Brian Flemming posts an interesting quote from Sam Harris:
I think we should not underestimate the power of embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people who were writing “The Adventures of Superman” radio show. Week after week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real Klan’s mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish; and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate organization with tens of millions of members – many of whom were senators, and even one president – to a world in which there are now something like 5,000 Klansmen. It’s basically a defunct organization.
Is anybody else feeling like the Discovery Institute is voluntarily putting on the big red nose and the clown shoes without our help, lately?
Yep a big red nose and clown shoes (on the wrong feet).
Hey, the strategy works. I feel like it’s happening right now with Scientology, given the high-profile batshit insanity of folks like Tom Cruise and the unflattering portrayals on, e.g., South Park. (Complete with “THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE” disclaimer, which was probably my favourite part of that episode.)
I wonder if we can apply the same principle to Christianity. Maybe a cartoon short of Mary and Joseph sleeping on separate twin beds, 50s sitcom style, with the Hand of God shoving a baby up Mary’s uterus with the overlaid disclaimer “THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE”.
anyone fact-check that? I don’t recall any US Presidents being members of the KKK – anyone know which one it is, or is supposed to be?
When God made Mary pregnant, did He have an orgasm? Seriously, what do godly Orgasms involve and should they be capitalized when typing it out like everything else He does?
Did He just “will” Mary to be pregnant without any Holy Ejaculation? Was it good for Mary? Surely there’s an old tattered book somewhere deep in the Vatican that holds the answers to these questions. Is it blasphemy to even discuss this topic? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, what I learned in Catholic school was that it was the holy spirit who came to Mary and impregnated her. This really screwed with my young mind. Doesn’t that mean that the holy spirit is actually the father? And why then, was the father called the father? I was now on the road to atheism.
btw, I deny the holy spirit!
“Umm, Joseph, I seem to be in the family way. No, no, I have never slept with a man. It was the, uh, the holy spirit! Yeah, that’s the ticket! It was that ol’ devil, the holy spirit that knocked me up. Yeah, that’s what god calls his, you know …”
(bemused voice) Now, now, Joshua. Your proposed sequel to “Something About Mary” seems both over-the-top and under-the-table.
I can’t speak for all my fellow Christians, but I can assure you that we don’t visualize Yahweh fisting the Baby Jesus into the womb of the Virgin. The mental picture most of have is no different from that of any other pregnancy, other than they assert by faith that said conception was immaculate.
Call us superstitious if it suits you, tell us we have no evidence that would support parthenogenesis in a human female if you like, but let’s not superimpose some crude fantasy of your own for the (admittedly) fantastic notion of the Virgin Birth as affirmed by many believers.
In other words, let’s try making arguments against what Christians actually believe rather than some cartoon version of their faith. After all, that would make us no different from creationists who argue against their own misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, right?
BTW, you did know that ‘Joshua’ (like ‘Joseph’ and ‘Jesus’) is derived from the Hebrew ‘Yeshua’? One can’t help but wonder if there’s ever been a ‘Miriamne’ in your life. “Joshingly”….SH
anyone fact-check that? I don’t recall any US Presidents being members of the KKK – anyone know which one it is, or is supposed to be?
Allegedly Warren G. Harding.
Hey, that’s what I call my “ya know” too! You can too (err, half of you anyway)! Go ahead, next time you’re with your significant other, refer to your member as your Holy Spirit. It’s sure to get a chuckle.
Bonus points: Work the word “Behold” into your seduction routine. I’m sure God did when he seduced Mary.
One of my many cunning pipedreams is to discredit neonazism by setting up a mail order company to sell cuckoo clocks to fascists. They’d have Hitler popping out and giving a salute instead of a cuckoo, because everyone knows Nazis love kitsch. Once I’ve sold them to the majority of the BNP membership, I’d take my story to the press and let the whole country mock their appalling taste.
“anyone fact-check that? I don’t recall any US Presidents being members of the KKK – anyone know which one it is, or is supposed to be?”
There has been a lot of speculation on that one. Not any proof, and the president being speculated about is usually Harding.
Here’s a link.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhardingkkk.html
Being raised a Baptist, as I was, no. This point did not escape me. What exactly you’re trying to prove with it does, on the other hand. ;)
The public humiliation technique has also worked well to stymie the loons who think the 9/11 terrorist attacks were actually inside jobs pulled off by the US government. That “movement” seemed to be gaining strength among impressionable youth, but then it was parodied on Southpark, calling those believers “retards.” Suddenly the influx of new recruits seems to have stopped.
Woodrow Wilson seems to have been a bit of a fan until the mid 20’s. And Coolidge was too close for comfort.
Actually, Scott, after reading your description of the Fisting of Mary, I’m in even more of a mood to see it replace the traditional nativity. I think it could only go up in the ‘red light districts’ of town, though.
Man of peace (MoP?), I assume you have innocently avoided Dembskis applause for a certain scurrilous and bad taste animation?
Here you are, on the fount of all wisdom:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1868
And Harry S. Truman for certain – though he revoked it immediately due to the Klan officer’s trying to make him give political promises. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics )
And Harry S. Truman for certain – though he revoked it immediately due to the Klan officer’s trying to make him give political promises. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics )
Is anybody else feeling like the Discovery Institute is voluntarily putting on the big red nose and the clown shoes
More like lipstick, high heels and rubber tits.
It’s all about reaching the children, you know.
cephyn:
“anyone fact-check that? I don’t recall any US Presidents being members of the KKK – anyone know which one it is, or is supposed to be?”
Possibly Harry Truman. Early in his political career, Truman paid for a membership in the Klan because he had been advised that he’d never win an election otherwise (he was running for a county judgeship). David McCullough discusses this in his biography, “Truman” (p. 163-164 — I just looked it up.)
Truman soon afterwards dropped his membership, and in fact the KKK opposed his reelection to the same office. Still, Truman’s opponents dragged his Klan membership out of the muck again and again throughout his career. He certainly wasn’t a member while president.
