Evolution does not violate the Constitution. School-led prayer, on the other hand…
2. So we make one concession. Then another controversial scientific discovery is made, and the religious expect another concession before that discovery may be taught in school. It’s a slippery slope.
3. The whole idea of negotiating science with religion in order to determine a school’s curriculum is ludicrous.
Firstly, NO, teaching religion in schools will not help the teaching of evolution in science class. It simply will not. It will only indicate that the state is willing to set aside the CONSTITUTION, the basis of our country, in order to appease a majority group. This is exactly what the Constitution was supposed to prevent. Case in point: we’ve already discussed the addition of “under god” to the pledge. Does that appease the religious? No. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people claim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” using the fact that “under god” is in the pledge as evidence of that!
You keep (deliberately?) avoiding anyone’s point about the unconstitionality of religion in schools, except as a throwaway line about christmas plays (“Sure, they are unconstitutional.”). Therefore, I can’t comment directly about your views on the constitution, except to infer that you think it is merely advisory, to be discarded when it threatens the views of the majority. Funny how the Constitution was deliberately meant to PROTECT the rights of a minority against the majority (uh, a minority like atheists perhaps? Or any other less popular religion than Christianity?). As I said before, I’m not yet willing to give up on the idea that our Constitution has real value in our country in terms of protecting the rights of minorities. You casually speak about enacting unconstitutional policies as though the document had no legal authority, and as though the privileges demanded by a majority somehow trump the constitutionally protected RIGHTS of a minority. So much for that whole “America” thing.
I am tolerant of religion outside our public schools.
Whatever. Make no changes. Keep religion banned from schools. 20 years from now, you’ll still have poeple wanting to question evolution at schools, like you have had for more than 50 years now.
I did not propose anything but that religious parents could have their kids and only theirs taught religon at their schools if they wished. This would keep biology class safe and religion out of inappropiate instances.
If you think this proposal would be equivalent ot eroding the foundations of the consitution, by bye America and blablabla, , what can I say other than my ears have become accustommed to this paranoid BS rhetoric coming up. That’s what I call being pig-headed. Period
I think when he says “tolerance,” he means “meek deference and subservience.” That’s the only way I get understand how it’s intolerant to “neither advance nor inhibit religion.”
If you think that allowing state-endorsed religion in public schools will suddenly make the creationists OK with evolution, you seriously need to talk to some of them.
And if you think that telling the Religious Right, yes, America IS a Christian nation, will placate them and stop them in their tracks, you seriously need to talk to some of them.
“Whatever. Make no changes. Keep religion banned from schools. 20 years from now, you’ll still have poeple wanting to question evolution at schools, like you have had for more than 50 years now.”
That’s right. If we allow religion into public schools, then all of a sudden, the creationists will say to themselves, “Hey, that evolution stuff sounds reasonable after all.”
“I did not propose anything but that religious parents could have their kids and only theirs taught religon at their schools if they wished.”
With taxpayer money? Uh-uh.
“If you think this proposal would be equivalent ot eroding the foundations of the consitution, by bye America and blablabla, , what can I say other than my ears have become accustommed to this paranoid BS rhetoric coming up.”
Yeah, that “eroding the foundations of the Constitution” “paranoid BS rhetoric.” “Blablabla.”
Wow.
I think that your reasoning is faulty. Rather than being appeased, it will just egg them on more. They’re being taught in one class that the earth was made in 6 days, and another class that it took billions of years to get this way. How is that going to lessen the conflict? And even worse, the 6 days part would have some sense of legitimacy because they learned it at school. It would absolutely not do what you’re claiming that it would.
I do think that it would be a mistake to go too far in the other direction, say like the recent French case in which a girl was not allowed to wear a head covering to school. Cases have happened here in the States as well with students being sent home for wearing Jesus t-shirts at school. Yes, individual students should be allowed to express their religion. However, it should absolutely not be given the imprimatur of the school itself, and certainly shouldn’t be part of the curriculum.
Why one person wants more religion in schools (italics mine):
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009ENy
The subject of religion in schools is a very simple and easy answered topic of controversy. Religion (Christianity on my behalf ) should be allowed in schools because there is no reason for it to be unallowed or even questioned. It is insured in the 14th amendment that religion cant have any laws passed resrticting it, and to do so would be a treasonal act on the United Satates behalf. Its very judgmental to look at religion and say that others might get jealous because they want a religion too, every religion out there offers itself to anybody who wants it ( especially Christianity ). It is impossible for a person to save his religion for home, because its a way of life.
I also believe that christianity should be taught in schools because of its acuracy in science and history.
Thats all I have to say, thank you
— John Buyers ([email protected]), January 21, 2003.
Good reasons? He thinks religion is not to be questioned, that it should pervade daily life (restricting it is tantamount to treason), and that it is accurate in terms of science and history to boot. Giving people like this a free pass on teaching religion in school is just giving them a free pass to brainwash children and impose their ignorant, authoritarian beliefs on others. It also gives them a convenient forum in which to attack the ideas children are learning in their “real” classes. Bad, bad idea.
Bible Belt horror stories are plentiful, to be sure. One of the reasons I could NEVER live in the South is because I’m sure there’d be a lynch mob of Jesus freaks on my front lawn within a month of my moving there.
AV, you keep misrepresenting my position and saying that I’m “afraid” my daughter will get fundified, and that’s not the point at ALL. The issue is that HER RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED, as are the rights of every other non-Christian or non-theist in her school. The Pledge, “In God We Trust” replacing our original national motto of “E Pluribus Unum” (another unconstitutional law passed in the McCarthy-era), adn all of the thousands upon thousands of things we have to put up with every day ARE A VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS. That’s not a small thing, and it’s getting worse as time goes on, because people like YOU are too young or too ignorant of history to see how long it’s gone on. You believe it’s “tradition” because it’s always been this way. I assure you, there WAS a time when you could watch TV for hours at a time and never hear about God, Jesus, Angels or miracles. These days I’m lucky if I can watch a whole show without some Christian bullshit coming into play. And guess what? There were kids who wore Jesusy t-shirts without getting in trouble, and without making a big show of trying to witness to their fellow students. Not so these days… my daughter’s been called a Satanist and told she’s going to hell no less than 20 times in her 10 years in school so far; and she’s not done yet. And I’m supposed to “be nice” and “suck it up?” FUCK THAT!
I live in Los Angeles, and it doesn’t get much more ethnically and religiously diverse than this, not to mention that political correctness and tolerance is practiced to probably the greatest degree in the entire nation. There is no religion in our public schools, no creationism or ID. So, you’d think there’d be few, if any, incidences of a non-Christian being disregarded or discriminated against during a school event.
You’d be wrong.
When my daughter was in 2nd grade, some fundy parent made a stink and said that if our class’ carnival booth (a gypsy fortuneteller) was going to be allowed, then she had the RIGHT to put up a booth to hand out bible tracts and WWJD paraphernalia. Just a few days before the carnival, the principal of the school called to tell me and my kid’s teacher that we had to change the booth entirely, “Because if ONE PERSON is offended, that’s too many.” I told the principal that *I* was offended, but we’d change the booth; and that the other mom was clearly a demented fuckwit (without profanity, but barely. Then I warned her that if I saw ONE “WWJD” pencil or religious doodad at the school’s Winter Fair/sale, we’d be meeting next in court.
Fast forward to just last month. We attended the high school choir’s end-of-year banquet, which cost $35/plate. Not all that much, but a strain since I was unemployed from Dec-March, and have been underemployed since then. But I’ll do anything for my kid. It was a nice venue, and a change of pace from the stress and chaos of most choir events when everyone’s too busy to say more than, “Can you help me with this or that?” It was nice to spend some time with the parents and kids, just chatting and relaxing.
When it was time for everyone to sit down, the school principal called for attention, so awards and thank-yous could be handed out. The FIRST thing he did was start asking for blessings from God and thanking him for the competition wins the choirs had gotten throughout the year. My daughter, husband and I, as well as a few other parents who’re not Christian (there are Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and at least a few atheists among us) all looked around at one another, rolling our eyes, and then just sort of sat there uncomfortably, not wanting to make a fuss but clearly NOT happy about having to sit through invocations to someone’s invisible friend as a part of a SECULAR PUBLIC SCHOOL function.
Again, I’ll mention that this has been an issue that’s been a concern to me for almost 30 years. Instead of hearing LESS God-talk, I hear more and more. It never fucking ENDS! From the President down to the principal of a school, Christians never hesitate for a moment to lace their speech with preachy God/Jesus bullshit, even in the MOST inappropriate places, knowing full well their audience is not limited to people of like mind or beliefs, and that what they’re saying is quite probably a violation of others’ constitutional rights. They just don’t give a shit, because as far as they’re concerned it’s their RIGHT.
Why? Because they’ve been given a pass for so long, infiltrated every nook and cranny of popular culture and have now gained so much political clout, that they believe it’s their RIGHT to do so. Had the principal asked for the blessings of Allah or Vishnu, you can bet your ass it would have been a HUGE problem – right then and there. The Christians would NOT have sat uncomfortably and rolled their eyes until it passed, like we all did… they’d have made a big show of leaving in a huff, and would have their lawyers on the phone before the valet brought their car to them.
Truly, I don’t care if it’s tradition, I don’t care if they’re the majority, and I certainly don’t care if they’re offended. They need to get it through their thick skulls that there IS a wall between church and state, shut the fuck up and keep their religious views at home, in church, OUT of our government, and especially out of public schools where kids are a captive audience subject to authority. Love Jesus all you want, wear t-shirts, jewelry and whatever else makes you feel all Christiany, but keep your preaching to yourself and don’t subject other people’s kids to your delusional superstitions.
They’ve gotten louder and more aggressive and take for granted that they have special rights simply because they’re Christians, and there’s no way in hell I’m going to let them slide without pointing out their insanity, not to mention their violations of MY rights anymore.
If people want their kids to learn about religion in a context other than that of history or art, they need to reach in their own pockets and put them into a private religious school. I’d rather my tax dollars be spent on kids learning how to survive in the REAL world, free of dogma and irrational concepts like gods.
John Buyers is not only a demented fuckwit, he’s a moron. God damn, son, get your nose out of the Bible, buy a dictionary or use a spell checker and for fuck’s sake at least learn enough about the Bill of Rights to know which amendment you should be whining about.
OB, my guess is that Buyers is referring to this clause in the 14th amendment:
Section 1 … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… .
Here was another scary post:
I think there is no reason why religion shouldn’t be allowed in schools. I think there are more believers than there are athiests so if the athiests don’t like than they can chooose not to listen. As far as the teachers go, i feel that if they teach than the student should listen. Athiests don’t have to believe a word that the teacher says, but teacing is part of school and students should be required to listen.
— Jarred D. Wyatt ([email protected]), November 04, 2004.
I have visions of the Supreme Court debating whether the atheist who brought ear plugs to school violated the teacher’s right to teach religion.
I’m just proposing something different because what you’ve got is obviously not working, I just convince myself further and further of it with each “horror” story.
Again. If we had religion class, creationsim or what-e-ver would be taught under the banner of RELIGION, not science, and I repeat, only to kids of those parents who WANT them to go to religion class.
Now of course, if you just want to oppose it, any excuse is possible, even if teachers are payed from churches, its still using government owned and maintained property, blablabla. I myself would have no problem for them be payed by tax, because I think this would keep religion out of places where it does not belong. I’d consider it an investment.
Politically, I KNOW it’s an impossibility, because of people like you. I just want to make it clear that from my point of view, your unwillingness to compromise and generalized hatred of religion is part of the problem, and as you have stated above, you seem quite happy as it is, having creationism step in labeled as science every now and then… trying and trying…maybe some day, it will just make it.
I have no respect fo either a bible thumper or consititution thumpers. As far as I am concerned, they both have a practice of avoiding thought by delegation to preexisting text elevated to sacred status. Both texts are guides, but it would be silly not to understand that extent of application is subject to organic reality. Like banning christmas pageants does not (hopefully) occurr, despite it being “inconstitutional”.
I do believe that religion totally banned in schools worries christian parents who are not rich enough to send them to a more churchy school. They understand that their kids spend plenty of their time at school, that its supoosed to instruct them for life, it stands for that. Thus they resent that what tothem is an important part of life is in fact banned at school.
So again, if parents like these were allowed to introduce religion class for THEIR children (and no one elses) what do YOU care? Sure, you can talk about tax, government property, whatever…say that is solved. You would no longer be able to avoid the issue that what it truly boils down that is that you are being authoritarian and going out of your way just because you don’t like religion.
I’ve had enough of talking to you guys. You can disagree with any new and creative idea and leave things as they are. In the end, you’ll get what you deserve.
Vargas. You don’t even know how it works here. Stick to Chilean politics.
Anyone remember Pinochet?
The system has worked for quite a while. It’s the christians that are trying to create a theistic christian government where the apparent majority forces its views on the minority.
The constitution was specifically written to NOT allow any one religion to be sponsored
by the government. That includes schools dipshit.
They are trying to change this country first subtly and then more drastically. First change the schools. Then the courts. It is their belief that they get priority and that we’re supposed to be a CHRISTIAN NATION.
That was never the intention of the founders.
Your ideas aren’t new or creative. They are weak and boring. There’s nothing authoritarian about not endorsing any one religion in school.
Yes tolerance and understanding between cultures should be taught. Duh.
But that’s not the issue.
Try living in Mississippi for a few months. See how tolerant they are.
I’ve had enough of talking to you guys.
Promises, promises.
Thanks especially to Steve_C, and OB. When he gets back I’ll have to ask Wilkins if the philosphers guild membership really does provide exemption from consideration of all your estimable observation and evidence.
“Vargas. You don’t even know how it works here. Stick to Chilean politics”
This is no argument, but it does sounds like admitting that the Chilean approach is ideal, but your ‘stark reality” has got you trapped.
Truth is, the chilean state is not run by the catholic church. Separation of state and church is effective. You may delude yourself that having religion class means the contrary. Nope. It’s just a culture more true unto itself.
“Anyone remember Pinochet? ”
Oh I see. Nation finger pointing? Veery constructive. Considering the kind of person you are, its no surprise. A weakness for bigotry is expected. Yes I do remember pinochet, and the guys who wanted him so badly. That couple of darlings called Kissinger and Nixon.
“Try living in Mississippi for a few months. See how tolerant they are.”
Another non-argument. I think I could handle them better than you, no doubt. Because I have a better understanding of religiosity.
Think this. You guys ARE a christian nation. There was will enough in a given moment to change the pledge to reflect that, and the truth is, you’ve never gathered enough enthusiam to change it back.
Why would you have a better understanding of religiosity OR what goes on in the U.S.?
This nation may have a majority of christians. But not by LAW dimwit.
Umm… and we threw Nixon out smart guy. You had Pinochet for almost 20 years?
Oh, for the sweet love of FSM. We are not a Christian nation. Perhaps it is true that we atheists need more “enthusiam” to change the religious overtones in our pledge, our currency, our courts, our government. But that’s what we’re all proposing. Atheists need to form a voting bloc, and we need to make our voice heard. You’re right. On the other hand, you’re the one saying we should make concessions to religious groups. What?
Christ, why isn’t this thread dead yet? We keep whacking it over the head with a baseball bat, but it just won’t die!
AV, you really don’t seem to understand that deliberately violating the constitution in order to placate these people will NOT NOT NOT NOT somehow take religion out of biology. It won’t. It simply won’t. If somehow we were all convinced that it would be effective, maybe some of us would be willing to “make a deal with the devil.” I don’t know. Different people value different freedoms more than others. The point that we’re all making is that it would NOT have the effect you seem to think it will have. It will simply make things worse, because it will show these extremists that they can get what they want by pushing hard enough. And have you read the Wedge Document? They’re NOT going to sit back and relax. Let’s look at challenges to abortion, shall we? Have they been satisfied with implementing waiting periods? Requiring parental consent? Having federally funded “pregnancy centers” that distribute false information? Allowing pharmacists to withhold birth control? No. Each concession that they get just encourages them to push harder on the laws and gives them more momentum, and makes them feel more secure that they are in fact citizens of a Christian nation. These are people arguing that the separation of Church and State is entirely fictitious liberal propaganda. Proving to them that they are correct will NOT somehow magically change their mind about that, and I’m really confused as to why you think that it will.
Plus, I am trying to think of a single other area where anyone with your viewpoint would be so flippant about constitutional rights. Obviously I can’t speak for you, but would it be okay for the government to deliberately be “just a little” discriminatory toward blacks, for instance? Like, maybe let them have anti-discrimination laws when it comes to employment, but allow housing regulations that deliberately discriminate based on race, because we want to keep the prejudiced whites happy? Or how about allowing people to speak freely in a public square, unless they criticize the government? After all, it’s just a little unconstitutional because they can always mail pamphlets instead of talk in the public square like everyone else, and this way we keep all the republicans happy. Are these concessions you’d be willing to make?
I said it once before. You seem convinced that it’s impossible to maintain a society where the Church and State are actually separated. Apparently you are convinced that the constitutional experiment has failed. I’m not willing to give up on the ideal of separation of Church and State, as enumerated in the Constitution. I don’t understand why these Christians have such weak and fragile egos that they can’t handle the same treatment as everyone else.
This is, so far, a nation of laws; not gods, not kings. I got yer Christian Nation right here, pal.
Oh, and I’d pay good money to see a few episodes of Alexander Vargas playing Survivor: Mississipi. There might even be some among us altruistic enough to “Trissle, Trassle, Trussle Trone, Time for zis vun to come home,” him out of there before he inevitabley winds up in a ditch.
You are talking out of your ass again, Steve.
I’m not mentining Nixon to say you are a bad country, unlike the mean spirit in which you mention Pinochet.
I only had to bring Nixon up because Pinochet would have not made it without his support.
And unlike Nixon, Pinochet killed internal opponents, with the help of CIA agents like Michael Townley.
Not that easy to throw out.
But the resistance, the FPMR quite nearly killed Pinochet. FPMR did finally kill the brain behind the Pinochet regime, Jaime Guzmán.
See, some chileans did what they could.
You’re not from around here are ya?
Do you accept the lord jesus christ as your saviour?
Oh yeah, Vargas would have a blast in Mississippi.
Mississippi. *shudder*
What’s the big deal with admitting the truth, that the US is a christian nation? Chile is a catholic nation, Iran is an Islamic nation, India a hindu nation, Japan a Buddhist nation…
The fact that you get so fired up about it, just shows your generalized hatred of religion and how you WISH the USA were an atheist nation.
But the truth is, this country has far more churches per block than any other I have seen.
Neither would have Saddam and a bunch of other despots.
This country did alot of things I’m not proud of. Even if the
motive of fighting the cold war seemed smart at the time.
I think you fail to see the fundamentals of what this country is
based on. It’s founded on tolerance and fairness. It’s already a given.
The way things are supposed to be.
It’s just that one segment seems to think they are ENTITLED to an exemption.
That the government and it’s law should follow IT and give it an exception to
the rules because it’s a majority.
The rules are already bent in their favor and they want to BREAK them permanently.
You don’t seem to understand that fundamental point. You lack the insight to understand what the problem really is. And you keep bashing us over the head with it.
Thanks Vargas.
I rest my case.
AV, are you deliberately blurring traits of the majority population with the function of the government, or do you not understand the difference? A majority of Americans are Christian. The United States is a secular nation with a separation of Church and State. Note the difference.
I really think this demonstrates why you don’t seem to understand the Constitution. The whole point was to protect the rights of minorities. That’s why there’s freedom of religion: to protect minorities, like atheists, from governmental impositions by the majority, i.e., the Christians. What you’ve just said seems to indicate that you don’t understand this.
Steve C, you’re probably right with that last post… probably just time to let this one die.
It’s the VERY FIRST THING in the bill of rights.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
No. I understand the problem with the “christian revolution” but you guys are incapabale of understanding something as simple as the fact that “rational science” is not at war with “irrational religious superstition”, or that being insulting does not help at all.
Being insulting and calling religion stupid will only contribute that you have the problem again and again, cause people hate that kind of attitudes. They feel like rebelling against YOU.
You have at the root of your thinking a false dichotomy between religion and science, and if you MAKE a christian nation choose… guess what!! Science gets thrown out of the window.
Um, how does not wanting public schools violating the constitution equate calling religion stupid? I’ve been talking about… let’s see… “under God” in the pledge, prayer and religion classes in public schools, and creationism taught as science. I really don’t know why that has anything to do with calling religion stupid.
Seeing that Alexander is posting repeatedly to get a reaction, are now raising strawmen right and left, and have started to argue ad hominem it is likely he is a troll. However I wanted to clarify my previous comment for the thread.
“It’s because you are dismissive of philosophy and therefore mediocre at it, that you think simplistically of science and have not known how to handle the creationist problem, but actually fueled it.”
If someone criticises ad hominem, one expects that person to not be included in that argument. However to raise the strawman that “philosophers that makes special pleadings to try to problematise a theory” means to dismiss philosophy is bad logic. The special pleading, that you do yet again, is that philosophy of science can tell a scientist how science works practically.
Any scientist worth his pay must know what invalidates his theories. If he doesn’t it means he doesn’t understand how the theory works and possibly what is evidence *for* the theory. If someone observes a signal travelling faster than light, that would be a problem for relativity. Likewise, a modern rabbit in a Cambrain layer means that common descent with modification is incomplete and must be discarded. There is nothing peculiar with this, it is merely falsifying some of the theories predictions.
That is entirely different from the philosopical question of popperian falsifiability and its worth. Of course we don’t expect theories as relativity and evolution to be falsified. It is special pleading to ask for a theory to make sense of a hypothetical problematic observation. Discarding common descent with modification means that life is impossible. So the alternative is to have no fossil record whatsoever, which is an absurd philosophical invention.
“Its plainly dishonest. To “play” the empirical chap, you act in fact as a traitor to science.”
I’m very honest with my science, and in this case since I’m not a biologist, others science. Falsifying evolution by biologists: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html . Falsifying phylogenies with the rabbit example is by a philosopher and historian of biology http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may05.html . Note that the claim of non falsifiability is filed under common creationist claims. If you don’t accept the evolutionary claim of falsifiability, I suggest you discuss that with the experts at talkorigins.
“The point being, Larsson, you are naïve when you belive that science is “a matter of evidence”.”
Here you are raising another large and ugly strawman. If you had followed other threads here, you would have observed my usual claim: Science and its methods are hard to describe, and it is impossible to predict its results. I also claim that science a priori is based on observations with no other assumptions, but a posteriori has amassed such ideas as universality, isotropy, methodological naturalism et cetera. The interplay between observations and theories, formal or not, is complex and iterative at every step.
It is the difference between a priori and a posteriori claims, well justified all the way, and between observations and theories, again well justified, that makes science and its practices not doctrine ie not ideologies. Philosophy making special pleading instead of adjusting for facts is ideology though.
Kmarissa, quite a few here like Steve and OB “just happen” to advocate insulting as a valid tactic for confronting religion.
Aren’t we at comment like 700 or something? Haven’t we been talking about religion being taught in schools for some time now? I don’t understand what insulting the religious has to do with your argument at THIS point in the comment thread.
Not as a method of confronting religion.
A method to MOCK and RIDICULE the DEMENTED FUCKWITS who think we’re entering the END TIMES.
FUCK you are dense.
Hey Stevie, whats up, relax, man. That IS a way of confronting religion, a way I disapprove strongly but fits you nicely and serves me to prove my point. M Petersen is nothing else than an end timer but I can tell you, MP is a nice person evolved several levels above you as to human interactions concerns. No wonder we may be losing.
“If someone observes a signal travelling faster than light, that would be a problem for relativity.”
It would certainly be problematic to use relativity to study such a thing, but this BY NO MEANS would be an empirical falsation of relativity. Relativity would continue to provide sound explanations for the set of phenomena it was set out to explain. This is like saying that the empirical observations in which quantum mechanics works better than relativity ’empirically falsifies” relativity, or that the empirical obsrvation sin which relativity works better than Newtonian mechanics “empirically falsified” Newtonian mechanics. Not at all. There are domains of applicability, of questions, in which each one of these schemes not only works fine but remains the best.
“No wonder we may be losing.”
Funny. I thought it was because atheists like Alexander Vargas believe we should tolerate religious people trampling on our Constitution.
I never called him a Demented Fuckwit. At least I don’t think I did. :)
He’s deluded himself pretty well but not quite demented.
And I did confront him. He just never really answered questions other than
quoting or posting scripture or links.
And you haven’t disproved anything. Just a theory.
Now think about the cambrian rabbit again, Larsson
I think any person that thinks about it hard enough would have to sincerely acknowledge that it woud be a problematic phenomenon, that cannot be explained by common descent requiering for new, yet unexisting new forms of explanation, but but that BY NO MEANS does it mean that common descent with modifictaion did not occur or would cease o explain what it explains.
If you can acknowledge, larsson, that the interplay between concpet abd data is complex, and not just an emoirical feed in, you make a silly choice when you chose to ditch the PHILOSOPHICAL distinction between science and non-science, and you play playing right into the silly narrowness of the creationit, feeling uncomfortable if he demands that you list data that would falsify common descent. All you could do is produce data that is “problematic” but never anything truly refuting common descent.
This guy says it well:
http://philosophytalk.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/respecting_reli.html
“To the extent that religion generates in the believer the felt entitlement — an entitlement not secured or ratiifed by reason — to hold the world to their religion, religion demands a place in the public square. But the more totalizing religion becomes and the more unwilling it is, in effect, to share the public square, to view itself as contestable, as one set of beliefs and practices among others, all of which must earn their public places through public reason, argument, and evidence, religion is simply not made for the public square. Perhaps believers do a disservice to themselves and to others when they insist that it is.”
People should keep their religion to themselves. That’s what churches are for. Join up, go gaga in the front pew, love Jesus and praise him to the skies, but don’t push it on others and don’t expect others to put up with any attempts to introduce religion into public life.
“No wonder we may be losing.”
Weren’t “in god we trust” and “under god” both added to their respective mediums BEFORE the teaching of creationism and school-mandated prayer were held unconstitutional? Weren’t we losing even back then, before we’d done anything terrible like assert our constitutional rights? Apparently if we don’t fight back, it’s our fault when we lose. But if we do fight back, it’s our fault and that’s what’s making us lose.
Face it, the only thing that will make the religious right stop fighting for special governmental rights is for there to be no more atheist Americans, and no more separation of church and state.
Face it, the only thing that will make the religious right stop fighting for special governmental rights is for there to be no more atheist Americans, and no more separation of church and state.
Right. Because that’s what God wants. And what God wants God better get, or else everybody gets the big bad “judgement”. They’re always talking themselves into all kinds of stupid stuff.
Well… duh.
Wind up the irony meters, people:
Narrowness. A truly american plague. Will anyone escape? So many countries, after all, end up imitating every american trend…*sigh*
Mr. Vargas, as a resident of the southern US and product of its public schools, let me explain why your proposition is misguided.
Public schools are funded and operated by governments which, per the Constitution (see Amemdments I and XIV), are prohibited from endorsing religion. The Constitution, by the way, is the highest and most essential law of the nation, so violating it is no trivial matter.
However, public schools are not the only option for education. Since they are not government institutions, private schools are free to be explicitly religious. Furthermore, churches, as private organizations, also share this freedom.
So you see, far from being in any danger of being “crushed by the atheistic State”, religion is quite free in the US. And there began the trouble. Certain evangelical Christians (known as Fundamentalists) decided that churches and private religious schools were not enough for them. They decided that they should infiltrate and “Christianize” secular government institutions. This political agenda often expands to include non-Fundamentalist Christians, becoming a populist movement, in areas where there is a Christian majority inclined to “defend” their religion.
However, majority or not, the goals of this political movement are unconstitutional – i.e. illegal. The extent to which their transgressions are not legally addressed does not diminish that fact. Amnesty, much less immunity, is not an appropriate response, and that is precisely what sitting back and saying “What’s the big deal?” equals in practice. It is the right and duty of concerned citizens to oppose this movement.
Some said the same about blacks in the segregated South. I don’t recall any of them being supporters of the civil rights movement though. I do recall police, and later the Army, being needed to protect nine black students in Arkansas from violent mobs.
Opposition is the correct response to law-breaking, not tolerance due to misguided notions of majority rule.
I think you are not quite cynical enough. The change to the pledge did not necessarily reflect the will of the people, though it doubtlessly reflected the will of the officials who enacted it. That does not mean that the US is a Christian nation. It simply means that our federal government’s recent kowtowing to certain Christian interests is not novel.
I know, I know, its illegal, as illegal as christmas pageants, as stickers on biology books, as praying on the speakers. Yet this happens all the time in the US, mainly because not enough people care about truly enforcing the law or do not agree on what are the acceptable extents to which it can be applied.
What I am telling you, is that I believe we could get a pretty long list of countries in which religion is taught at schools. Thus, a majoritarian religion is acknowledged and yes, somehow “endorsed” by the state.
Does this make these countries theocracies? Are other religons repressed? No. That would make for a huge scandal.
I think that with data at hand, it is reasonable for me to argue that the specific situation in the states, banning religion from schools despite the cultural fact there IS a majority of religious people, has bounced right back at you. Yes, I do believe the ban of religion from schools is related to the efforts to introduce it disguised as science in biology class.
And no, I believe most religious americans are not crackpots or end-timers and do not want their president to make decisions without thinking merely quoting the bible or waiting for rapture etc. That is, if the application of the constitution allowed for religion class under the terms I say, religious crackpots would not take over and atheocracy be installed. Sincerely, folks.
All I guess it would mean, is that christians without the money to pay for churchier schooling, would feel christianity is not being banned as a formative choice in schools.
And you may get less of the crazier folks that you work so hard to taunt and make unhappy.
AV, this is exactly what I have said twice now. You are saying that a constitutional government guaranteeing separation of Church and State is unworkable.
I am saying that I’m not ready to give up on the idea quite yet.
As long as we disagree about the possibility of contitutionally-based freedom of religion to be a workable form of government, arguing with Americans is pointless. Our government is based on the Constitution. When we all decide to up and re-work the whole thing and give up on the whole “Constitution” idea, then maybe your ideas will be helpful.
Hey vargas.
You’re just wrong. You’re talking in circles.
If your application of the concept of separation of church and state is pushed to an extreme and peddled as “just the law” without a convincing argument, you will end up cartooning and endangering the very concept, people will feel bitter about it and talk against it.
Without a convincing argument? Pushed to an extreme?
What exactly is a “reasonable” concept of the separation of church and state? If the state deliberately holds classes for its students where it teaches that evangelical non-denominational protestantism is what God wants, how on EARTH is that an “reasonable” interpretation of the separation of church and state?
If that’s not what you mean, then what on EARTH do you mean by “religion class”?
You know–this thread was almost dead until PZ linked to it on another thread.
Vargas,
No one else seems to understand where you are coming from, but I certainly can see what you are trying to say. You are an atheist, and I am a Christian, but we are both very concerned about the extremism we each see in our own camps.
The sad thing about the middle ground is that our voices are so effectively drowned out by the extremists. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so moderate voices–voices who see actual possibility for some form of common ground upon which to build (albeit small), are rarely heard. The result is, extremists on both sides hear nothing but the extremist voices, and they get even more entrenched in their views. But that’s what happens when people are so set on their opinions–they need to scream even louder so that moderate viewpoints cannot be heard–never mind that the majority of Americans are amongst the middle grounders. They feel that any concession is actually a blow to their position, even though it may, in the end, lead to a solution in which most people can function in peace.
The problem is, extremists on both sides tend to label their “enemies”, thus dehumanizing and marginalizing them. They don’t take the time to understand what the background or motivations of their opponents might be. Does anyone here even have the slightest clue why it is that fundamentalist Christians fear evolution so much? Have any of you actually sat down and spoken to any of them to really listen and learn where they are coming from? Or would you rather just write them off as whackjobs who can’t think to save their lives? And the behavior is justified by saying, “Well, they don’t try to learn where we are coming from.” This is true–they don’t. Someone has to take the first step…
This exact behavior is being played out in a much more drammatic and serious way in the Middle East. Every step towards peace is undermined by extremists on both sides who do not want a single concession made, never mind that the majority of people simply want to live in peace. I have little hope for lasting peace in the Middle East so long as extremists have their way.
In the same way, as long as extremists refuse to take any time to listen or understand those on the other side of the battle between religion and science, there will be no progress, and I have to agree with Vargas that science will continue to suffer.
I have been saying this very thing for going on 15 years, and if anything, the situation has grown worse. Not better.
Squeaky:
Do you believe in the seperation of church and state?
we know why christians fear evolution.
it’s contrary to what is said in the bible.