“Is anybody else feeling like the Discovery Institute is voluntarily putting on the big red nose and the clown shoes without our help, lately?”
Actually, a better metaphor would be that DI provides the naked emperor, and you, Brayton, Talk.Origins, etc. point out the nudity. I’d say that ridicule works best when the ridiculers mostly just point out the stupid things their opponents do, and let the inherent ridiculousness of it speak for itself. The example of the KKK and Superman seems to be a good example of this, as does Jon Stewart saying the simple line “Mr. Vice President, I have to inform you: Your pants are on fire,” after showing a couple clips that made it dead clear that the VP was lying. Good ridicule is like good judo, using the weight of one’s opponents against themselves, so to speak.
“In other words, let’s try making arguments against what Christians actually believe rather than some cartoon version of their faith.”
Okay, let’s start with a sincere expression of faith from “This I Believe.”
Contributor: Wesley
Location: Uniontown, OH
Country: United States of America
Series: Contemporary
I believe in God.
Have you ever considered the matter of the universe in all its forms? Have you ever thought about the fact that an atom of carbon here on earth behaves the same as one 10,000,000 light years away? Or that that same carbon atom is 99.9999% – nothing – void – empty space. Or that while physicists attempt to understand it by describing it mathematically and smashing it to bits to see what happens, they can only imperfectly model it?
I believe an atom is a self-contained, perpetually active thought. It is a thought that physicists nearly, but not completely, understand.
Just as the simple laws of geometry – which like the fundamental forms of matter are small self-evident thoughts – can be brought together to “prove” more complex theorems, the fundamental forms of matter of this universe – the thoughts of this universe – come together to “prove” more complex things. Through their interplay we see stars and planets, black holes and oceans, mountains and streams. We, in fact, see Life!
I can not consider matter, itself, in its fundamental forms, nor especially in the form of its resultant proofs without knowing that it did not come about by accident.
Matter in its simplest forms are the thoughts of God made tangible just as I am the thoughts of God made tangible. When I think about this I wonder if I am a part of God, coming full circle through the miracle of his creative power, to introspect – to rediscover himself through his own creation?
There was a time when this aspect of God was all I believed. He was a God that created and wound up what we know as the universe and all its matter – perhaps even becoming the matter of the universe himself – but did not interfere and did not care. He was a God that didn’t do miracles beyond the miracle of his own majesty – beyond the miracle of his own creation. This mathematical and physical view of Him did not seem to hear my prayers and did not love me. I was for Him an interesting result of His creation just as He was for me a subject of philosophical consideration.
This is what I believed and as far as I knew, I was alone.
But then I began to read about a man who said he was God’s representative and that God was, in fact, Love. God had gotten involved and made this man specifically for us. If a physicist has an understanding of God’s mind, this man had an understanding of God’s heart. I could believe in God through the incomprehensible majesty of his creation but I could not access his love – his heart – his purpose – except through the words of the man who said he was his son.
I was an outsider – watching and thinking – amazed but alone. I believed in God’s mind but not in his heart. But now I believe in Both.
This I also believe – I believe in Jesus Christ.
http://thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?keywords=god&uid=14773&start=0
Have fun, Scott, disabusing this person of a bunch of idiotic, muddle-headed ideas!
In all seriousness, yes.
I visit UD now and then to see what’s up on the ID side of things. And the last week with the Jones-bashing taking precidence over everything else, I think they’ve seriously hit a new low. They’re literally self parodies by now – they can’t produce real research, but they can produce lowbrow Flash animations and call people putzes.
I think it also exhibits a level of cluelessness. To parody something as a parodyist is one thing. To parody someone when you’re essentially being a sore loser makes you look like a sore looser. To make a humorous observation takes a sense of humor about the situation – all of it, even including yourself. It’s one of the reasons ‘Mallard Filmore’ isn’t funny.
“Man of Peace” (anybody know the Dylan tune? heh) opines, with gratuitous apostrophe:
“the Discovery Institute is doing a very good job of making it’s case in a professional, scientific and respectful fashion.”
…and then links to a post by Sal Cordova!
Hahahahahahahahahaha
In all seriousness, yes.
I visit UD now and then to see what’s up on the ID side of things. And the last week with the Jones-bashing taking precidence over everything else, I think they’ve seriously hit a new low. They’re literally self parodies by now – they can’t produce real research, but they can produce lowbrow Flash animations and call people putzes.
I think it also exhibits a level of cluelessness. To parody something as a parodyist is one thing. To parody someone when you’re essentially being a sore loser makes you look like a sore looser. To make a humorous observation takes a sense of humor about the situation – all of it, even including yourself. It’s one of the reasons ‘Mallard Filmore’ isn’t funny.
Is anybody else feeling like the Discovery Institute is voluntarily putting on the big red nose and the clown shoes without our help, lately?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact.
Actually, the Discovery Institute is doing a very good job of making it’s case in a professional, scientific and respectful fashion.
wow. speaking of “howlers”… that’s a good one!
Professional? Sure, the public relations are professional.
Respectful? More or less.
Scientific? No. Not in the least whatsoever. They omit gobs of evidence – that’s why they fail to take stupid design into account, for example – and (let’s give the benefit of doubt here) misunderstand the rest. Hey, they don’t even take into account that, while mutation is random, selection is not!
Professional? Sure, the public relations are professional.
Respectful? More or less.
Scientific? No. Not in the least whatsoever. They omit gobs of evidence – that’s why they fail to take stupid design into account, for example – and (let’s give the benefit of doubt here) misunderstand the rest. Hey, they don’t even take into account that, while mutation is random, selection is not!
I think the embarrassment idea is a good one; contrary to the popular adage, there is such a thing as bad publicity. For instance: Dembski’s fart recording. I think someone needs to save a copy of that and whenever Dembski next holds a public lecture or debate, play it out loud. Really, this could be his “jumping on Oprah’s couch” moment of total cred loss.
Not representative.