It is unreasonable to defend the separation of church and state as if it were so fragile a thing that the slightest bending, like teaching religion in schools, would collapse things into a theocracy. That is just not true.
That’s underestimating the self-sustained advantages of secularism as a form of government, in this country, and in other countries where religion is actually taught at school.
I do–but I wasn’t really commenting on that. I haven’t really given Vargas’ views too much thought on the matter. But that’s not the point of my post anyway.
And your response to why Christians fear evolution is only part of the reason.
Religion is taught in schools. PRIVATE schools.
That’s why ALOT of kids are sent to private schools.
So in our hypothetical Religion class… would budhism be taught?
Islam? Shintoism? Hindu?
Don’t be dumb steve, we already talked about that. Its all about what parents demand. If there is a bunch of hindu partnets, let them have their hindu class.
As usual, rather than thinking on the larger picture you want to get troublesome on the details or fabricate unlikely scenarios. Just remember that many countries just do it, period.
You are thick. That can be the only explanation.
You’re right it’s an unlikely scenario. Because parents wouldn’t want Shintoism taught to their Christian kids even if there were a couple of japanese students in the school.
Thus discrimination and the establishment of a religion as a dominant teaching.
You either do a class on world cultures and cover MANY religions or you don’t cover any.
It’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.
I don’t believe you are stupid, Steve. You are just unwilling to accept the clear rules that make my prposal reasonable and thus you can attack a cartoon. But I will not spend anymore time repeating stuff to you. I will just answer “read back”. It is kind of sad how your extremism does not allow you to consider proposals in true fairness. You lose.
I said from the beggining, that like in Chile, religion class would not be an obligation and that the only kids to take them would be those sent there by their parents.
And I keep pointing out that our CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS do not allow or it.
The very thing you are proposing IS EXTREME.
“Oh if you just give them their religion class in public school they’ll listen to evolution and not be so nutty.”
Do you not see how backward that is? Especially when it’s the nutty ones wanting religion taught in school.
I understand what your proposing. And your theory just doesn’t hold up.
I’m saying keep public school out of the missionary business.
kmarrisa:If the state deliberately holds classes for its students where it teaches that evangelical non-denominational protestantism is what God wants…
The thought of it makes me sick. NEVER!!!
I demand an FSM class in all American public schools. I also want a Hinduism class, a Buddhism class, a Shintoism class, an Islam class, a Wicca class, a Satanism class, and a Judaism class and a Christianity class. And I will scream loudly until politicians agree to bend the Constitution to please me.
Geez Vargas, get yer own blog.
Hey, it worked for PZ. (He DOES get quoted in Nature, after all.)
Hey Vargas, your religion-class idea is retarded. Here’s why:
1) Who is going to teach this shit? Is the school system going to have to find/fund a suitable teacher for every sect/division/offshoot/cult that wants one?
2) If you are only teaching the kids who “opt in,” why teach at school at all? Isn’t that what churches & temples, Sunday School, CCD, Bible study etc. are for?
3) What the fuck does it have to do with science? After Molly learns in fundie class that the Earth is 6000 years old, is she going to be confused in geology when she learns it, ahem, older? Your whole “give ’em religion class, and they’ll leave science alone” stratedgy is like Europe and Hilter, or Israel and Gaza. Why would they stop there?
Whether AV is clueless, malicious, or just arrogantly cluelessly malicious, it’s been entertaining reading everybody’s responses in this bizarre game of Whack-A-Troll.
I’d call Godwin’s on post number eight hundred and effing five had it not been misspelled; it would have been the sixth invocation.
And yet, the Alexander Vargas loghorrhea fillibuster continues.
I haven’t laughed so hard at anybody in quite some time.
Ceding our rights is a hell of a lot more than a “compromise.” And I can only speak for myself, but I don’t “hate” religion at all! I don’t believe any of them are true, and I’m no longer a member of any of them, but I find them fascinating and probably know more about most religions, and about the differences between denominations of Christianity than most Christians do.
You DO understand that the primary reason for the wall of separation being written into the Constitution was NOT to protect Christians from non-Christians, but to protect Christians from being persecuted by OTHER Christians; which was rampant at the time. Puritans killed Quakers, and the hatred and distrust of Catholics (who were and still ARE a minority in the US) has a long, long history in this country. We didn’t have a Catholic President until 1960, and even then, his religion was enough of an issue that there were people who wouldn’t vote for him simply because he was Catholic. We’ve YET to have a Jewish President, and quite frankly I don’t see it happening in MY lifetime.
That’s the problem with the sort of “compromise” you propose. Even if Christians in general are allowed to make further inroads into government, the next fight will be over the government not getting behind the “true” Christians, i.e. Protestants. You DO understand that there are many, many fundamentalist Christians who don’t even consider Catholics to BE Christians, right? What happens when, in your proposed scenario, the majority of the kids and teachers in a given school district are Catholics, and the minority Protestant kids are being taught to venerate the Blessed Virgin or pray to the Saints? Do you honestly think those minority Protestant parents will NOT be as (rightfully) pissed off that THEIR constitutional rights are being violated, just as the atheist minority parents like myself are NOW?
You see, that’s why there must be complete neutrality on the part of government, because the slightest favor of religion over non-religion, or one sect over another ALWAYS violates someone’s rights.
As a more stark example, let’s say the school is in Detroit and there’s a majority of Muslims. Is it not a violation of their rights when the few Christian kids in the school are made to prostrate themselves facing Mecca and pray several times a day… simply because “that’s what the majority wants”? Should Mormon kids in California be steeped in the doctrine of Calvary Chapel fundies, and have to be deprogrammed each night? I really don’t think you’re thinking clearly on this.
Perhaps it works in Chile because it’s mostly Catholics, and if nothing else, they do place a hell of a lot more emphasis on actual education and less on biblical literalism and infallibility (in other words, they’re more REASONable). Here in America, where the majority is Protestant, and the people who’ve made the most noise and the gained the most political power are the fundamentalists, the overarching idea is that if science (or history, or math, or whatever) contradicts what’s in the bible, it’s NEVER the bible that’s wrong. Make no mistake, their goal is that “every knee shall bend” and they won’t be satisfied until we’re ALL demented fuckwits waiting to fly up to heaven with Jesus in the Rapture.
The furthest thing from my mind is removing all religion from the public square, because it DOES have a major impact on the culture of its adherents; and I LIKE living in a diverse society. What I DON’T like and simply cannot abide, is compromising the First Amendment rights of the few just to appease the many. That way lies nothing but strife.
The Constitution of the United States is a radical document in that it is wholly secular. Read up on its history, and you’ll see just how many people throughout the centuries have fought to “correct” that. During the Civil War, there were Christians who truly believed that the thousands of lives lost and the War itself was a punishment from God for failing to acknowlege him in the supreme law of the land. The comments of people like Falwell and Robertson after 9/11 and Katrina stand as clear evidence that not much has changed in the minds of Christians in almost 200 years.
No, OB it works in Chile and several other places because nobody is FORCED to attend religion class.
The fact that I have had to repeat this about five times, that religion class can be skipped by anyone who does not want to take it, makes it evident you guys can’t imagine anything better than attacking a strawman. It just proves the weakness or superficiality of your own point of view. Haven’t you got something better?
I would really appreciate a NEW, challenging argument, that would make me think, not the eternal repetion of this, the tax argument and constitution-thumping.
And about that, who will pay, the tax money whatever. I will repeat, cause I want you to think. Say all that is granted, none of your tax money would be invested, say churches take care of it or whatever. Probably you would still want to bann parents from having religon taught to THEIR kids at school, but you would have no excuse to hide from the real reason, that you are authoritarian and want nobody praying, even if it isn’t your kids (like Steve and George have said, for instance)
I think you guys have an impairment to reflect fairly on arguments you don’t like. It’s like explaining things to Jehovah’s witnesses over here.
Anyway thanks OB, for that historical context, and yes, I did suspected that religions fighting each other was the reason for secularity, and not a particularly atheistic US back then.
Notice I’m saying that parents of any religon may make arrangements for THEIR kids to have religion class at school. That is the US would not be siding with any particular religion. That is the porposal.
Ken said: And yet, the Alexander Vargas loghorrhea fillibuster continues.
AV in a nutshell:
1) My country is better and more enlightened than yours. We have managed to include religion in schools.
Good for you.
2) We have managed to include religion in state without harmful repercussions, so you can too. What is good for Chile is good for the U.S.
It’s against the law here. No it isn’t.
3) Your failure to be more tolerant is a result of irrational hostility and anger towards religion. Chill out.
Our anger is legitimate. Our Evangelical kooks are not like your Catholic kooks.
I honestly think you guys could save yourselves trouble by including religion, and no, all those repercussions you see do not convince at all. They are paranoid.
I am trying to imagine alternatives to adjust to US reality, like parents arranging for classes fo their particular religion, rather than having any “official” religion.
And Chile is NOT a more enlightened as a country. People are severely divided there over politics, and the right are of course a bunch of catholic cooks former suporters of Pinochetthat control most of the money. And we have a rising evangelical religion, who are creationists of course.
I do think the system has turned out to be fortunate, for even backwards reasons if you want, passive historical iheritage. It is not that we were smarter, it just so happens I think it works.
But yes, I do think that you have irrational hostility, that you blame relgion for more than what its truly about, and that you fail to se that not all religious people are extremist. You need to realize that religion feeds from underlying sociological causes. It is a tool, and those sociological causes are what need to be addressed.
AV, the thing is, schools ARE allowed to be used by religious groups on evenings and weekends, i.e., when schools aren’t being used by teachers for classes, if the schools decide to open their doors to these groups and become limited public forums. So, if a school decides to allow a “religion” class on off-school time, taught by someone who is not paid by the school, that’s fine. The thing is that then, the school constitutionally has to allow other groups to use its space during non-school hours, too. By becoming a limited public forum, the school can’t then prevent atheist groups to meet as well, or pretty much any group with any viewpoint. Most schools don’t want to have the bother of opening their doors to that kind of thing. The absolute ONLY point to teaching a class during SCHOOL time would be to emphasize that the state does endorse a particular religion. There is no other explanation for insisting that classes be taught in school during school time and that the non-conforming children leave the room. As many people have pointed out, parents have all the non-school time that there is to send their kids to religion classes, and as I’m pointing out, those classes can even be on school property if the school choses to open its doors to everyone.
Second of all, and this is a minor point, I really have no idea how you’d determine what version of Christianity to teach. At least where I come from, probably the biggest one church is a methodist church, but the members of that church would be greatly outweighted by the evangelicals from a number of different non-denominational churches, and methodist classes would be lambasted for being too liberal. So you couldn’t teach methodist views. But any one of those evangelical churches is just a small portion of the children who would want to be in a “christianity” class. So which evangelical church do you teach? Whose version of Christianity? Do you teach that dinosaurs were biblical monsters, or that their bones were planted by the devil? Do you teach that Catholics aren’t actually Christians, as most of these people believe? Obviously you teach that that homosexuality is evil, because there’s a consensus on that, but do you teach that god actually hates gays, as one portion believes, or that gays are just particularly sinful and we should pray for them? Do you teach the Victory Baptist viewpoint that women should wear skirts and not occupy positions of power, or the other Baptist Church viewpoints that women are allowed to be religious leaders? As I said, this is a minor point that really doesn’t have much to do with the fact that the ONLY point for teaching religion in schools like this is to placate the Christians that separation of church and state doesn’t apply as much to them as it does to everyone else. But it’s still a pratical point that you’d have to deal with.
Sheesh–there ARE classes on comparitive religion taught in MANY public schools. And they include a wide variety of world religions. In my high school English class, we read portions of the Bible–not because the teacher was trying to prosletyze, but because so much of Western literature makes allusions to Biblical themes. There are legitimate courses dealing with religion that are currently being taught in schools.
(I know this isn’t quite what Vargas is proposing, but it is in answer to someone’s message “well, would Shintoism, Buddhism, etc. also be taught?”)
I can envision a class taught on the scientific method in which young earth creationism and ID is also taught and examined critically in light of whether it can be considered real science. I don’t remember who said it, but one scientist who was also an atheist actually welcomed such an idea–so students could see why these approaches cannot be considered science.
I do understand your proposal, but what makes it unworkable is that the very act of a public school or district approving a class in religion – no matter which one and even at the behest of the majority of parents – IS the government siding with a particular religion, because public schools are government entities by definition. By officially proclaiming that, in keeping with the majority of adherents in each neighborhood, Main St. School’s religion class will be taught according to Catholic doctrine, while at Maple St. school the class will be tailored to Buddhism, the government is making a law respecting an establishment of religion which is explicitly proscribed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The above scenario is precisely why any religious study groups that wish to use school facilities for their gatherings, if they’re given permission at all, can only do so during non-school hours. I take no issue with that, by the way, so long as it’s applied fairly. If the Good News Club is given permission to meet at Main St. School on Mondays at 4 PM, the school should be fully prepared to grant permission for group meetings of Buddhists on Tuesdays, Muslims on Wednesdays, Hindus on Thursdays, and Wiccans on Fridays. Unfortunately, those schools that HAVE allowed their facilities to be used for such meetings more often than not end up facing lawsuits because they give permission to one group, but deny another the same permission; and often end up crossing the line between on- and off-school hours by making announcements or distributing flyers for the after-school religious classes during official school hours.
This article spells it out better than I can: Targeting Public Schools: Religious Right Groups Are Trying A Back-Door Plan To Evangelize Public School Students
I support comparative religion classes as long as there is no bias taught.
However, the atheist point of view should also be taught.
And I support ID being discussed as something that’s NOT science in science class.
The argument should be dismantled right there in class.
Religion has NOTHING to do with science.
Squeaky, we’re not talking about a comparative religion class being taught, or a class that examines creationism/ID from a genuinely scientific standpoint (pointing out the errors in the “science” proposed). I have no problems with those. We’re talking about a school having, for instance, a “Presbyterian” class during school hours, where all the non-Presbyterian kids have to leave the room so that they Presbyterian kids can pray together, led by their teacher.
AV, I understand what you are saying, but addressing the root causes with angry indignation is also legitimate. We have a crooked President who is propped up by a bunch of religious extremists who want to play god with women’s lives, block stem cell research, and think Katrina and global warming are signs of the coming Rapture. Their extremism is destroying the country NOW.
The cause of all this is ignorance and stupidity and the solution is better education, not an educational system that would give right-wing religious extremists a soap box IN THE SCHOOLS from which to perpetuate their idiotic religious ideas.
Again I must point out that most religious people in the US have no problem using the system as it exists for religious education. They give their children religious instruction at home and in church even if they don’t homeschool or send them to private religious schools. The issue is certain religious extremists for whom the system is not enough. The answer is not to “bend” the Constitution by allowing religious indoctrination – however funded, however staffed – in public schools.
It doesn’t matter if the parents of every child in a school district share the exact same religion. It is still illegal in the United States for the public schools in that district to be used as pulpits.
These off-hour meetings….are they organized by parents for children attending that school, or are we talking about just any group using the space? Just wondering
George, suoer education, I think, is not the solution, but alternative existencial frameworks operating on all society, alternative to those forwarded by religion…with challenges, direction.
“We’re talking about a school having, for instance, a “Presbyterian” class during school hours, where all the non-Presbyterian kids have to leave the room so that they Presbyterian kids can pray together, led by their teacher.”
Well, actually you are not talking about that, either. You are talking about an ELECTIVE course on a specific religion. Only students who signed up for it would go, it is funded by parents who want that class, and so there would be no kicking out of the non-Presbyterians, as you suggest.
I understand what Vargas is proposing, but I think, based on your statement above, you perhaps don’t.
I’m not saying I agree with him. I think someone made the point that these courses already exist within churches, etc, and parents really don’t need these classes in the public school when they are already available in Sunday School.
However, he does make a point that perhaps you are letting your bias cloud your ability to understand his point if you think he was saying what I quoted above.
The meetings are sometimes organized by students, some by parents or even teachers.
But groups that have nothing to do with the school don’t have access.
Let me tell you how it is in Chile. There is a prayer to begin class, and I think maybe to end. Then the class goes on about the basic catholic beliefs, typically bible stories. Older kids don’t have religon class, but I can’t remeber just how old…
Steve said: I support comparative religion classes as long as there is no bias taught. However, the atheist point of view should also be taught.
I support religion class being team taught by a clone of PZ and a religious nutcase of his choosing. Let the chips fall where they may.