Pantheism. Blasphemy pure and simple by Christian standards.
Not representative.
Pantheism. Blasphemy pure and simple by Christian standards.
Actually, the Discovery Institute is doing a very good job of making it’s case in a professional, scientific and respectful fashion.
Really? Then how do you explain this?
Respectful? Hardly. They’re showing their true colors now.
Scott Hatfield said:
Scott, your version of the Immaculate Conception is very incorrect. The IC “miracle” happened when Mary was born without sin, so that she couldn’t pass on her sinliness to her future child. (I’ll leave it to others to point out the irony of Lamarckism here in Catholic doctrine…)
IC has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Jesus. One of many sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Oh, and they have yet another bunch exiting the tiny car. It seems that the DI’s “crack legal team” of Professor David DeWolf and Casey Luskin tried to get an article published in the Montana Law Review that was … wait for it … copied 95 percent from from Traipsing Into Evolution, despite knowing that the law review only accepted original articles.
The DI’s budget for red rubber noses must be staggering.
God designed the human butthole so that when gas is expelled out of it, a sound is produced that makes us all laugh.
After years of suggesting this to the Discovery Institute as an excellent way to make Intelligent Design interesting for 4th graders, it appears they have finally gotten the message.
(lifts leg and rips a deep resonating shot off the office chair)
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
MOP:
Nothing of that is shown when Reed Cartwright concerning your link “find it sad that a week after scientists used molecular clocks to show that the Tripoli Six did not cause an HIV outbreak, the anti-evolutionists at UD throw up some posts ignorantly questioning the well established and understood procedure.” He and commenters who actually use the method explains how it works.
Besides that it exonerates the Tripoli Six it is telling when it can predict the age of the common ancestor to chimps and humans. mplavcan comments: “My guess is that the standard creationist response will be to claim that the human fossil record is being interpreted to force the findings to conform to the molecular clock. Wrong. The paleontologists were FORCED to accept the clock results by virtue of the data that were (and are being) collected from the field. Were this a matter of interpretation, the opposite result would have been obtained.” ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/molecular_clock.html )
Any “professional, scientific and respectful fashion” is at its lowest when Dembski with infantile humor gives his voice and farts to Judge Jones relating the plaintiffs proposed facts. That Jones took 70 % of those facts and rejected all of ID’s best efforts in 16 % of his decision is too much for the DI crowd.
The complaint that those 70 % facts was rewritten to keep 90 % of the original text falls flat when it was not only permitted but beneficial to prevent appeal and reversal from mistreating found facts.
It is also undercut by DI itself when David DeWolf, John West and Casey Luskin further rejects this “professional, scientific and respectful fashion” by copying 95 % of a previous book and presents it to a magazine who expressly require original work.
In a press release the original reviewer comments: “Professor Irons concluded his study with these comments: “It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff’s lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as ‘original’ work a law review article that was copied 95 percent from the authors’ own book. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue.”” ( http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/study_shows_discovery_institut.php )
Actually, the Discovery Institute is doing a very good job of undercutting it’s case in a non-professional, anti-scientific and disrespectful fashion.
MOP:
Nothing of that is shown when Reed Cartwright concerning your link “find it sad that a week after scientists used molecular clocks to show that the Tripoli Six did not cause an HIV outbreak, the anti-evolutionists at UD throw up some posts ignorantly questioning the well established and understood procedure.” He and commenters who actually use the method explains how it works.
Besides that it exonerates the Tripoli Six it is telling when it can predict the age of the common ancestor to chimps and humans. mplavcan comments: “My guess is that the standard creationist response will be to claim that the human fossil record is being interpreted to force the findings to conform to the molecular clock. Wrong. The paleontologists were FORCED to accept the clock results by virtue of the data that were (and are being) collected from the field. Were this a matter of interpretation, the opposite result would have been obtained.” ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/molecular_clock.html )
Any “professional, scientific and respectful fashion” is at its lowest when Dembski with infantile humor gives his voice and farts to Judge Jones relating the plaintiffs proposed facts. That Jones took 70 % of those facts and rejected all of ID’s best efforts in 16 % of his decision is too much for the DI crowd.
The complaint that those 70 % facts was rewritten to keep 90 % of the original text falls flat when it was not only permitted but beneficial to prevent appeal and reversal from mistreating found facts.
It is also undercut by DI itself when David DeWolf, John West and Casey Luskin further rejects this “professional, scientific and respectful fashion” by copying 95 % of a previous book and presents it to a magazine who expressly require original work.
In a press release the original reviewer comments: “Professor Irons concluded his study with these comments: “It seems to me the height of hypocrisy for the Discovery Institute to accuse Judge Jones of copying 90 percent of one section of his opinion (just 16 percent of its total length) from the proposed findings of fact by the plaintiff’s lawyers, when the DI itself tried to palm off as ‘original’ work a law review article that was copied 95 percent from the authors’ own book. Concealing this fact from the law review editors, until I discovered and documented this effort, seriously undercuts the credibility of the DI on this or any other issue.”” ( http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/study_shows_discovery_institut.php )
Actually, the Discovery Institute is doing a very good job of undercutting it’s case in a non-professional, anti-scientific and disrespectful fashion.
How is anyone to make argue against Christianity’s actual beliefs when you can’t even agree amongst yourselves?
Jesus’s conception was not the “immaculate conception”. That belonged to Mary when God protected her soul during her conception from man’s “original sin”. This doctrine was
inventedrevealed in 1476 and dogmatised in 1854. Thus Jesus could be born to a sinless mother and be sinless himself.It’s almost as silly as Xenu setting off nukes 70mya.
BTW Merry Christmas!
Scientology is actually an exception in the South Park canon because it’s one of the few topics that doesn’t get the half-assed dialectical treatment, ala “some people believe X, some people believe Y, but the truth is exactly equidistant from both X and Y!”
Off-topic: Deep-Sea News is off to a great start; they have a carnivorous sponge video!!!!!!