The idea is that a public school is a “limited public forum” that the state has the option of opening to public speech (and therefore to ALL public speech) or closing to public speech. So the school can completely prevent any non-school use of the property, or if it chooses, it can open its doors (so to speak) and allow groups to use its premises on off-school hours. However, due to freedom of speech and freedom of religion concerns, if the school allows one group to use its space for meetings or classes, it has to allow other groups do to so as well. So if it wanted, it COULD allow a prayer group or particular religious class to use a classroom on off-school hours, but it would have to allow other groups to do so as well. I don’t know how many schools do this, I imagine a good portion of them just don’t want to bother with the extra trouble of having to have their premises open in this way.
But I’ve never personally dealt with off-school groups using the property or anything, so if anyone else knows more about how it works in a pratical sense, definitely clarify/correct anything I’ve said.
Are you mocking me Vargas?
Okay, yes, I’ve been justly corrected. Non-Presbyterian kids would be allowed to sit in the Presbyterian class if they chose, and pray with the rest of them. Heaven forbid we discriminate and kick them out.
You still have a public school endorsing a particular religion. The fact that we’re saying that tax money shouldn’t be used, but that it should be taught during school hours on school property just seems to make it clear to me that the point is a symbolic endorsement of that particular religion. We’ve already established that parents can and do send their children to bible studies, etc., on out-of-school time. AV has explained that the point of putting religion in the public schools as well is to placate christians who feel that the state should support their religion. The rest of us all have a problem with the unconstitutionality of that.
AC, I understand your point about the extremists, but see, given that religion classes do exist in some countries, and that does not make them collapse into theocracie,…
I truy belive that having religon class would seriously steal the thunder from these extremists who want for example creationsim taught in biology class…you can say Hey man good grief, you already got yer own darn religion class!!! I think they would lose plenty of traction, whereas in change, they may confuse the less extreme into supporting them on these wacky causes, if they canalize the feeling that their dear relgion is unfairly banned.
Sure, I’m talking about classes that teach a specific religon in sincere fashion, paryer allowed. Religous people would not ahve it any other way for their children, they would rather not have religon class. What I am proposing is totally relistic and is the only way to solves the problem. thses ‘religion of the world” scenarios are not only unrealistic but would not satisfy religous people but qute to the contray pissing them off and as such will not buffer the attempts to introduce REAL religion through aberrant methods.
And we’re saying that religion class in public school besides being illegal would have NO effect on the fundies trying to change what is taught in science class.
Evolution is a threat to their point of view. Period. They’re relentless and don’t care about what moderates accept.
No, I don’t think leving the decision to kids get to chose whatever religion class they wnat to attend to would work at all, but their parents chose (or parents can chose to give them the choice). like most things at tender ages, your parents decide for you, I;m not advocating any silly extreme of pluralism, good grief.Why do you guys set up cartoons every three seconds!! We can argue without stumbling around so much
Do the religious people pay for the electricity they use after-hours to hold their indoctrination sessions? Do they pay for the janitor who cleans up after them? I hope school space is being paid for by whomever is using it.
(No mockery intended, Steve, if you are referring to my post)
You’re not preaching tolerance. Your preaching appeasement and capitulation.
It doesn’t work. It only gets them asking for more.
That’s fine, steve, but you would still have the point they already HAVE religion class dammit! and I think that would seriously weaken their traction and their argument, they will be exposed as the fubndies their are, whereas now they may gather quite a lot of symoathy under the idea that religion is “banned” and that schools are atheist-producing machineries
Is that too hard to understand?
I;m not saying they will not ASK for more, of course they will!! But I do think most people are not fundies and will get it that having religon class is already enough. I really do trust that most americans will be sensible about this. As I say, not all religious people are extremists and you fail to see that.
Wait, I’m confused. Not that it makes a difference constitutionally, but out of curiosity, are we talking religion classes in early school or in later school? Some people like Squeaky (not to single you out, you’re just the one I remember mentioning it) said that these would be elective classes that kids/their parents could choose to attend, but other stuff that AV gave me the impression that these would be grade-school classes (3rd, 4th, 5th grades), where you don’t really have electives. Again, it doesn’t make a difference in the constitutionality aspect, but if we’re talking little kids, it’s not about elective-based schedules.
And P.S., I’m sorry about the confusion re: kids choosing the classes or their parents, but honestly, I don’t think that makes a difference in the argument either way. That’s why I was careless in distinguishing between the two; I just don’t see its relevance.
It’s not relevant. Vargas’ theory doesn’t hold up.
His “strategy” is to let parents set up religion class in public school, sounds like junior high. Not every religion of the population would be represented, just the most insistent
or dominant. This would then apparently look like reasonable capitulation to moderates and who would then favor NOT teaching creationism in science class since apparently it’s
already taught in their religion class.
Doesn’t make sense to me either.
Well, that’s an interesting aspect where bending and tweaking can be done to adjust to the american reality: what age.
I have been thinking yes, along the line of 3-5 graders
I think that its relvant small kids don’t chose for it to work, cause religous parents would juts not have it that their kid be learning another religion.
AV, I think I understand your point about it exposing them as fundies. The problem is, those fundies are the only ones pushing for things like prayer in schools. I really honestly think that the people who agree with them now are the same people that buy into that whole “separation of church and state is a lie” stuff, and will always agree with them. And if that small subset exerts enough pressure that we respond by caving in and deliberately doing something that even moderate Christians oppose, that won’t lessen the support by those that don’t believe in the separation of church and state because they won’t be appeased, and the moderate majority that doesn’t want prayer in schools already opposes what you’re proposing.
Unless someone has some statistics that a majority of the population wants prayer/religion class in schools.
Whatever,Steve, you are quite evidenty biased in a wholesale bitterly antireligious direction If you ask me, people like you are as hard to convince as religious crackpots are.
I think it would work.
So the kids taking the religion class aren’t even in the SAME SCHOOL or CLASSES as the kids taking BIOLOGY classes and studying Evolution. By the time they get to biology science they’ve already been programmed in a lower grade to believe in creationism.
Brilliant.
By the way. I was raised catholic in a military family. Was even confirmed.
A greta majority of the popultion is “spiritual” and about 50% are “religious” according to stats by steve.
If the separation of church and stae has been pushed to unreasonable limits (for example, anticultural stuff like baning christmas pageants), people will idnetify separation of church and state as the problem.
I think that separation of chruch and state cannot be cartooned as dogma and unfortunatley part of this I think is unreasonably beliveing that religon in schools would spell catastrophe, asi it clearly does not in other countries.
This wears out tha concpeto of separtion of church and state, and makes people specifically go againts it. A problem we would have avoided, had we known earlier not to be so struct about it. Nobody would have identified it as something unreasonable.
I know this may seem unaccpetable to you guys but it does make sense and I really think we need to autocritizice and once and for all consider the possibility of how much WE have been part of the problem, and stop frikin rubbing each others shoulders and congratulating outselves all the time, jeez. Thats for morons.
That’s why you are angry, Steve. But I think no one here could ever match MY particular horror story with religion.
“Vargas’ theory doesn’t hold up.”
Actually, it’s an hypothesis =).
I think the spirit of the suggestion is a very well-intended attempt at finding some middle ground. It’s important to have suggestions like this made. He’s simply trying to find some way to free science from the grip of religious fundamentalists, and he has made an effort to address some of the fundie fears, which is the banishment of religion from public schools.
I also think others have made good points of why it wouldn’t work. I think as an educator, I would say the classes belong in church. I don’t think saying a corporate prayer at the beginning of the day would be widely accepted in most states, but I also don’t think saying “Under God” in the pledge is an issue to get all riled up over, either. And another of the fundie fears is that the ACLU is working to have those words stricken from the pledge. Concede it–it isn’t that big of a point, and far better to put that energy into getting science taught correctly than get bogged down something so trivial.
Perhaps the following concession could be given–you’ve heard it said that as long as there are tests, there will always be prayer in schools. Prayer should not be mandated by a public school, nor do I believe there should be time set aside to force kids to pray. However, if students want to have a VOLUNTARY prayer meeting or Bible study on their own time, before school or during lunch or after school, that shouldn’t be a problem (school’s already open at this time, and so they aren’t using any resources that aren’t already being used). As long as it is voluntary and on their own time. And maybe schools already allow that, I don’t know.
I’ve already said the rules are BENT for Christmas stuff and the country does recognise religious holidays of jews and christians. You can’t be descriminated against if you are observing certain religous holidays outside the judeo/christian norm.
I never complained about Christmas pageants. I don’t want them banned. They’re innocuous in most cases. But these are after school activities and you can choose not to go or have your child participate.
You fail just fail to see how a rather vocal fundie minority wants the rules changed for them and want ID/creationism taught in science class. The moderates don’t give a shit.
Example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=Hovind
I have no religion horror story. Sorry.
My parents were liberal and somewhat religious.
I’m not an extremist. I don’t hate religion. I hate ignorance.
Leaving aside the pointlessness of this whole debate, and emphatically NOT taking the bait about Vargas’s likely priestly-diddling revelation, why would Catholicism be any better at cranking out moderates than any other religion? Look, I’ve always thought the whole rabid shebang about not saving a prayer at graduation was overblown, misguided waste of capital. But having an actual class on Catholicism, or Buddism, or LDS, or what-ever? What a waste. In case you missed it Vargas, the American school system is having trouble teaching kids to read, spell, and add numbers together. Parents are increasingly dependant on school to do all sorts of things they used to do. The last thing the school system needs is another responsibility. You keep saying nobody is listening to you, etc. Please listen to me, and explain why Sunday school, etc. is not a workable, cost-effective solution to this non-problem you are obsessed about?
Let’s get to a 1000….
What number are we on, now? I’ve just been entering through the link in a later thread.
I think the big point here is that we disagree on whether genuine separation of church and state is a workable system. The only reason that it seems like “unreasonable limits” to some christians is that christians have long gotten unconstitutional favorable treatment. I still have hope that eventually they will be able to play by the same rules as everyone else. Perhaps not; perhaps religious majorities always need to feel specially supported by the government.
But this all goes back to the constitutional stuff that I’ve said several times before. I don’t think that everyone on the separation side of the debate necessarily thinks that allowing religion to be taught in schools will guarantee that everything will slide into a theocratic dictatorship. Sure, maybe not.
But I think the point that we’re trying to make is that sometimes things DO slide into theocratic dictatorship. The whole constitutional separation of church and state was meant to be a somewhat radical means of establishing strict boundaries that would prevent that from happening. Doesn’t mean it HAS to happen if this one social experiment isn’t followed. But our fear is that if we give up on the idea of enforcing the separation, whether or not that means thing inevitably WILL slide into religious dictatorship, it means that there’s really no PROTECTION from that happening. For all the examples of states that do support one religion while still allowing a large degree of secularism and religious freedom, there are other states where state endorsement of one religion has serious tangible impacts on people’s lives.
I think none of us on the “separation” side here feel convinced that your proposal will provide legal guarantees and protections against further interference by these people. After all, we’re talking about people whose goal is to nullify the division between church and state. They aren’t a majority, sure. But this is what I tried to point out earlier when I mentioned inclusion of “under god” and “in god we trust” earlier. Those were both added at a point when creationism and prayer were part of public schools, and the atheist “threat” was completely fictional. However, now, these are seen by the majority of the population as completely legal, and the majority would resist any efforts to remove these phrases. I think that if you were to cave in to the desires of this small current subset of the religious and institute religious classes, just like with “under god,” this would soon be seen as totally normal and not unconstitutional. However, that small subset would still be pushing for greater religious involvement in government. If the majority of the population is neutral to their efforts now, how does a religious minority have any protection from the next step of their Wedge strategy?
I’m not asking these questions to be rhetorical. My point is that the Constitution was set up as a radical instrument to set certain boundaries. When we break those boundaries, this doesn’t guarantee that everything goes to hell. However, it leaves us with no legal basis for protecting ourselves. Think of it this way: if we have Supreme Court precedent that it’s allowable to teach Christianity in school, what possible legal distinction could they draw against teaching creationism in school? How could they justify one but not the other?
Sorry for the long post.
KW, the issue is not that the kids aren’t getting the religious education that their parents want them to get. The point is that religious fundamentalists see the state as completely secular, because it is (or at least is supposed to be) exactly that. By having religious classes during school on school grounds (although without taxpayer money spent), religious extremists would stop complaining that schools are secular, because, well, they wouldn’t be totally secular anymore, and therefore the extremists would lose ground in terms of forcing the teaching of creationism in science class. And again, AV, this is an honest attempt to be fair to your argument, so please correct me if this is a misrepresentation.
In my opinion, this argument demonstrates the unconstitutionality of what we’re talking about, because we’re not talking about the ability of these kids to get the information, we’re talking about the symbolic endorsement of teaching it by public schools. Kind of an idea that, if we “admit” that the US really is kinda a Christian nation, then extremists won’t push so hard to insist that it’s an evil, atheist, secular, liberal nation.
Getting as far as been confirmed seems already quite horrorous for me hahaha
Listen you guys I’m trying here, OK? Trying hard so we can all understand at least why do we have the situation that we have, even if we can’t think of a solution, cuase if I haven’t, you guys sure as hell haven’t come up with anything to solve a problem of creationist intrusion that has been going on for 50 years emblematically in THIS country (can’t think of any other with such a marked symptom)
For example, for Stevie all that it bilds down to is that “religion is ignorance” This opinion strkes me as wel… pretyy goddam ignorant. See Steve is part of the problem. Its not all about laws, its also about cuture, about everyday life and opinion and attitudes like insul ting, Steve’s extremist thinking and attitudes ranks to me as the specular image of the fundies and as an atheist I am ashamed by people like this.
I never said nor do I believe that religion equals ignorance.
Believing that earth is 6,000 years old is ignorant.
Believing the bible is literal is ignorant.
Vargas. You’re arrogant.
I’m not an extremist.
Let me be a bit more explict.
My intention is ony to provide a buffer so science is labeled as science and religon as religion, and a strong argument to keep religiosty OUT of where it does not belong.
Off hour meetings don’t gurantee that. No. The more FORMAL an instance we can get for religion, the better. As formal as possible!!!!
No counter-argument is possible that way. As long as it is informal, they will always be able to act like its not really happening. Get it? Formalize, and there is no excuses: Just STAY in yer goddam FORMAL religion class!!!!!!!
If anything I’m only giving you a teaspoon of the crap you give to other people, Steve
Vargas. The Joe Lieberman of Atheists.
Dude. They have FORMAL religion class… it’s called CHURCH.
They’re not even asking for religion classes.
But what mechanism would we have for keeping it formalized in “religion” class and out of science class? Especially in school districts like mine, where both classes will quite possibly be taught by the same teacher in the same room to the same students?
Seriously, this is kinda what I was trying to talk about with the “horror stories” earlier. This is the situation at hand: the very science teacher who is supposed to be teaching about evolution refers to it as “that evolution crap.” I remain unconvinced that she will stop referring to it that way, and start teaching it as real science, as soon as she gets permission to teach creationism to the same students in the same classroom an hour later as well. After all, what mechanism will possibly get her to do that, especially once you agree that, yes, the state supports creationism?
Cause its currently just illegal!! SO: They stick in what they think is the “scientific” part of their religon, that is, the creationist nonsense, OR : They throw themselves against the whole church and state separation thing!!!!
They DO resent religion banned from schools.
I’m still waiting for someone else’s proposal for a solution.
We don’t have a way of keeping it formalized. We have a policy of strict separation of church and state in this country, which is an example of a “formal” distinction…yet all that means is that the religious try constantly to breach the wall.
I’m all for a comparative religion class in high school, taught by someone with training in philosophy or history (not theology). The idea that we should appease a religious majority with specific classes that pander to their sectarian ideas is insane — all that would do is convince them to expand their efforts. And I’m afraid that teaching kids patent nonsense about dead gods coming to life again is the antithesis of education: it’s indoctrination, it’s telling a generation of kids that any foolishness is acceptable school content, and it’s nothing but instructing students in gullibility.
Was that a response to me? I don’t understand what you mean “it’s just illegal.” They were fighting the teaching of evolution since back when they were still teaching creationism AND having prayer in school, so I really don’t think there’s much argument that they’d somehow be okay with teaching evolution as science if they got both of those things back. They weren’t before, they certainly won’t be now.
Of course they resent religion banned from schools. They want religion to be supported by the government, and not just tokenly acknowledged in a few random “religion” classes.
I’m still waiting for you to convince anyone that your “solution” would actually do what you seem to think it will.
“Believing that earth is 6,000 years old is ignorant.”
Well, that is true. Now the real problem is how to teach people why it is ignorant. I mean, how do you get through the huge walls that people put up to protect themselves from science that they perceive to contradict their faith (not that they have actually studied the passages they think it contradicts, in many cases)? I know from my own experience that there are some very real fears and defenses that get in the way of trying understanding and accepting the scientific validity of radiometric dating and evolution. Vargas proposed allowing religious classes so that people don’t feel that schools are trying to shut God out of the classroom, and as a means to hopefully get the fundamentalist’s eyes off of the science classes. It’s a hope that it would free up student minds to be receptive to science. However well that would work, I don’t know. Most of you don’t think it would, and I tend towards that view point as well. But then, perhaps the bigger question is, if that won’t work, what will?
Vargas has identified the fear inherent within these people, and the solution he has tried to propose acknowledges and deals with that fear.
What solution could you propose that would also acknowledge and deal with the very real fear that fundies have? That is the wall that keeps them from listening rationally, and is the wall that needs to be addressed if we want science taught as it needs to be in this country.
(an aside–as much malice as most here project towards ID, I’d just like to point out that in order for fundamentalists to buy into it, they need to concede some of their ground. I heard a young earth creationist friend of mine defending ID. What this person didn’t realize is that most proponents of ID believe in an old earth and also in evolution for that matter. Perhaps that is a concession that could be built upon?
“Get it? Formalize, and there is no excuses: Just STAY in yer goddam FORMAL religion class!!!!!!!”
That’s the crux of it, right there. Most of us have interacted with them long enough to know that the counterargument will be “If you agree that religion is ok for this class, you have to allow that it’s ok for the other classes, too.” It absolutely does not segregate religion into religion class and provide an outlet for their religious fervor there, it acts like a portal to leak religion everywhere else in school as well.
We’re currently up to 865 comments on this thread. One thing I’ve noticed that is absolutely necessary for a thread to reach that kind of length is the presence of an intransigent kook: a classic example of this was my post on creationist genetics on the old site that drew in the semi-legendary lunatic, Susan. These aren’t discussions, they are games of kookball.
I think we can all tell at a glance who the kookball is in this particular game: the one who has obsessively and futilely contributed 15% of the comments here.
If we plan on going to 1,000 comments and beyond, let’s get hempel over here.
Alexander, would a formal atheism class also be an acceptable requirement in your school? They could teach disrespect for religion.
Kmarissa, lets saythat in some places this would nbe a solution, and in the case you mention, not much worse than what it already is.
But please, lets all think about htis! we do have common objectives We dont want creationism at schools, we dont want to have to containing their attacks all the time, winning here this once , but just plainly losing there that other time!!!! Things can get ugly. We need a DEFINITIVE protection.
I would like to belive that together we can think something up instead of just getting all pissed with any autocriticism like this couple o’ darlings Kenny and Keith here.
George: Of course. Religious parents: just don’t send your kids there. Period.
The only thing that defeats ignorance is knowledge.
A better educational system is a start. Sans religion class.
I have no problem with comparative religion classes or philosphy classes. None.
And I do believe marginalzing the fundies who claim science is a lie and that the rapture is coming is also a valid tactic. All you have to do is have moderates AGREE that something is assinine or ludicrous.
I think the funny daily show tactic or george carlin way of dealing with it is great.
Vargas preferrs the Colbert Report satire. Which I too love. But that goes over even the
rightwingers heads.
Very nice finger pointing, PZ, veeery nice.
My reagents should have arrived yesterday and we would not be having this discussion, I do have time on my hands but its incidental and I AM ottally honestly trying to find a solution in a sensible manner.
If you think you have a clear cut kook just ban me or cut the thread.
PZ–But, but, we’re so close to 1000! Why quit now?
Just so happens this kook is one that cares not only about protectig evolution but also been doing quite a bit about Neoceratodus while mots of your atheist cheerleaders you love so much don’t give a shit.
“We need a DEFINITIVE protection.”
We still don’t understand how your argument would provide that protection. You seem to really, honestly think that creationists would be satisfied with just a little more power in the schools. The rest of us are at least equally satisfied that we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot by allowing them a free pass on the constitution. Separation of church and state is what kept ID out of the schools in Dover, after all.
I know that we do have the same goals of keeping creationism out of science classrooms. But, as I said before, fundies were fighting evolution since long before we kicked creationism out of schools and since long before we banned teacher-led prayers, because the fundies didn’t want something taught that went against their religion. The question is, have they become more MODERATE since then, to the point where they’d be satisfied with just a little more special treatment?
I think not.
And you go into paranoid talk about indoctrination, PZ and I’ve got the evidence that youre being paranoid, and that evidence is, that several countries in which religon, yeah straight religion is taught at scholl, are less of a christian loony as a society than what America is right now. So stop the extremist talking and start coming up with a proposal for a DEFINITIVE protection PZ cause as far as I can see your position is quite predictable and I’d say well proven to be useless.
And the solution is, kmarissa??
Let me tell you all: the more you FORCE things, the more sore people get and the worse the way their outlets become
All I can imagine you people doing right now is to FORCE more and more, some radical, elimination of some kind, HUH? Or insulting everyone at the social level, to “marginalize” or other, to my taste, “fascist” approaches.
If os spell it out, but NO solution at all will just keep you at local fights, containing outbreaks, winning sometimes, LOSING others
As many have noticed. The U.S. is unlike any other country in the world.
We’re not a plurality we’re more diverse than any other in the world.
Your hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
You can’t blame the situation on atheists. PZ isn’t extreme, neither am I.
We’re just less polite than you would like.
And your defintive solution is, Steve? Spell it out. Can’t be less wacky than mine (haha)
AV, stop being ridiculous. I’d say at LEAST a good 1/4 of this BLOG is devoted to discussing the “solution.” Lots of people have proposed and argued about lots of other ideas. We haven’t come up with and implemented the perfect solution.
However, no one has suggested anything so radical as to actually implement state-supported religion. You haven’t done anything to explain how expanding Christianity’s state power would somehow protect schools from Christianity’s influence, and seem to be ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Some countries teach state religion and evolution. Other countries teach state religion and are theocracies.
Our society is still highly prejudiced against racial minorities. I propose that this is a result of FORCING racial equality in the courts! Obviously, the solution is to allow a LITTLE prejudice against minorities in some areas. Let’s say in housing. Allowing discrimination against minorities in housing issues will surely convince everyone to keep discrimination out of the employment sphere!
If you don’t agree with me, what’s YOUR perfect solution for getting rid of rampant prejudice in society? If you can’t answer me, obviously my solution is correct.
“And you go into paranoid talk about indoctrination, PZ and I’ve got the evidence that youre being paranoid, and that evidence is, that several countries in which religon, yeah straight religion is taught at scholl, are less of a christian loony as a society than what America is right now.”
That really is no evidence at all. You’re talking about a supposed correlation between the teaching of religion in a country’s public schools and the acceptance of evolutionary theory in that country. While I don’t really believe that such a correlation actually exists, let’s suppose it does. This correlation still does not imply causation.
Another consideration that others have pointed out is that America is much more religiously diverse than the countries to which you refer. Your proposal to allow vocal religious groups to have their religion taught in public schools will only result in increasing amounts of time being devoted to religion and decreasing amounts of time being allocated to truly important and educational subjects such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, history, and language arts.
kmarissa, that was hilarious!
But seriously, folks. Let’s get beyond Vargas’ proposal. Maybe you don’t like his proposal. Fine–but it’s a start, and let’s move beyond it to the meat. Whatevery you think of him or his proposed solution, he has brought up one really good point:
What is the solution? This whole thread got started off with a different proposal for a solution–that being just scream insults.
Clearly, that won’t work, either.
So what would? I made the proposal that the starting point to a true and lasting peace is to identify and understand the source of fear. Why do you think Fundamentalists are so dang scared of evolution and an old earth? And it isn’t just because the Bible tells them so. I have a bit of an understanding of this, but I come from that background. I’m not going to share it with you because it is up to you to find the answer to that after making an honest effort (rather than relying on hearsay–try asking an actual fundamentalist, for example).
Sometimes people will respond better if there is a true acknowledgment of their fears. I do think if you understand where someone is coming from, you are more likely to find some common ground and a possible solution. Many of the comments I have read on this site play right into fundamentalists’ fears and only solidify them. I don’t think those results are intentional, and the point is, if you understand the fears, you can avoid behaviors that intensify those fears, and you ultimately might be able to break down some walls. Until people start doing this (and I don’t really care which side starts it), there will be no progress. It will only get worse.
Right, but I think you are quite plainly a religious country, and under these circumstances I’m saying part of the problem is attaching science to some war against religion, when you could be the kind of country that has both good science and good, moderate religion.
I’d really like to hear some proposals for defintive solutions now. Its nothing ridiculous to ask specially when guys like PZ , kenny, keith think meet new reasonably well- thought proposals with dismissal, name calling and finger pointing, well then you better have a goddam good proposal of your own, no? I’m all ears!!! Maybe I can help!!!
But believe me, I’m not expecting much from people who just want to fit everything into a “we’re right and good !!!” scheme.
Squeaky, I really appreciate your efforts to approach the problem in a civilized and rational manner. Not all of us can remain so calm after prolonged frustration.
About the fear: If evolution and an old Earth are true, then the fundamentalists’ literal interpretation of the Bible is undermined, and they will have to revisit their beliefs. Also, some Christians believe that evolution takes away the glory of God.
I guess it comes down to whether Christianity and basic Christian beliefs can survive despite relatively new scientific evidence that suggests something different from the book of Genesis.
If fundamentalists believe that evolution contradicts all of Christianity, then evolution is a threat to the promise of eternal life. And as terror management theory has proposed all along, the recognition of our own mortality is very scary.
If, on the other hand, fundamentalists can reconcile their beliefs with evolutionary theory, then there shouldn’t be any inherent threat in the teaching of evolution in public schools.
I apologize if this is not very well worded.
Its very easy to criticize a proposal. I want to have a go at the fun too. Bring it on, ya useless cynics!!!!!
Squeaky, part of my problem with that in general is that I think a lot of their fears come from being afraid that America is turning away from god by legalizing gay relationships, abortion, stem cell research, birth control, etc.
How do I allay their fears when I strongly support all of the above? How do I assure them that the US still really is a Christian nation trusting in God, when I myself am an atheist, which many of them associate with immorality?
There is common ground, but I worry that there isn’t enough. For instance, I think we’d all agree that we want our children to grow up healthy. But we sharply disagree over whether abstinence-only education is part of how to accomplish this. Those who support abstinence-only education seem to do so despite what the evidence shows.
Seriously, I have no idea how to find common ground on these issues, when our value systems are totally opposed to each other in so many areas.
Alexander, apparently some in Bolivia don’t agree with you:
Bolivia Wants to End Religious Education in Schools, Declare State Secular
http://world.christianpost.com/article.htm?aid=19552&dat=20060629
…snip…
“Instead of religion, they’ll do languages,” Patzi said. “Religion is a question of faith, and faith can’t be taught, much less in an obligatory manner.”
The leftist government, in its efforts to rid Bolivia of the vestiges of a colonial past that discriminated against the Indian majority, is also pushing a constitutional reform that would remove Catholicism as the country’s official religion.
…snip…
I’ve called no names, and pointed no fingers. I did dismiss your proposal, but that was because it was NOT reasonably well-thought out. (I’m sure you beg to differ, but hey, you are not objective, plus you are wrong, and I am right). I have no problem admitting that (a) America is very religious, and (b) there are no easy solutions. And I think PZ’s “screaming obscenities” approach is short-sighted, ineffective, and unseamly. But that still doesn’t mean your idea is any good. Cause it ain’t.
No, Mr. Vargas, you can’t, because they are already ignoring the people saying “Hey man, good grief, you already got yer own darn homes, churches, and private schools!” This has nothing to do with theocracy and everything to do with US citizens violating their Constitution, and as a result, the rights of their fellow citizens.
Here is a good article on the subject of religious extremists and their schemes to commandeer public schools for their sinister purposes.
Think “sinister” is an exaggeration? Read the article, and consider that they admittedly target young children because young children are more likely to believe in fairy tales.
Hey Kmarissa, its a good thing you brought racial discrimination up, cause you see, now you can give us the solution to end, since you are not only a cynic critic, but also know “the right path”. We are all ears.
Lemme see.. I read this thing about universities, saving space for minorities… until no space was left for a white guy…who sued for being discriminated against…who won the lawsuit… so minorities ended up as screwed up as they have ever beeen!!! such a beautiful system. There IS discrimiantion, and nobody can stop it. Now you can tell us what the solution should have been, Kmarissa.
Even so your comparison is not very enlightening, since “religion” is not directly comparable to “racism”. Of course if relgions preach any intolerance like that I have no doubt it would be illegal and can be stopped. But yeah, religions would be able to teach that jesus resurrected and walked on water, even if it goes against what they may learn in science class.
Keith, your language is that of a piss-off. It doen;t help, nor does PZ’s finger pointing. You don;t add beyond ANYTHING that has not ALREADY been discussed, so that;s why I don;t answer you,. there is nothing in it for me and I don’t care abou repeating for YOU. If your read carefully, I HAVE alrady answered all your points. I’m not saying these answers have to be satisfactry to you, but they are to ME; hence, its just boring to see you go over the same questions. As simple as that.
Kmarissa,
True–those are all issues fundamentalists are concerned about. But I’m not asking you to find a solution for those at this point. Focus on the science. Why are fundamentalists so afraid of it?
J l says:
“About the fear: If evolution and an old Earth are true, then the fundamentalists’ literal interpretation of the Bible is undermined, and they will have to revisit their beliefs. Also, some Christians believe that evolution takes away the glory of God.
I guess it comes down to whether Christianity and basic Christian beliefs can survive despite relatively new scientific evidence that suggests something different from the book of Genesis.
If, on the other hand, fundamentalists can reconcile their beliefs with evolutionary theory, then there shouldn’t be any inherent threat in the teaching of evolution in public schools.”
This is part of the problem. There is more, of course, but you have hit on some of the big issues.
Whether or not evolution and an old earth line up with Biblical teachings is not really an issue that atheists can adequately tackle. I think most of us would agree. My proposal, then, is that evolutionary scientists who also embrace Christianity be brought into the fight–even openly recruited–in order to tackle these more Biblically-based arguments. People like Kenneth Miller. I didn’t read the thread very carefully on theological evolution, but I think there was some objection to it. However, here is an inroad to breaking down some prejudice and bringing in some understanding. I think it should be embraced rather than resisted (I’m not addressing all the philosophy of science vs. religion in that statement–clearly there are boundaries and limits that must be observed)
There are also theological means of addressing the issue, which again are not within the ability of atheists to address. Approaches to reading the Bible and understanding the cultural setting, literary devices, etc.
What other things about science do fundamentalists fear, and how can we present science without playing into those fears?
Um, I have the right solution for racism? Huh? Apparently you misread my analogy. Do you really want me to explain it?
You don’t understand this country at all Vargas.
Kinda like talking to a creationist about natural selection and common descent.
Squeaky, I guess to some extent I’m not sure how self-contained it can be, that’s all. I mean, it seems like many of the religious right are quick to claim that belief in evolution is what spurs kids to join gangs and fight and have premarital sex and get abortions and etc. I just mean, I think that all of these issues are very tangled up in these people’s heads. They see the theory of evolution as the “justification” for euthenasia, abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, etc.
So you’re right in trying to focus on solutions to the widespread rejection of evolution, but I think part of their fears, which we need to acknowledge, involve their association of evolution with all these other things. How do we deal with that? Do we stress that one can believe in evolution and still believe in god, AND still believe that homosexuality is wrong? Would it be tactically advantageous? Can we justify saying things like that if we feel that we are perpetuating terrible prejudices? To some extent I’m just talking to myself here. I think that in most talks re: evolution with the average creationist, these things probably wouldn’t come up in conversation. But I really think there’s at least some degree of interconnection. Not sure how to deal with that…
And the solution is?????
Cynics = Useless when called upon for solutions
Look, Steve, that dinosaur comedian is funny. I approve that!! Kudos to that guy!!! Because it is a show, not a personally directed offense, and specially, because there is ARGUMENT there, not mere, stupid verbal VIOLENCE and “marginalization” It is honestly, unescapably funny. That guy is helping the cause!!!
See, we have more common ground than you think. But you guys should be more open about proposals that actually dare to be specifi and concrete, at least until you have made up a good one of your own.