That is almost nonsensical. How can the conception be immaculate without having some cartoonish ida of it when you really get down to the nitty gritty of thinking about it.
Why not? There notion is no better and just as unlikely. You don’t get to choose which version you like when the entire idea is rather bizarre.
All the flak scientology gets is deserved but if you think about it, its not more insane than a virgin birth or a man rising from the dead.
Just in case anyone was wondering, Ginger Yellow was referring to the British National Party, not the Banque Nationale de Paris.
Well, at least I hope so.
Bob
Ginger Yellow — have you, too, been watching old Get Smart episodes lately?
the entire series just came out as a boxed set of DVDs, and i swear that very thing was used as a sight gag in one of ’em… (it worked, too!)
Woody Guthrie wrote a song for Stetson Kennedy. It has been recorded by Billy Bragg and the group Wilco, “Mermaid Avenue” 1&2. I recommend those to everyone, along with Guthrie’s “Asche” recordings from the Smithsonian Institute.
This isn’t about the mafia organization known as “scientology”, but Julia Sweeney has some funny things to say about Catholics and Mormons.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/06/letting_go_of_g_1.html
I see that someone else has already noted and mocked your idiocy, Hatfield. I’m pleased.
How can the Christians agree when they don’t even understand what other Christians believe?
Actually, I have started to notice Judge Jones jokes floating around.
And Dawkins is already being portrayed as a dictator sending believers to the Gulag.
Scott, what do you actually think about the virgin birth (aside from misidentifying it as the “immaculate conception”)? I’ll make it easy, just answer these questions, two yes/no and one quantitative:
-was there any sperm involved?
-how many chromosomes were in Mary’s egg when it started dividing? (hint: haploid sperm and eggs each have 23. In a normal human zygote there are 46.)
-was there a Y chromosome? (hint: female mammals do not have Y chromosomes).
Okay, I’m too jaded to actually expect answers (but I will be pleasantly surprised if you give them). The problem is that we know too much about the molecular details of fertilization and pregancy these days for a throwaway phrase like “just like any normal pregnancy, except…” to work. Jesus either had a Y chromosome or he didn’t. It’s time some christians either provide hard answers to these questions or admit that the virgin birth, like most of the rest of the bible, is not to be taken literally.
Actually, I have started to notice Judge Jones jokes floating around.
Oh yeah, we’re getting tons of spam at the office about Judge Jones.
This is almost as huge as when Bennifer disintegrated.
Pete said:
Hey, if you want to get rid of the virgin birth, all you have to lose is a few verses in Matthew which aren’t even consistent with the rest of the book (why include both the virgin birth and the Davidic descent of Joseph?). OK, there’s a tiny little blurb in Luke, but it’s not conclusive and hardly counts.
yeah, speaking of South Park… their recent Dawkins episode was one of their more frustrating. sure, they make fun of Christianity by having a statue of Mary fart blood onto the faithful, and they depict God as a giant rodent, and Heaven is full of Mormons, etc., etc., but they go out of their way in a two-parter to make atheism look like an irrational religion all its own.
for fnck’s sake, guys, if both religion and non-religion are bad, what’s the alternative ?
That’s only because they haven’t read his books or listened to him.
They’re projecting. “He doesn’t believe in what we do. He wants to eliminate us.”
They anticipate what they themselves have considered allowable to do to others.
It’s time some christians either provide hard answers to these questions or admit that the virgin birth, like most of the rest of the bible, is not to be taken literally.
Isn’t it possible to get pregnant if someone masturbates and ejaculates all over your labia and/or hymen? A few sperm are bound to get inside to the vagina. Then it’s all a matter of swimming strength.
This seems a likely explanation of how a so-called “virgin birth” might have occurred. I call it the “bukkake birth” theory of immaculate conception.
they go out of their way in a two-parter to make atheism look like an irrational religion all its own.
for fnck’s sake, guys, if both religion and non-religion are bad, what’s the alternative ?
I don’t know. But I sure the fxck am not going to watch a cartoon to find out the answer.
Laughing at the reactions of irritated people who are confused about elementary principles such as the one I just related to y’all is one of the reasons that South Park exists.
Well, Christians don’t have to provide hard answers; they could acknowledge possibilities such as “a divinely crafted sperm popped into existence and went to fertilize Mary’s egg” or “a divinely crafted embryo popped into existence and was implanted in Mary” while saying they don’t know which happened.
dzd:
I’ve seen that, too. It was most apparent when the Super Adventure Club asked the kids if their beliefs were any stupider than that of the Yahweh-ists.
Scott, here’s another sincere belief for you. Have at it! Remember, no mockery. We don’t want to embarrass Sandra.
Contributor: Sandra
Location: Tucson, AZ
Country: United States of America
Series: Contemporary
When you prayer to God for something and it doesn’t come right away, you stop believing in the power of prayer. Me? Prayer is what I live on now. A situation in my life turned me from one of those fake believers, to a promoter of prayer, all with one phone call.
When I was a freshman in high school my sister, Julie, was diagnosed with a tumor in her breast. She was only fourteen years old and was just about to graduate from the eighth grade. Of course it really didn’t have a significant impact on my life. The tumor was noncancerous and she was going to need surgery to remove it and the doctors were positive that nothing serious war going to happen to her and that the surgery would be a simple procedure.
I considered prayer a simple task of my day. Every morning I say a series of daily prayers on how I want my day to turn out and who I thought needed prayer the most On the day of Julie’s surgery, I wished her well, said a little pray and went on to school like I would normally. My mom promised to call me as soon as my sister was out of her surgery.
After completing my morning classes lunch time came around and I received a message to call my mom as soon as possible. Automatically I thought the worst of things. I called my mom and to my relief she answered the phone in an optimistic voice. I asked her what was going on and she told me that they were out to lunch. Puzzled, I asked why and she told me that my sister didn’t need the surgery. Surprised, I asked if they had scheduled the surgery for another day or time. Mom my then told me as they were just about to go into surgery, they did an ultrasound only to find out that the tumor was no longer there. “Wow! That’s kind of miraculous don’t you think,” I asked her. She then told me what would forever change my view of prayer. My high school principle, Sister Lauren Moss, at that time had been diagnosed with cancer, and was ready to die. The day of my sister’s surgery, my mom received a phone call from a lady taking care of Sister Lauren. She called my mom to tell her that Sister Lauren was praying for Julie, and that she prayed that everything would turn out ok. I stood there in shock for a moment because I knew deep down inside it was because of the power of prayer that my sister didn’t need surgery.
I know now that prayer wasn’t something to rush through. God actually listens. Although many times we say God doesn’t care, he obviously really does. I believe through prayer, Sister Lauren healed my sister. Today, I take a little extra time to think about what I pray for and how it could really change my life. The tumor has never reappeared for my sister and although it didn’t affect me physically, I understand how important prayer means to people and how it can change lives.
http://thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?keywords=god&uid=13753&start=50
And then the Mary Sues (I mean the main characters) responded, “Yeah. Your ideas are way dumber than the Christians’ ideas, because they will totally get mad if we piss on them and there’s a ton more of them.”
The whole discussion is an exercise in the absurd, kind of like calculating how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
What exactly is wrong with the idea that the Greek word parthenos meant “young woman” or at most “unmarried woman” but not “unf***ed woman”? (Granted, all three were usually the same, at least according to the prevailing ideas about morality.) Doesn’t Latin virgo have the same range of meaning, at least classically?
What exactly is wrong with the idea that the Greek word parthenos meant “young woman” or at most “unmarried woman” but not “unf***ed woman”? (Granted, all three were usually the same, at least according to the prevailing ideas about morality.) Doesn’t Latin virgo have the same range of meaning, at least classically?
Doctorgoo, MartinDH: Well, this is what happens when you type off-the-cuff. You are of course right that the *doctrine* of the Immaculate Conception (note the caps) is distinct from the Virgin Birth. You will notice I didn’t capitalize the former, I did the latter. In my mind I made the distinction and just sort of used the language as a gloss, but that was probably a poor choice.
So, in that respect, Caledonian’s predictable insult is somewhat warranted.
However, taking a deep breath, notice the logical quandary that exists for Christians when discussing the Virgin Birth: it eventually becomes expedient for them to expunge the mother of original sin, as well. But what about Mary’s mom? And her mom? And so on, infinite regress, like ‘who made God’. This was certainly the sense in which I referred to the notion as ‘admittedly fantastic’, because when you start making it a focal point of doctrine, you end up in a cul-de-sac….SH
Like many beliefs, Christianity works best when one doesn’t think too much about it. It’s not that Christians walk around graphically picturing Mary being impregnated by God, it’s that the part of their brain that once asked, “How did that work, exactly?” has a little “Problem Solved” sticker over it. The brain is great at not noticing when parts of it stop working.
Joshua, you wrote: “Being raised a Baptist, as I was, no. This point did not escape me. What exactly you’re trying to prove with it does, on the other hand. ;)”
Well, in retrospect this was a pretty lame attempt at humor on my part and I hope I haven’t given offense. I just found your nom-de-Internet ironic given the topic and couldn’t help suggesting (entirely in jest) that you might’ve had a lady friend by the name of Mary/Miriam/etc.
Hopefully, you don’t have any (gulp) family members by that name. The post was ill-considered in general and if I gave any offense, please consider this an abject apology.
Abashed…SH
George, regarding the fellow ‘Wesley’ you quoted:
Wild. He sounds like he’s got more than a whiff of Deepak, and his views actually strike me as more Eastern than Western.
At any rate, I don’t feel any particular need to disabuse the fellow of his notions as long as he doesn’t try to push his personal woo as science. At that point, he gets no more consideration than any other creationist.
Cheers…SH
Scott,
No offence taken at all. I found it a slightly amusing aside, if nothing else. Anyway, no, there are no Marys or Miriams kicking about here, related or otherwise. ;)
JimC: I understand what you’re saying, but you’re missing the point. The mechanics of how an alleged ‘virgin birth’ might have occured are not the object of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. That doctrine’s object appears merely to provide a detail that would make another claim (Jesus’s deity) more credible.
Of course, you and I are both free to raise the question of what mechanism could’ve achieved this or that miraculous claim. I just think that in making that sort of criticism we should be clear as to whether or not there is an intrinsic mechanism that we are attempting to refute.
Otherwise, we become like those creationists who routinely attack some aspect of evolution as they understand it without bothering to ascertain whether or not the claim they are attempting to refute was ever in fact integral to evolutionary theory in the first place….SH
Exactly, many people just believe in belief and nothing more.
What exactly is wrong with the idea that the Greek word parthenos meant “young woman” or at most “unmarried woman” but not “unf***ed woman”?
I’ve also heard it claimed that it simply referred to a woman who had never born a living child. Not sure whether to believe it or not, being by no means a linguistic expert.
Off topic, is PZ ever going to give his gloating over Bad Astronomy speech now that he’s won?
On Saturday, Kim Hill of Radio New Zealand’s National program interviewed Richard Dawkins, and after that Richard Randerson, the Dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral and Assistant Anglican Bishop of Auckland. Both (very interesting) interviews can be found here, and the best bit is where Kim finally gets Richard Randerson to say OUT LOUD that creationists are ‘bonkers.’ He tried to waffle, but she wouldn’t let him, and he had to admit it. Yes, they are bonkers he said. Loud and clear.
It’s worth listening to just for that. It’s right at the end of the Randerson interview.
I don’t think they mentioned DI directly, but Kim did mention the creationist museum at some point.