Well, you are right about that, kmarissa. It is one of the fears because history has shown instances where evolution (under the misnomer of survival of the fittest) has been used to justify racism and genocide. One way of debunking that is to acknowledge it, first of all. And second of all, to explain very clearly that that is not at all what evolution is about, and in fact, coming to such social conclusions based on evolution is not at all advocated in the scientific community. It comes back again to a total misunderstanding of the scientific method. This was addressed, I believe by Miller in Finding Darwin’s God, and Gould may have done so too, in Rx of Ages.
This misconception is one of the major weapons in the creationist’s arsenal, and understanding it is a very important piece of the puzzle.
AV, I know it’s pointless to tell you this, but I can’t help myself. This is a very complicated issue that we’ve been discussing for a very long time on this blog. Many ideas have been proposed, discussed, argued, and supported or dismissed. The fact that there is no consensus upon an easy, “quick-fix” solution doesn’t somehow magically mean that your solution is correct, convincing, or plausible, a point that I was trying to make in the analogy that you apparently completely misread.
So you may want to do a little more looking around on this site and others before dismissing us all as a bunch of “useless cynics” who don’t propose any ideas. If we were genuinely useless cynics, we would have stopped even discussing this stuff long ago and thrown up our hands in despair.
Your rationale seems strikingly similar to the bizarre creationist idea that if you show that there’s disagreement over any particular idea in evolutionary science, therefore the whole thing is worthless and the default “correct” solution is creationism. Your default “correct” solution of turning the clock back 50 years is, well, not correct.
Oh, undoubtedly. I totally agree with you there Squeaky, that misunderstanding plays a huge role with creationists influence. Part of which is kind of what I was talking about… we’ve all heard the creationist “argument” that “if you teach a kid that he’s a rock, he’ll act like one” (or is it a monkey? I can never keep straight when we come from rocks and when we come from monkeys). But I think it is true that those who support evolution are more likely to be liberal in other social issues as well, so I just wonder if we’ll ever be all that convincing to a staunch religious righter.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s definitely productive to try to educate people and correct those misunderstandings. But I worry: for instance, with people like Ken Miller, will genuine creationists actually listen to what he has to say, or dismiss him right off the bat because he’s an “evil” scientist, regardless of his religious views? I don’t mean to imply that we should give up on educating, quite the contrary. But I think that is an issue that we might have to figure out how to deal with.
Citation, please? Some details? Did this really happen, or did someone make it up to show how evil racial equality is?
But government endorsment of religion is illegal but must not be stopped? Why does that smell like special pleading?
I still don’t think you guys take seriously the experience of other countries that actually work other formulas, which I think is the only empirical source there is, to take a SERIOUS comparatve study, and find possible insiration for what could be an american solution. Anything else is much less empirical, purely “maybes”.
So I think you should take me more seriously than you do, yeah.
Let me give you some more data to chew on. Many secular countries have a susbtantial part of their governing elites being educated at churchy schools and yet they manage not to give into theocracy.
And here we are, regulating the lifes of the poor, making sure they don’t get too religious.. HMMMM
I believe you guys ARE being at least a BIT paranoid and narrow-minded. And I stand by my solution as being better than the current risky situation, where we are bound to lose at least now and then (if it does not get worse and worse) .
Some of you are incapable of fairly reflecting on an argument, or just dismiss without argument by fingerpointing and labeling and SPECIALLY, show a complete lack of autocriticism… plus no solution? That spells it quite clearly: CYNIC
If you guys are not cynics you certainly don’t know how to avoid looking like one. Maybe you can learn something!!
Special pleading, yes, in addition to the fact that it’s perfectly legal for a religion to teach that whites are superior to racial minorities. It’s called freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They can’t incite their congregation toward specific violence against those minorities, but they sure can preach it from the pulpit.
Or from the front of the classroom, perhaps, a la AV?
I told you what my solution was.
A better educational system. Better funding. Better teachers. Smaller class sizes.
That’s my solution. A more informed population.
Knowledge defeats ignorance.
Ya useless blowhard.
Oh. And to call demented fuckwits demented fuckwits when they are spouting demented shit and proving they are a fuckwit.
Right, yeah that’s what I propose, have racism taught at religion class.That’s Just what I meant.
Probably exactly what they do at the churchy school where your rich leading class is educated, huh? I mean, it just follows from anypalce that allows relgion into the classrooms, right.? Suuuure.
As I say, It’s easy to be a cynic. But cynic arguments can be pretty silly.
Anyway, any racism may come up in ANY class given a wacky professor, and given the possibility it should be stopped. But its a silly argyument as to specifically attacking religon class.
Jeez how don;t you realize when you are using an bad and easy misassociation as a lousy argument is beyond me.. teaching religon in schools = racism. WOW that was easy!!!!!
Forgive me for introducing another objection here. It’s not a scientist’s job to argue against Biblical teaching. I mean, we’ve been saying all along that creationism is not science, ID is not science, the Bible is not science. Scientists shouldn’t have to talk things out with creationists every time they make a new discovery. Science curriculum shouldn’t have to be based on what creationists approve of. Science and religion are fundamentally separate categories.
I guess my idea of a solution was to fight tooth and nail to make sure evolution stays in the science curriculum no matter what. In twenty years, in three hundred years, evolution will gain acceptance among the general populace, as it already has among scientists. We all acknowledge a round Earth now, no?
But taking into consideration the realities of this society and the mindsets of fundamentalist Christians, I agree with you, Squeaky, that we need to talk to fundamentalists instead of simply insulting them. It may prove fruitless, but at least it will be interesting.
AV, you brushed my racism comment aside but didn’t explain yourself at all. There are not many religions that espouse racism. They are VERY few and far between. But if that’s what the local majority believes, then according to your theory, that’s what we teach. And if we don’t, then how on earth can you justify allowing the state to support some religions by teaching them in school but not support others because of what they teach? This is the EXACT REASON WHY WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE FIRST PLACE, so that the government remains neutral.
And for all your dismissal of it, there are MANY places in the US where the dominant religion teaches that women should “submit” to their husbands. Isn’t this sexism that’s just as bad as racism? These are most of the evangelical sects that you’ve been claiming SHOULD be allowed to teach in public schools!
Teachers CAN be stopped from being racist in classrooms because it’s unconstitutional. But it’s also unconstitional for governments to interfere with religious teachings by preventing churches from teaching racism or sexism. If you put religion in the schools, even IF you pretend that that’s constititional, you’re still stuck with breaking the constition AGAIN by either censoring religious speech or allowing racism and sexism in the classrooms.
You can’t have it both ways. That’s why the wall between the two is there, for this very exact reason.
Great Steve. Now think about this: many rich folks have great educations, in small class sizes, with the best teachers…
Does that stop them form being religious?
And guess what quite a few get asides from that…religion class!!!! Does that wipe out their other knowledge? Does that make your country a theocracy?
No causal connections Steve. You believe that ignorance=religion… and that all solutions will stem from there.
That is pretty..naïve and ignorant, Steve.
Think about what I said to george. It is not a matter of flinging data, you are competing against existential frameworks upholded by a truly social phenomenon…
I’m not repeating it again , because I don’t expect you to get it, though. Its “just ignorance” yeah.. great analysis buddy.
Ummm…. No. Teaching religion in schools = illegal. Not the same thing at all. You said (and I’m paraphrasing, here) “racism: illegal and should be forbidden; religion in schools: illegal and should be allowed”. I just want to know why you make a distinction.
However, your argument that “if a religion teaches racism, it would be made illegal, and therefore wouldn’t be taught in schools” is simply false. There are plenty of churches who still think America was wrong to abandon slavery – it’s in the bible, after all. And the First Amendment (the very same piece of text that people are trying to defend) grants them the right to tell everyone they meet that blacks should be slaves because Noah cursed Ham’s descendants to slavery.
If they’re allowed to teach religion in schools, then they can hardly be forbidden from teaching specific doctrines, can they? What if someone decides that “the Torah is not literally true” is racist against Jews? Should we ban all non-Jewish instruction?
Steve_C, absolutely. Real education is the key.
Alexander Vargas, nobody said that teaching religion in schools was racism. However, somebody did say that teaching religion in schools would inevitably favor certain religions and discriminate against those who did not ascribe to the majority religion (or to any religion, for that matter). The racism analogy was made to show that fighting fire (attempts by creationists to insert religious dogma into public schools) with fire (inserting religious dogma into public schools) does not work.
Var-gas example of “not answering someone:”
“Keith, your language is that of a piss-off. It doen;t help, nor does PZ’s finger pointing. You don;t add beyond ANYTHING that has not ALREADY been discussed, so that;s why I don;t answer you,. there is nothing in it for me and I don’t care abou repeating for YOU. If your read carefully, I HAVE alrady answered all your points. I’m not saying these answers have to be satisfactry to you, but they are to ME; hence, its just boring to see you go over the same questions. As simple as that.”
If this, is how he DOESN’T respond to someone, I’d hate to see how he DOES respond… Oh wait, I guess that’s what all the rest of his drivel here is.
Keith, now, be fair. He does have an awful lot of people and posts to not respond to here.
Comment 913.
Wow.
We are going to make it to 1000.
Kmarissa, you…. CYNIC!
I admit it. You caught me. I’m a hopeless, vile cynic.
Or maybe I’m just trying to make it to post 1000?
The eternal question. It’s up to YOU to decide!
There’s a lot of religious diversity in this country, unlike Chile, where the populace is 78% Catholic. Teaching “religion” here would be a nightmare. There are too many of them (Voodoo, would that be taught? Would they be taught to make voodoo dolls? And stick pins into them?).
We can’t manage to give people adequate bathroom facilities in some schools. We can’t fund them so that kids have the textbooks they need. We would never be able to manage a “fair and balanced” program of religious instruction, were it allowed under the Constitution.
It’s unworkable. That’s a good enough argument against the whole idea.
Let me save you from the quagmires of cynism.
I see there are lots of kind of “subsidiary” reasons, technicalities why my idea would not work…but I believe that the core of my philosophy has not been convincingly refuted by some equally good core idea (mostly there is just paranoia that does not hold up to the data provided by comparing different countries or even social classes where religion IS taught at school)
Now I do have answers to these technicalities and subsidiary problems….but itstoo much work to write them down.. specially when I believe you guys ARE smart enough to realize what could be done..
So instead of just critzicing and trying to argue that “it would not work” for this and this other reasons, I’m sure you guys can change focus and spend a minute thinking… well, how could it be MADE to work in facing this problem??? maybe you can answer yourself!! See if you can play vargas for a second!!!!
It would certainly spare me some of my carpal syndrome….
I have no problem with children being taught all about vodoo dolls… cool!!!! hahaha
wow. a better educational system… how naive! that wouldn’t solve anything.
Gee. I wonder what percentage of Atheists are college educated.
And I wonder what percentage of of christian fundamentalist are.
I never proposed nor do I think society can be cured of religion. You keep putting
words into my mouth. And portraying me as some religion hating extremist.
I think it’s pointless. But I don’t hate it. I really really really dislike conservatives though.
There’s a difference.
Oh and Vargas. Kiss my ass.
hahaha
Oh Vargas, you crack me up.
I see now, suddenly, that NONE of the discussion on this blog, or any of the other blogs, websites, or discussion boards has ever contemplated the best solution to the current creationism quagmire.
We should probably start talking about that.
No wait, I’m totally serious. Our own extremism, narrowness and paranoia is a grave part of the problem, at all levels. Not only the school problem.
No, I think there’s no way that your idea can be made to work in our country. Apart from technicalities that make your plan impossible, the core of your suggestion is unconstitutional and will only exacerbate the problem.
Here are the objections that I and others have made with regards to your plan:
1. Religion should not be a priority in public schools because it is not educational. American students are already behind other countries in math and science.
2. We don’t have the funding.
3. Given the religious diversity of our country, there’s no way to teach every religion fairly and equally in schools.
4. Teaching only the predominant religion (or only the religions with vocal and aggressive proponents) is favoring that particular religion.
5. The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from respecting the establishment of religion.
6. Fundamentalist Christians will not suddenly accept evolutionary theory just because there’s a religion class in public schools.
Others have suggested more funding for science education, exposing ID and creationism as pseudo-science in science classes, forming a vocal bloc of pro-science voters, and recruiting scientists well versed in Christianity to refute Biblically based arguments for creationism/ID.
Mr. Vargas, first you say:
And then:
Yet:
Good grief.
Your proposal cannot be “an American solution” because it violates the (American) Constitution. The solution is simple but quite a task to implement: enforce the existing law embodied by that document rather than amending away its brilliant church/state separation, speak out against dupes and their manipulators using the plain facts of the matter, and oppose them politically.
1) Its a wholly different problem, only incidental on this from a kinda cheap time-optimization excuse perspective.
2) Technicality. Ways around that
3) & 4) Solvable, according to a local analysis
5) Constitution thumping: Ban christmas pageants then.
6) Sure, fundies will keep on trying. But I sincerely think for example that kansas would not have expanded “science” to include the supernatural if they had had religion classes at schools. Its all about avoiding formal aberrations such as these. I’d rather have kids told nothing about evolution than being taught against evolution in “science” class. THAT’S really, really screwed up.
More funding for science education:
Always good, but does not specifically solves the problem.
Exposing ID by scientists and christian arguments:
Nope. More angry parents, wanting to equlibarte it with some other religous thing at school. An anti-solution.
Plus it makes us look like the lame establishment, like anti-smoking rap and sexual harassment pandas. F
Pro-science voters:
And then do…what?
Don’t be hating…cannot avoid thinking this way, OK? Coming from a country that does not have this problem (yet)
J l
“It’s not a scientist’s job to argue against Biblical teaching. I mean, we’ve been saying all along that creationism is not science, ID is not science, the Bible is not science. Scientists shouldn’t have to talk things out with creationists every time they make a new discovery. Science curriculum shouldn’t have to be based on what creationists approve of. Science and religion are fundamentally separate categories.”
I’m not saying it’s the scientists’ job to argue against Biblical teaching. However, I am saying that scientists who are also Christians should be recruited to teach evolution and age of the earth and just basic scientific method stuff to Christians who don’t understand those aspects of science (a lecture series at a local church, community education class, whatever). Much of the controversy truly is complete miscommunication–fundamentalists fear science because of the bad science they get from extremist creationists, for example. Why a scientist who is also a Christian for this job? Because they understand what it is fundamentalists fear and are more prepared to tackle that problem. that’s not to say they won’t be labeled as atheists by some folk, but truth can infiltrate even the staunchest of extremists.
And I agree–science and religion are separate, and should definitely be kept so in the classroom.
1. No, there will always be time-optimization decisions to make. And religion will never be one of the optimal subjects to teach with limited time.
2, 3, and 4. Okay, let’s hear your solutions.
5. Oh, good heavens. Referencing the Constitution is not Constitution-thumping. You are trying to prevent any constitutional argument from being made. What you do not understand is that the Constitution is the safeguard of minority rights; to do away with it to appease the majority is truly contrary to the spirit with which our nation was founded. Even if you do not think constitutional arguments have any merit, these are the arguments that will be made during the inevitable class-action lawsuits that would result if your plan were implemented.
As for the solutions:
We’re in agreement about the science funding.
“Exposing ID by scientists and christian arguments:
Nope. More angry parents, wanting to equlibarte it with some other religous thing at school. An anti-solution.
Plus it makes us look like the lame establishment, like anti-smoking rap and sexual harassment pandas. F”
So you don’t think ID should be exposed as anti-science? I’m not talking about just in public schools either. I don’t want to open another can of worms, but your comment about “anti-smoking rap and sexual harassment pandas” is impossible for me to ignore. Do you think smoking and sexual harassment are not problematic? I disagree with you.
“Pro-science voters:
And then do…what?”
And then vote against supporters of ID/creationism.
I have it! The workable solution: states wanting to teach religion in public schools could secede from the Union! Problem solved.
The people of State X, having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their citizens and the world the causes which have led to that separation. For the last 200 years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against the United States with reference to the subject of teaching religion in public schools…
I think “constitution thumping” might be a phrase I have never heard before this thread.
America’s founders: “These are your minimum basic freedoms, which are the foundation for our great social experiment. Thank us later.”
Modern non-fundi: “I’d like my minimum basic freedoms, please.”
AV: “You narrow-minded bible thumper! Go ban Christmas pageants!”
Woah, sorry, sorry, I meant CONSTITUTION thumper.