I don’t know much about Anglicism, but the thing that struck me about that second interview was that it seemed to me that RR tried to set himself up as being in opposition to Dawkins by making all the right noises, but what everything he said boiled down to in the end was that he had rejected pretty well everything about Christianity that makes it a religion. He was advocating values that any atheist could agree with. I was left wondering why they even bother with the trappings. If the story of Genesis is, as he said, just another creation myth like the one of Rangi and Papa (the Maori creation myth) – a story that we can learn from – and they reject all that supernatural stuff, and the stories of the bible are all relative to the time in which they were written and not always appropriate for the modern world, then why don’t they just call themselves, oh, I don’t know, ATHEISTS or something?
Pete: What do I think about the Virgin Birth? Sigh. I think I’m not that interested in the mechanical feasibility of it, frankly. As a personal matter, I agree with you when you say that Christians need to face up to the fact that many claims in the Bible (such as the Virgin Birth) are unlikely to be true.
My real concern, though, is that we make sound arguments on behalf of natural explanations for phenomena, not poor ones based upon our misappropriation of supernatural claims. We’re on solid footing when we put the predicted *consequences* of such claims to the test, but we’re just spinning our wheels when we attempt to ‘disprove’ the non-falsifiable claim itself.
Now, when push comes to shove, I don’t know if a ‘virgin birth’ happened. I kind of doubt that it did. There are good reasons to believe that it was added to the text to appease the sensibility of the potential convert. There are good reasons to doubt that human parthenogenesis would ever happen spontaneously.
There’s also no good reason to believe that most fundamentalists would ever be convinced by such arguments. They aren’t looking for natural mechanisms or assessing the plausibility of them as such; they believe the whole business was supernatural. As such, any attempt to demonstrate natural causation will have no effect upon their beliefs. Providing ‘hard answers’ to whether or not Jesus had a Y chromosome is pointless, because they are already wired up to interpret claims claims literally and uncritically without reference to experiment.
BTW, I take no pleasure in pointing this out. I wish things were different, and that more Christians would be open to putting their cherished ideas on the table. But that’s not the way things are. That’s why science, especially science education, is so important.
I thought ridicule was what you resorted to when you didn’t have a reasonable argument to make.
Scott said: “That doctrine’s object appears merely to provide a detail that would make another claim (Jesus’s deity) more credible.”
Keep going. Virgin birth makes Jesus more credible. Does Jesus’ make God more credible? Is God somehow nicer or more real because Jesus is his sidekick?
If virgin birth is an incidental detail, is Jesus’ rising from the grave also incidental? How are we supposed to tell what’s important and what is not in that bloody book? Ask the Pope?
Seems like you are saying that anything an atheist can dismantle and poke holes in is incidental to some great and amazing master truth that lies behind all the crazy claims. That’s very convenient.
George: I’m not sure I’m understanding you. Look, I have no desire to mock anyone’s sincerely-held beliefs as such. I’m perfectly content to ignore Sandra unless one or more of the following is true….
1) She thinks what she believes should be in a science class
2) She thinks that only people who agree with her beliefs should hold elected office
3) She thinks people who disagree with her beliefs are of the Devil
Etc.
If something like the above is true, the kid gloves come off regardless of what the lady in question believes. No privileged belief systems!…..SH
Of course! But you can’t give the victory speech until the other fellow gives his concession speech. I’m not going to be the guy with the “Mission Accomplished” banner, you know.
But I sure the fxck am not going to watch a cartoon to find out the answer.
Laughing at the reactions of irritated people who are confused about elementary principles such as the one I just related to y’all is one of the reasons that South Park exists.
oh my. be careful not to mistake criticism of South Park’s unfortunate habit of pretending to tackle deep philosophical questions by declaring “a pox on both your houses” (in between episodes that don’t aspire to anything more than fart jokes) as a complaint that they aren’t giving “the answers” to those questions.
you’ll put your eye out with that snark.
Look! Up in the air! It’s a… It’s a…. It has absolutely no defining characteristics! It’s Yahweh, the Sky Fairy! He makes no claims to be disproven, he never interferes unless he does, and we can’t tell when, and he always bounces back because he makes no claims to be tested! Yes, this god thing definitely does exist, but not in the way you think, and I can’t explain it because then I might provide a characteristic to be tested about our magical sky fairy! Yes, for the low low introductory price of only that many dollars, you too can have a magical all powerful sky buddy that makes no claims and so can’t be disproven!
The sooner the embarrassing begins, the better. I re-enter your fine country yesterday, PZ, following a brief trip to the UK.
The immigration officer checked my employment visa, and asked me what I do, to which I replied “Evolutionary genetics”. A troubled look came across his face, “Do you believe in evolution?”.
“Ummm, yes” I replied, “Do you?”.
“Of course not. For someone who studies ‘evolutionary’ genetics, you should know better. It’s all a hoax”.
Trying not to incite him into requesting a full cavity search, I said “Well, when you spend all day looking at DNA sequences, it’s basically impossible to ignore evolution”.
“You’ve been brainwashed by the scientific … [pauses, trying to come up with the right word] … heirarchy … into thinking that”.
[Biting tongue] “Um, OK”.
What followed was a barrage of creationist platitudes: “A lot of scientists don’t believe in evolution”; “Darwin didn’t believe in evolution”; “There’s no proof for evolution”; and (my favourite) “It’s all part of this whole liberalism culture”.
Not the best guy to have protecting you from all these would-be terrorists, I wouldn’t have thought.
You thought wrong.
And oh my gosh grehonomic I am amazed this happened to you in an airport. That is simply embarrassing as an American citizen.
criticism of South Park’s unfortunate habit
Cartoons that are designed to offend and shock people are beyond reasonable “criticism” for “unfortunate habits” which, uh, offend people.
The difference between people like me who aren’t bothered by the “unfortunate habits” of South Park and those who are compelled to “criticize” those habits can be easily described: I am not a sanctimonious dickhead when it comes to a cartoon which mocks every interest group under the sun with its outrageous stereotypical characterizations of those groups.
George: Please note that I think you’re entirely within your rights to pose the hard questions to theists. By all means, fire away if that suits you.