That really was an honest mistake…
Squeaky, I think your ideas are great. If I were a Christian scientist, I would gladly do all I could to teach good science to Christians. Because I am an atheist, however, my discussions with fundamentalist friends inevitably end with my having to read yet another chapter of Romans.
But yes, I love your brand of moderate thought.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2006/07/uncommon-dissent.html
just an example of Fundie ID tolerance…
Here’s a catholic who was banned from Dembski’s site.
Thanks, j l
I have to go teach class, but if you are interested, I can give you some books to suggest to the fundamentalist friends when I am done. Umm…one of the questions I always like to ask is “where does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old?” Sometimes it works just to send them back to their own book and tell them to whip out a concordance and do some cross-referencing of their own.
Okay, Squeaky, thanks!
Steve_C, I’m unsurprised but disappointed that Dembski bans dissidents from commenting on his site. Meanwhile, we argue to no end with people like Jason and drew hempel on Pharyngula. Tolerance has different meanings to different people, I guess.
Nah. I think it’s pretty universal.
If this were dembski’s site… Vargas would of been banned days ago.
1) & 2) Time and money are things I’d gladly invest to get religion taught under an appropiate label, and not on the speakers and science class as it is now, like it or not. But see also below
2) 3) 4) Parents shoud be merely allowed to arrange for religon classes at the school there kids attend. Its not the states responsability to teach religon, but to allow it if tehre is demand, and the parents and specifically their churches provide the means.
Minorities unsufficnetly representative to have their own class don’t have to take religion class. nor anyone who does not want their kid to, e.g, us atheists. This is what actually happens in other countries, and I don’t think its oppressive to the minorities
5. Well maybe you are screwed up forever on this point. The constitution is not absolute sacred truth nor is any writing, but must adjust to some realities or risk looking abusrd. To allow religion to be taught in school is not equivalent to treading on minorities. There is something wrong in that argument…you exaggerate
“So you don’t think ID should be exposed as anti-science? I’m not talking about just in public schools either. I don’t want to open another can of worms, but your comment about “anti-smoking rap and sexual harassment pandas” is impossible for me to ignore. Do you think smoking and sexual harassment are not problematic? I disagree with you”
Right. I’d be happy just having ID out of schools. Having anti-ID sessions would be totally lame.
I do belive those issues are problematic, I just mention those south park episodes because the warning was delivered in such a lame fashion to the kids, they immediatley started smoking and they thought sexual harassment panda sucked.
The reflection being that establishment trying to tell you how to think, can be delivered in lame or authoritarian fashion…
For example, not for one moment, even if this country banned teaching evolution, would I fear evolution would be forgotten, that they could actually get rid of it…cause its just way to cool, has a life of its own, eve if they ban it everywhere
I just hate the sloppy mixture of science and religion that is creationsim at schools…I am trying to get the fundies to lose their traction about this,
We must avoid looking auhtoritarian, uptight and paranoid. We must be smart. We cannot just ban them like they would ban us. That’s THEIR lame ways. We trust the coolness of our own stuff. We need to steal their thunder, not ban them.
We don’t want to be like the fundies, trying to FORCE people into our views. People rebel to that…
“And then vote against supporters of ID/creationism”
Who will in turn do…what?
I’m not going to congratulate anyone for not banning me from here. Banning is for fearful creationists like Dembski. I expect another standard from an evolution blog.
Yes, and the Constitition DOES provide a mechanism for change to avoid looking absurd. It’s called an amendment. That’s what we did when we realized that slavery was wrong and that more than just white landowners should be allowed to vote.
When there’s enough support for state-endorsed religion to amend the Constitution to allow that, so be it. I, personally, will be moving, but that’s the system here.
Until that happens, the state has a duty to neither endorse (i.e., teach or implement) nor inhibit religion. I know it’s not worth saying that to you YET AGAIN, but there it is. Your argument that giving a political majority special exemption from the laws so that they will, out of the kindness of their hearts, restrict their quest for more political power is puzzling. Hasn’t happened with ANY of the other areas where the religious right has gotten their way; they just keep pushing for more and more.
There’s no more point in my replying if we disagree on something so basic as the goals of the religious right on the United States today.
The fundies have no traction! Creationsism is NOT being taught in schools.
Thay can’t even get ID into schools because it’s recognised as Creationism
disguised as science.
So your proposal to appease them with “religion” class has nothing to do with
teaching Evolution.
Nowher in the US? What about Kansas? What about future breakouts??
Are we denying any problem here ? Thats quite silly at this point, and specially considering you’ve had 50 years of battling creationism
And you still have praying on the speakers and other horror stories…
And this is not “just appeasing” them, but formalizing and canalizing under apopropiate conceptual frameworks what is already happening, by informal and aberrant ways in US schools.
Steve, this is the irony of the argument. The “strict, narrow-minded” approach to the separation of church and state is exacly why the Dover court was able to justify keeping ID out of schools there. Once we re-define the separation to say that public schools are allowed to teach a particular religion to their students, there’s really no constitional basis on which to prevent them from teaching a particular religious “scientific” theory as well, if that’s what the school wants to do.
“considering you’ve had 50 years of battling creationism”
They’ve been fighting evolution longer than that, and since LONG before we banned any of the terrible things that AV thinks we should bring back. They had their way then, and fought to keep evolution out of the schools even with their stranglehold on what was taught. I guess AV thinks they’ve somehow changed their minds by now, and would welcome evolution so long as we gave a few more concessions.
I’m thinking, debating, being experimetal here, going out on a limb…Of course I realize it may be imposible giving some miserable entrechments, but I’m not trying to figure that out now….I;m trying to figure out in first place what to me would be an IDEAL system… THEN we figure out what we would need to make it real.
For instace,once we have religion class, somehow make it a law that anything superntaural be discussed in religion classe, not in science class. That would kinda fix it to avoid silly things “a la Kansas”…. would’nt it?
“Parents shoud be merely allowed to arrange for religon classes at the school there kids attend. Its not the states responsability to teach religon, but to allow it if tehre is demand, and the parents and specifically their churches provide the means.”
No, it’s the state’s responsibility not to allow religion into government no matter what the demand. As for parents and churches providing the means for religious education, well, they’re already providing the means at home and in church! That’s what church is for.
“Minorities unsufficnetly representative to have their own class don’t have to take religion class. nor anyone who does not want their kid to, e.g, us atheists.”
What you mean is that insufficiently representative minorities don’t get to take religion class. You’re turning public school curriculum into a matter of who has the most money. That’s what private schools are for.
“Well maybe you are screwed up forever on this point. The constitution is not absolute sacred truth nor is any writing, but must adjust to some realities or risk looking abusrd.”
That’s right. That’s why we have constitutional amendments. And in the first of those amendments is a very important concept that was added to protect the rights of the minority. This concept is freedom of religion.
If you think the Constitution needs to be amended to eliminate freedom of religion, then get an amendment passed, and prepare for a lawsuit. Countless Supreme Court rulings have already upheld the importance of the establishment and free exercise clauses.
“To allow religion to be taught in school is not equivalent to treading on minorities.”
Oh, but the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. I refer you to Engel v. Vitale, Wallace v. Jaffree, Stone v. Graham, Epperson v. Arkansas, Abbington School District v. Schempp, Lee v. Weisman, and (be sure to read this last one, which specifically addresses your proposal) McCollum v. Board of Education, School District 71.
If you don’t like our laws, I’m sorry. That’s what living in Chile is for, I guess.
I don’t know what youre being so paranoid about, really “the terrible things that AV thinks we should bring back” Jeez I dont even know what thats supposed to be…aaw gimme a break
You forget all the time other countries with religion class do not have this problem, good grief!!
SOME countries don’t have that problem. Others do. And none of them have the same extremely complex mix of problems, pressure groups, issues, history, and law as this one.
I understand that the law must be respected, but it can be respected while failing common sense, and that seems to me an inevitable sign that things are wrong… you know things like kansas, they make it legal while cheating the actual intent of the law…amazing, but true
Looks like you are caught in a labyrinth and you can do anything to avoid future embarassments like that of kansas… Its a shame because the world is watching, and people like Dawkins do not hesistate to insinuate the america is a backwards bible-bonking country…
A diversity without plurality will not be admired by the world, rather, it looks like a sorry mess, like decadence.
What does that mean? A country that doesn’t want to “look like a sorry mess” has to have a dominant religion?
I’m afraid I’m completely misunderstanding your point.
That diversity does not know how to get along, that different groups fight each other eternally, labyrinthically, that there are a hundred cultural wars going on.
Many politicians then use the god banner, to “fight” this mess by saying christianity will bring unity…
Yet christianity or any rather arbitrary unifying principle would not be necessary if there was plurality, if diversity found ways to get along… no despairing mess and conflict would be fueling this banner of a “united christian america”
just talkin.. don’t be hating
Our first Amendment is common sense.
We’re not caught in a labyrinth. Fundies will always try to deny evolution.
They just find new ways of doing it. Like in Kansas. The just redefined what
science was. Poof. Science can now accept supernatural explanations.
Poof. The school board has an election and the fundies are tossed out. Poof.
Kansas goes back to teaching science.
We have a very open and free society when it comes to religion. That’s why
secualrists have to be vigilant and proactive. Like running for positions on
School Boards.
Yep, I think atheists and science supporters should make an effort to get more involved and gain more influence in politics. The fewer fundamentalist Christians we have who are trying to legislate science, the better.
j l
I’m on break–quick list–remember, these are books to suggest to fundamentalist Christians (not meant to be actual science books):
Hugh Ross is an astronomer who became a Christian after reading Genesis and seeing it match up with how science interprets the beginning of the universe. Now, he also disagrees with many aspects of evolution, so I can see why you might balk at recommending him. But he is a bit like marijuana–a gateway. If someone is open to an old earth after reading his books, they may be open to other things (whether they think they are or not).
Kenneth Miller (Finding Darwin’s God) does a pretty good job explaining what evolution is and why it shouldn’t be such a threat to religious beliefs.
Gould is pretty even-handed in Rocks of Ages. I do think his NOMA approach is one that should be followed and would solve a lot of problems.
Back to class
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/firstamendment101/index.html
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/freedomsindex.aspx
Squeaky, thanks for the info; I will be sure to check it out.
Steve_C, those are great links. Really straightforward and informative.
I don’t know why (I’m bored) but I decided to re-read some of this lengthy thread, and I came across something from the bat-shit crazy Vargas wrote earlier, about “waiting for reagents to arrive” and that once they did, he’d be too busy, presumedly doing ground-breaking science, to post here. While I don’t believe it for a second, if Vargas really is a scientist, why the hell doesn’t he realize the difference between an anecdote, and “data” as he keeps calling it? He keeps referring to the Utopian Chilean religious educational system as “empirical data.” Hmmph. “Datum,” at best. One self-interpreted example is not “data.” An N of one is not reportable, pal, not even in the Chilean Journal of Quasi -Educational Musings.
America is a secular Constitutional Republic, and a pluralistic, multi-cultural society. We do have some of our own secular “holidays” and traditions, from Halloween trick-or-treating to what we still mostly call Christmas, but is really about Santa & gift-giving and spending time with family (ditto Thanksgiving). We have our patriotic celebration days on which honor the events and things that make us unique among the nations on Earth. We honor the people who founded this nation of laws that recognizes our human rights and liberties, as well as the all the people who have died defending those very laws and liberties.
To my mind, those are “American values and traditions” worth teaching in schools, and not a single one of them need mention big-G God or Jesus Christ in explaining our American culture; that is, other than to point out that history is so rife with examples of one group’s interpretation of “what God wants” driving them to repress and stamp out dissenters (by violence if necessary), that the Framers made sure that the very first amendment to the Constitution, right at the top of the list of our Bill of Rights is that religious thought and expression is a right of the People; the government has no right to religious speech whatsoever.
If Jesus-believing folks want to celebrate his birth in December, they should have at it; Jews celebrate Hanukkah and Pagans have whatever version of Solstice they celebrate, and so on ad infinitum. Me, I’ll celebrate any damned thing someone invites me to a party for, and Santa will come to our house every year without fail til the day I die (and probably long after, it’s tradition, after all). Even though everyone knows he’s not real! ;-)
The solution is to make our own traditions, just like we always have.
BTW – There are very few “Christmas Pageants” in public schools anymore, but the “Holiday Shows” I go to don’t seem any less enjoyable for not being about Jesus, or Mithras for that matte. The carolers still sing traditional carols replete with references to God, mangers and that “Holy Night.” To say that “religion has been banned from schools” is pure hysterical raving for dramatic effect.
Y’know, I’m actually all for more “melting-pottedness” and being able to learn about what my non-WASP neighbors celebrate and why. As for their modes of worship, I am free to walk into any of the 168 churches within a 5-minute drive (the closest of which is actually a glorious Thai Buddhist Temple), as is my child or anyone else, and find out directly from someone THERE what their story/philosophy/worldview is. There is no rational, justifiable reason for teaching any particular religion in school as its own separate class unless its subject matter is religious doctrine; in which case it belongs in a private, religious school funded entirely by the religious organization that runs it and the parents who send their children there. We already have this in place, so there’s no need for a separate “solution,” especially when it is contradictory to Constitutional Law.
Did we get to 1000 yet? [snicker]
The answer to AV’s argument about “places where it’s working,” is obvious. And though I’ve glimpsed it being addressed somewhat, perhaps it needs to be said in blunt and perhaps patently offensive terms that might possibly wake someone up to their truth. By all means, allow me…
THOSE PLACES DON’T HAVE OUR DEMENTED FUCKWITS!!!!
Moreover, all of the places that have religion in school and it’s not working HAVE DEMENTED FUCKWITS OF THEIR OWN!!!
That’s the long and short of it for me.
You still don’t get it. America’s diverse religions get along fine for the most part. We’re talking about a specific group of extremists (Fundamentalist Christians) who don’t want to get along. They want to subjugate everyone else according to their religion and associated beliefs.
I guess this thread
is officially dead.
Yeah, nobody home. Sad.
Resurrecting this to illustrate to AV why some of us have reason to believe his ideas are unworkable… or, as he says, “are so paranoid.”
But some branches of government are more equal than others – a fellow blogger’s thoughts on a House bill guarding the Pledge from the Courts.
“We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage,” said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. “It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.”
Big-G God, the one the moderate Christians worship, and the demented fuckwits have daily conversations with.
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
AV, tell me again how if we “make nice” with them on “the little things,” they’ll be satisfied and give up fighting for anything less than an official Christian nation. Court-stripping in order to make their belief system more special than anyone else’s (and above the law) is a mighty big “fuck you” to those of us who cherish the First Amendment, and our rights as enumerated therein.
“Paranoid” my ASS.
OB, Bill Moyers (who has been around the block) would agree:
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/103
“One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.”
More tolerance and anger management aren’t what’s needed now. We need to get mad, stay mad, and get these people out of power.
Guys, I understand its diffcult, but this discussion is useful anyways so you realize what are exactly the arguments that are truly reasonable and we eliminate the lines of argumentation that do, indeed, make you look, paranoid, uptight and arrogant.
Keith, your argument is totally silly, typical of the “scientoid” who thinks, much like the creationist, that only lab bench work and math is science, and knows about as much about how to approach history and social sciences as a hairdresser does.
And this is a problem to be analized from the perspective of social sciences. In social sciences, you take as many experiences you can draw analogies with; you understand that their are limitations as to what is comparable, yet you can use yur brain to see what is similar, what is not, what is probably relevant from what is probably not. Your pointo of view of counting the number of countries with your fingers and then decide you will toss your arms in the air and cant say anything because its “not statistically significant” is quite silly …and yet you feel you can tell people they are “mathematically stupid” if they dont accept it. You’re hilarious.
So don’t use that argument again.
Of all the points made here, I think ONLY ONE is interesting and truly challenging: How to confront the american reality of a diversity of religions that may want to go at each other. Though the situation is hardly as dire as when this country was being founded and people were killing each other over what religion the country should be. So the situation is different, and I think it is reasonable to say there are ways to work around the problem.
All the rest seems to me to be paranoid or unfocused, specially when you take into acount the experience of other countries. No, teaching kids religion or plenty of other straightforwrdly silly stuff they inevitable get exposed to does not turn them into fundies nor ruins a country. If you argue like this, you DO come off as paranoid. So use another argument becuase while you guys invoke all these hellish scenarios as a means to uphold the constitution, Kansas laughs in your faces and does whatever it wants, ID- friendly president gets re-elected, and it seems to me you have already failed enough to think that things are perfectly fien and should reamin the same. You should at least self criticize and correct your lines of argument so that you appear reasonable, not uptight and paranoid. That is sound political advice.