Just don’t be absurd! The ‘convenience’ in this forum is entirely yours, if you have no cherished beliefs taken on faith to defend, but only the rather-obvious desire to attack the beliefs of others.
George, it’s not in the least ‘convenient’ for any believer to acknowledge that reality flatly contradicts the consequences of many traditional claims. As I like to remind my students, ‘facts are such inconvenient things.’
Nevertheless, facts must be faced, George. One fact that any believer worthy of their salt should acknowledge is that the realm of explanation which is the exclusive sphere of religion has been greatly reduced by the growth of scientific knowledge. In fact, all belief systems (not just religion) face the challenge of how to respond to what Wilson calls ‘consilience’, the future synthesis of science with other academic disciplines.
How shall we believers (or, for that matter, non-believers)respond? I can’t speak for you, George, but for me the proper answer is that we should respond with humility and a commitment to integrity in the scientific enterprise, irrespective of how things seem to play out for the traditions that we cherish. ‘The great and amazing master truth’ of religion that you allude to, if it exists, must be consonant with, if not identical to some formulation that includes natural causes.
I don’t necessarily find that convenient, especially if I want to defend my beliefs. But I do find it essential to any belief system that puts a premium on the truth.
Sincerely….SH
Not the best guy to have protecting you from all these would-be terrorists, I wouldn’t have thought.
Oh, I think this creepy ignorant bastard is just perfect for sniffing my shoes and fondling my Preparation H. Better to have him wasting his time performing a truly menial and worthless task than have him handling my produce at the grocery store.
Re Pete, et al
There is a biologically feasible explanation for the concept of a virgin birth. If Mary was a hermophrodite, she would have had the sex organs of both sexes and an extra pair of chromosomes, an X and a Y. It would be possible (if rather improbable) for her to impregnate herself, in which case Joshua of Nazareth inherited his Y chromosome from his maternal grandfather. Since no sex act with a separate male is involved, this would qualify as a virgin birth.
All the flak scientology gets is deserved but if you think about it, its not more insane than a virgin birth or a man rising from the dead.
Which got me thinking… Did Jesus suffer from brain damage while dead? How much of his body was decomposed when he rose? Did he smell bad?
AndyS: “I thought ridicule was what you resorted to when you didn’t have a reasonable argument to make.”
It depends. If one ridicules by misrepresenting one’s opponents, then that is certainly true. That is certainly what the creationists do. That, though, doesn’t encompass all ridicule.
You do point out a good point, though. The danger of employing too much ridicule is that it can convey that one has nothing of substance to say–which backfires right back onto the ridiculer.
“You’ve been brainwashed by the scientific … [pauses, trying to come up with the right word] … heirarchy … into thinking that”.
You should have shot back, “Oh yeah? Well if you don’t believe in evolution how do you think your TV manages to work?”
——————–
The virgin birth is necessary because in humans original sin is passed on through the male line. Like the opposite of mitochondria.
AndyS: “I thought ridicule was what you resorted to when you didn’t have a reasonable argument to make.”
It’s what you use when reasonable argument fails (or when reasonable argument is inapropriate), as well. Some things are just so ridiculous of themselves that one can completely skip the reasonable argument phase and jump straight to pointing and laughing. Von Daniken, Velikovsky, Bill Dembski …..
I note that “jump the couch” is replacing “jump the shark” in the popular lexicon. The sharks thank you.
Scott aid: “Look, I have no desire to mock anyone’s sincerely-held beliefs as such. I’m perfectly content to ignore Sandra…”
I’m not. Sandra annoys the hell out of me. She believes prayer cures cancer. She declares her belief on a public forum (“This I Believe”) for the entire world to see. She’s spreading the virus of religion. People will read her heartfelt confession and say: isn’t faith wonderful. I will pray more, too. She’s a menace!
Adding to George’s comment:
If Sandra believes prayer cures cancer, then what is one to think of those, who died of it, even with their relatives praying for them? It seems to imply that they didn’t pray hard enough, or God disfavored them…
..enough for a lifetime of guilt.
It also sets up cancer patients to wrongly believe in ‘miracle cures’ peddled by less scrupulous preachers.
I always feel offended when hearing that someone loudly thanks God for surviving [insert your choice of natural disaster here, e.g. last years tsunami, earthquake, civil war, assignment in Iraq…], pointing out that God heard their prayer; it seems to imply that God intentionally killed those less fortunate, a view which for some reason is not openly articulated.–
Regarding the original topic of this post: ridicule is indeed a winning tactic (against creationism, DI etc.), if most people can understand how ridiculous the positions of the ID crowd are. But that might require some elementary understanding of science, which the public at large does not have, unfortunately.
Kind of peripheral since I missed this post earlier in the day but I am a great admirer of Stetson Kennedy and posted on my visit with him earlier this year (many links to interviews and background on Stetson for those interested).
For bernarda, I stumbled into a chat with Billy Bragg about the song, the lyrics of which (handwritten by Woody Guthrie) are posted in the “Guthrie” entry room to Stetson’s place in Beluthahatchee/Fruit Cove, FL.
I wonder if I would’ve had Kennedy’s courage back in the 1940s.
With all due respect to Stetson Kennedy and Superman, it’s a bit hard to believe that four episodes of the radio version of Superman had a significant effect on Klan membership — thereby making the ridicule hypothesis less likely. Seems more reasonable that Kennedy’s and others writings, speeches, etc. exposing the Klan as an irrational hate-based organization rather than something akin to a Moose Lodge along with the integration of the Armed Services and a hundred other events caused the KKK to decline.
Hmmm. George, if you think Sandra is a ‘menace’ who annoys the hell out of you, maybe *you* should have a conversation with *her*.
It’s a marketplace of ideas, and since she doesn’t appear from this post to be attacking our civil liberties, the only way to respond is with ideas of your own. So, since she bothers *you*, why don’t *you* write her and explain why her views are obnoxious?
I look forward to your response…SH
Scott:
You are, by a widish margin, the most civil, reasonable, and thoughtful person who uses the label Christian I have ever met.