You guys can knock yourselve out now insulting me or saying I avocate the apocalypse…but in truth what I propose is reasonable. And when you exaggerate in attacking what is reasonable, you end up looking bad. I think that is at the root of your (evident) failures.
Getting all mad and staying mad quite naturally is just going to blurr out your good thinking. Seriously, people.
Alexander Vargas, I don’t think anybody is listening anymore.
I guess we all got tired of arguing with you.
I don’t think anyone is mad though. I’m not.
Diversity of religion shouldn’t be a problem. When religions don’t get along, they need to find some way to work it out instead of forcing their beliefs into the public school system. In reality, religious diversity and public schools’ curricula have little to do with each other, except perhaps the comparative religion classes that many schools already offer.
You guys may even be right that the current situtaion is what is best for the US. I freely admit this because it is a reasonable argument that religion at school may not be delivered without being somehow unfair to underepresented minorities, which are many in the US. Remember, though, that people will argue that the exclusion of religion is also counter to intellectual diversity.
I think these argumets are the real playground of the topic, those that may win over the undecided to one side or the other and not just preach to the choir.
If you guys are right, I have heard pleeeenty of very wrong reasons. If you guys defend what is right using wrong reasons, you make it look wrong. This is part of the problem, and what I belive makes my criticism constructive.
And of course, that I may be right and you guys wrong is still possible too haha
If intellectual diversity means listening to a bunch of kooks talk about God, Jesus, transubstantiation, and the afterlife, not much is gained by including them in the curriculum.
Keeping up with blogs during vacation is obviously too much for me – I have a life that is prioritiezed.
Anyway, for that it is worth, continuing to feed the troll that has contributed 15 % the comments:
“It would certainly be problematic to use relativity to study such a thing, but this BY NO MEANS would be an empirical falsation of relativity. Relativity would continue to provide sound explanations for the set of phenomena it was set out to explain.”
You don’t understand relativity. Relativity specifically is built around light speed as the max speed for signals. Faster signals mean Lorentz invariance is violated which destroys causality and hence relativity. Again, it is a philosophical invention to study the no-go case, which is another question altogether. Without relativity, causality is gone. What universe is that?
“This is like saying that the empirical observations in which quantum mechanics works better than relativity ’empirically falsifies” relativity”
You don’t understand QM either. QM and relativity is diferent theories. How to combine them into relatitivistic QM is well understood.
“but that BY NO MEANS does it mean that common descent with modifictaion did not occur or would cease o explain what it explains.”
If your theory can’t explain the phenomena, after eventual corrections, it means that it is wrong. It doesn’t “explain what it explains” any more, since it predicts that no modern rabbit fossil can exist in a Cambrian layer.
“you make a silly choice when you chose to ditch the PHILOSOPHICAL distinction between science and non-science”
The problem with demarcation is philosophically it’s hard and scientifically easy. See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/laudan_demarcat.html for the former and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/moran_on_theistic_evolution.php for the later. And remember, this is about science.
This series of comments of yours have served to reveal that you are a troll, has no knowledge of physics, biology and null hypotheses so your knowledge in science is heavily problematised, and insist on philosophical questions based on special pleading. Why you insist to discuss science with such a bad basing is unfathomable.
Larsson, Einstein and Bohr would gag to see a physicist that looks down on philosophy and upholds the silly empiricist cartoon of science.
I think that the reasons I gave you are quite plain. If you state that if something moves faster than light, causality in the universe would cease to exist, you can realize you have set an impossible case as refutation, which is dishonest (like saying that geometry would be refuted by a “square circle”). Being totally honest, even if something like that were empirically proven to exist, we all know realtivity would continue to explain what it explains and would not be ditched as “empirically refuted”.
Anyway. If in a case as simple to understand as the cambrian rabbit you are confused and really think it would refute common descent, I don’t need to be an expert in relativity to conceive you will make equivalent mistakes in physics and other things. If you look down your nose on philosophy, you naturally will make mediocre philosophical mistakes.
Anyway, I warned you not to ditch philosophy, but you decided to play into the intellectual narrownes proper of a creationist fool. A simple empiricist cartoon of a science with no epistemology.
You can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.
It is the fact that scientists are brought with no philosophical formation, that you can blame for all these crackpot biologists turning into ID or creationims, thinking they have found “evidence”.
I’ll avoid speculating on your qualifications, talking about mine, or calling you names cause that kind of noise is for morons.
Again. Suppose that you are being honest, that youd did not formulate the cambrian rabbit because you know it is a fabricated internal incoherence within what you already know. Let’s say you are being actually honest, that you actually think this could show up.
So let’s say it shows up.
If your cambrian rabbit means there is no common descent, you would happily admit this means that the fossils of primate-human transition are deceiving, it is EVIDENCE of sudden appearance of humans, and of each of the transitional fossil of primate-humans, such that it only “looks” like evolution. Although we only see descent with modification occurs in modern organisms, in the past things just appearred suddenly. Just no problem in all that, huh? Yeah, its “just the evidence”!! Who cares about philosophy!!!!
The absurdity of that scenario may help you understand that the reason we do not expect cambrian rabbits is rooted more in a specific knowledge of the succesion of organisms in the fossil record, and not a specific prediction of the fact that organisms evolve from other organisms.
For example, I have no doubt that Louis Agassiz and Richard Owen would have made the same prediction, though they did not support common descent. Of course, they could invoke metaphysical notions of progress including some anthropocentric elevation of any mammal toward the apex of nature.
But no such progressist metaphysical reasons are needed to predict there will be no cambrian rabbit. Because we know what a rabbit is, and when they show up in the fossil record, we know that a cambrian rabbit would imply a gap of about 460 million years for rabbits to reappear in the tertiary. Highly unbelievable. If the mere fact were that rabbits, were known to have existed since the silurian, suddenly a cambrian rabbit would not be that surprising at all.
Yet if we did’nt not know what a rabbit is, and just found the cambrian rabbit, it would be added to the list of weird, difficult to define things that can be found in the cambrian, since nothing in the rabbit itself can tell us it should be more “recent”, other than mere previous knowledge: what rabbits are and when they appear. The specific knowledge on the evolution of life on earth, rather than the fact of descent with modification, is what makes a cambrian rabbit unexpected.
Feed the troll or not, always the question. Since I continued this:
“Larsson, Einstein and Bohr would gag to see a physicist that looks down on philosophy and upholds the silly empiricist cartoon of science.”
This probably mean that neither of those mentioned were interested in philosophy. In fact, you can easily find philosophical discussions with all on the web. (And I’m honored to be mentioned in such company!)
On the rest, Alexander says nothing new what I can see. It is a rehash of his errors on science. Except that Alexander now starts to grasp that the cambrian rabbit, a wellknown biologist example of an observation that would spell problems for evolution, is a problem and tries to reason out of that with neckbreaking logic. Again, take it up with professional biologists at talkorigin instead.
Larsson,
Einstein and Bohr would gag to see a physicist that looks down on philosophy and upholds the silly empiricist cartoon of a science without philosophy, like you do.
I expected that by explainig more of the obvious you would just proclaim victory. All you care about is appearances. No internal process.
For some frivolous internauts non-thinking like keeping appearances and credential-waving is more imporante than any internal process of thinking.
Internet anti-creationists sites like talkorigins should not be your ultimate reference for biology, Larrson. Jeez
OK Larsson, byebye
It’s alive!!! Alive!!!
Has it made it to 1000 yet?
It’s funny how if you support Evolution you’re an ANTI-CREATIONIST.
That’s like calling a doctor an ANTI-DEMONIST.
We know demons are the real cause of illness.
“Achooo!” “God Bless You.”
This cambrian rabbit thing is a classic delusion of the internet scientoid.. its is kind of fun to debunk it.
I have some time to burn (darn reagents STILL don’t arrive and are driving me crazy). If that makes me a troll, so be it! I don’t care the least about looking like a a fool answering to another one like Larsson, nor do I care if PZ declares to the world that I’m a kook, or whatever antibodies you may want to secrete. Hey, whatever makes you guys feel comforted with your inner selves, I’m for it ..see if I give a shit hahaha.
Say that I am awaiting for my order of red clown noses to arrive.
The cambrian rabbit is the same fallacy involved in saying any well established scientific knowledge could evaporate into thin air “given the evidence”. Say that all you need tomorrow is new evidence to ackowledge the world is flat. What would you do with all the standing evidence that the world is spherical?
The fact that I can conceive evidence for a flat world, does not mean that evidence for a spherical world would cease to exist, even if fkat world evidence is fund that is directly at odds with it. We just would not know what evidence to prefer.
Now as I expalined above the prediction no cambrian rabbit should exist does not rely on common descent but can be made by a creationist too, merely on the basis of the unreasonable gaps it would imply for the fossil record.
But IF it actually were at odds with the well established fact of common descent, just like if we found nowadys evidence for a flat erath, this would not mean the vidence of a spherical world would evaporate. Similarly all the evidence for common descent would not cease to exist.
That is, a cambrian rabbit would not refute common descent. At most it can be paradoxical, having to admit both lines of evidence are sound though incompatible. Interestingly, thing like this DO happen in science. Which you should know, if you are indeed a physicist.
Steve,
Anyone who supports evolution is indeed an anticreationist, and any doctor is indeed against a demonological interpretation of sickness.
But a “mere” anticreationist knows less about evolution than about attending the arguments of creationists. And the anticreationist sometimes “gives in” to arguments that are silly and produces equally silly answers.
The point being, anyone can be an “anticreationist”, even if he knows about as much natural history as a hairdresser does…
Curiously, unapologetic ignorance of natural history also characterizes many succesfull biochemist and cell biologists… who sometimes end like Behe, supporting ID-creationism.
I believe I’m a Pro-Evolutionist and Anti-Nonsenserist.
You’re being disingenuous, Vargas.
You’re right, the evidence for a spherical world would not cease to exist, but neither would the presumably solid and reliable evidence for a flat earth. Given equally compelling evidence in both directions, it’s quite clear that a *ahem* ’round earth theory’ would be inadequate to explain all of the evidence, and that a new theory would be required to bring all of the evidence together. You can’t just ‘prefer’ one piece of evidence over another (unless you have reason to believe one of them is more reliable, of course).
In the case of the rabbit: let’s assume for the sake of argument that we have incontrovertible evidence that rabbits existed in the Cambrian, or the Archaean. In this case, we would have to either overhaul or replace some component of evolutionary theory, because there is no conceivable way in which that theory could explain our new piece of evidence without some modification.
Mechanophile:
What if a future-creationist invents a time machine and leaves a pile of rabbit carcasses in the Cambrian in an attempt to prove evolution wrong?
In this case, we can account for their presence without the slightest affect on evolutionary theory.
[Bah, continuing on]
Now, we’ve got a rabbit in the Cambrian, so we know we have to change our theory to accommodate this new piece of evidence. We don’t want to get rid of evolution in toto, because we know it explains almost everything; maybe we just need to tweak it a bit.
What if we found more evidence that went against the predictions of evolutionary theory? What if, 200 years from now, we’ve discovered thousands of ‘Cambrian rabbits’? What if the preponderance of the evidence eventually swings against evolutionary theory? Do you see where I’m going with this?
You’re right, in a sense: one Cambrian rabbit would not refute common descent. It would require a change in our current understanding of the theory, and it *might* eventually refute it if the evidence can’t be reconciled, but it’s unlikely. If we uncovered millions of different ‘Cambrian rabbits’, though (that is, pieces of evidence contradicting common descent), in all likelihood that would refute the theory.
wintermute: Ah, good point… But what if we’re already being misled by a future-evolutionist, and the future-creationist is just fixing the first guy’s screw-ups?
Mechanophile, precisely. You can’t just ‘prefer’ one piece of evidence over another. Which is why you cannot say that one is empirically refuted by the other. Even if you have “good reasons to prefer” that will not always be possible. Not always a new theory will be able to bring everything together. It is not difficult to imagine for example how there can be no “compromise” solution between conceivable flat and round earth data.
What scientist sometimes do in situations like this is that they use one model for one set of data and then another for the other. Both are “true”. Each one works nicely within its domain. This points out that science is not as much about “absolute empirical truth” as it is about a way of explanation. Incompatible theories are totally acceptable if each one “works” where it is expected to. Absolute truth and reason is more of a religious-faith expectative (as if the universe would fit the mind of the human primate like a foot in a shoe…HA!!)
But I note again that the cambrian rabbit would not even really be such an incompatibility. It is not much smarter than formulating any “out of place object ” mystery, with no truly direct implication for common descent.
Guys, lets not get unhinged..to me the point is thet we would anyway have to provide a scientifi explanation for the origin of the human time travelers, creationist or not. And all you would have to do is look at the current living world to realize that common descent with modification provides a mechanism , whereas any hypothesis of sudden appearance if it does not provide mechanism is just scientifically worthless.
Now Alexander does exactly what he warned against earlier in a similar context, “you would need extremely weird things to explain data”. Scientists doesn’t reconcile theories in the naive manner suggested. Different gravitational theories have their areas of relevance (accuracy). QM and relativity is married where necessary and (currently) separated where necessary.
Also, one can’t conflate faith and fact theories. Theories have complicated interrelations and iterations with each other, the observations and the methods. That lends trust, not faith. But ultimately it is observations that are to be explained and defines accuracy and relevance. This is very elementary science for one that use it.
The only reason to be confused is to plead specially for philosophy or religion to overrule in a discussion about science as is consistently done here by someone Myers observes be “the one who has been doing a frantic desperate monkey dance here, expressing your personal affront”. I’ve been monitoring the dance, circling to and thro and back, with some amusement.
However much Alexander makes the the rabbit jump around, it is ultimately a biologists example on what would as a thought experiment problematice evolution by contradicting its theory by observation. It may be mistaken, but nothing mentioned here what I can see problematices from a science viewpoint what is analogous to what other areas uses as examples in such cases.
Alexander still haven’t looked at talkorigin. It is a site with professional biologists and other scientists and references, and a good place to stop arguing creationism and anti-creationism, and start learning evolution. Here he can also lay the rabbit to rest after some pasturing during discussions with the specialists. Or look at the other examples of problematising. Some claims that Alexander makes are discussed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA310.html , http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html , http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html .
Does Alexander want the last word? Be my guest.
Jeez, Larsson, you ARE sore. Forget me. I am not important. What is important is that you deceive yourself no longer: science NEEDS philosophy.
“The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent on each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled.”
-Albert Einstein
Passing by to close down hanging threads.
I’m neither sore nor saying that science doesn’t need philosophy. I believe Popper showed the strength of falsification since scientists didn’t think of it. (Whether on new or established theories are neither here nor there.) Einstein’s quote however shows an old and false view. Science is operative at its core.
As usual most, and here all, is in Alexander’s mind.
Aw, yeah, Popper…the one who said that darwinism was a metaphysical program?
Truly, it is Popper that has become greatly eroded and is currently outdated. Falsation upheld like a mere imperative leads to a narrow lab-bench caricature of science, the kind used by creationists.
Einstein? Bohr? We are still waiting for anyone that may outshadow them. If physicists nowadays are naïve empiricists “a la Sokal”, their sad state of creative stagnation is no wonder.
You say something in one direction, and in the next breath you speak something to the contrary. Science needs philosphy, but Einstein is wrong because “science is operational at its core”. You are muddled.
Oh, boy! Alexander Vargas is back! And this is comment 993.
Fuck the demented fuckwits. JUST FUCK THEM and the stupid crazy short bus they rode in on.
At least Freddy could only get you if you fell asleep. This shit is everywhere and needs to be confronted with a dose of skepticism and humor.
Don’t argue with them, mock the living shit out of them.
Stupid delusional fucks, and I’m not just talking about the literalists – the crazy assholes that ignore some of the insanity while buying into the rest of it deserve just as much of it… Collins and the appeasement crowd, I’m talking about you.
Yes these people are truly delusional fuckwits, the problem I see is that most of the people who would normally be considered rational and enlightened are prone to various degrees of delusion themselves.
How many people out there are aware of the seriousness of Climate change and Peak Oil for example and deny these are real problems?
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3565
Olduvai revisited 2008
Posted by Luís de Sousa on February 28, 2008 – 12:39am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
We have a situation where these religious loons are going to have some very fertile circumstances in which to propagate their brand of insanity.
Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.