But considering the company you place yourself in when you adopt it…..why, exactly?
I think ridicule can work wonders. I heard of an example during the time when Greece was ruled by a military dictatorship that wanted to give the appearance of behaving in a legal manner. Helen Vlachou, the publisher and editor of Greece’s major newspaper, called the colonels ‘clowns’ and was promptly arrested and charged with defaming the government or some such charge. Then it occurred to someone that it might not look too good to argue the point in court and she was quietly released.
The trick is to ridicule without seeming small-minded, vindictive or ignorant yourself. Dembski’s forays into this area have failed miserably in this regard.
Azkyroth: You are too kind. There are many Christians of similar temperament and much greater learning than myself, though perhaps not that many in the upper echelon of science. I believe Ken Miller, who gets his share of flack here, to be such a person and (believe it or not) I know he spends time here now and again.
I regret that you haven’t met other believers like me. You are right, it is a bit of strain knowing that many other self-described ‘Christians’ are wasting whatever gifts they possess in the pursuit of power. They disgust me, and it bothers me that many of my fellow believers seem oblivious to the way their faith is routinely manipulated by such people.
So why use the label Christian? I’m going to sidestep that question just a little, because I don’t want anyone to think that I’m using this forum to push my personal religious views on anyone. Anyone who wants to correspond privately with me is welcome to do so:
[email protected]
But I would prefer not to have any sort of detailed discussion on this blog. I don’t think that’s appropriate, and it’s not why I come here in the first place. I deeply value the perspectives I get at places like Pharyngula, and I don’t want to mess up a good thing.
Also, I don’t pretend to speak with authority or to have some final ultimate truth to share. I’m a Christian not because of the public associations (some unfortunate) that label might evoke; I’m a Christian because of private experience and associations which are deeply meaningful to me. Sincerely…SH
Azkyroth – what you said.
I suspect that Scott would be genuinely nice and unflappable no matter what his religion or lack thereof. In fact, he is so nice that one just wants to poke him (in a sort of English comedy way) to see where the boundary is :-)
I think that even PZ (bless his non-existant soul) secretly likes having him around.
Cheers
anyone fact-check that? I don’t recall any US Presidents being members of the KKK – anyone know which one it is, or is supposed to be?
Fact-check? We’re talking about Sam Harris here — you know, the guy who says that reincarnation may really occur.
With all due respect to Stetson Kennedy and Superman, it’s a bit hard to believe that four episodes of the radio version of Superman had a significant effect on Klan membership — thereby making the ridicule hypothesis less likely.
To quote wikipedia, “The January 8, 2006 New York Times Magazine carried an expose of Stetson Kennedy, showing that he had systematically exaggerated and misrepresented his work for over 50 years, calling to question the veracity of many of his sources.”
It’s a marketplace of ideas, and since she doesn’t appear from this post to be attacking our civil liberties, the only way to respond is with ideas of your own.
He did respond, here, since here is where her ideas where mentioned.
So, since she bothers *you*, why don’t *you* write her and explain why her views are obnoxious?
Odd that some find this sort of attack to be “civil” and “reasonable”.
I thought ridicule was what you resorted to when you didn’t have a reasonable argument to make.
As is so often the case, you thought wrong.
It’s a marketplace of ideas, and since she doesn’t appear from this post to be attacking our civil liberties, the only way to respond is with ideas of your own. So, since she bothers *you*, why don’t *you* write her and explain why her views are obnoxious?
If I won’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it? Is that the idea? I’m not sure how I feel about that. She would no doubt wonder why some kook is sending her email attacking her views on prayer. Since I don’t know her personally, I don’t feel I have a right to intrude on her privacy. But I do feel I have a right to respond on a public forum like this to what she posted on the Web for all to see.
If I were to to write Sandra, I would ask why God “saved” her sister but didn’t bother to “save” Sister Lauren Moss. I would ask why Sandra put so much faith in Sister Lauren, who (I believe) willfully deceived a child with a story about the ability of prayer to heal people at a distance. I would recommend she stop getting her ideas about how the body heals from a bunch of Catholics in positions of authority who have a vested interest in propagandizing for their God. I would ask why people die in spite of all the prayers people send. I would give her the recent study on the effects of prayer on the sick. I would point her to some of the excellent analysis available on this blog. Anything to jolt her out of her dogmatic, unthinking conclusions about the power of prayer!
There is a biologically feasible explanation for the concept of a virgin birth.
So what? The a scientist should ask is not whether some mechanism for some alleged event can be conceived of, but whether there’s any evidence that the event occurred.
If Mary was a hermophrodite, she would have had the sex organs of both sexes and an extra pair of chromosomes, an X and a Y.
Human hermaphrodites don’t have two functional sets of gonads, nor do they generally have “an extra pair of chromosomes”.
If I won’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it? Is that the idea?
Hatfield seems to have some sort of private bartering system in mind, rather than a marketplace. But really, I think he’s just talking through his intellectually dishonest hat.
Not the best guy to have protecting you from all these would-be terrorists, I wouldn’t have thought.
Our national security is now faith-based.
Look, I have no desire to mock anyone’s sincerely-held beliefs as such.
If you have no desire to mock Sandra’s beliefs (or her quoted justification of them), then there is something seriously wrong with you.
SH,
I think your a good guy but I am curious as to what ‘private experiences’ you are speaking about. Care to elaborate?
Working directly in the implementation of G.W. Bush’s is not for the weak, or the novitiate. It requires a rigorous training of the brain’s delusional abilities. Working US airport security has much in common with working at ‘Dr.’ Kent Hovind’s ‘Dinosaur Adventure Land’.
This…
…is, I assume, intended to overload any extra tough irony meters you were illegally importing from the UK.
All this discussion about the immaculate conception and the virgin birth reminds me of a scene in Lautreamont’s abysmal work ‘Les Chants de Maldoror’.
It’s been many years since I read the work, but as I recall, there is an interview with one of god’s pubic hairs which fell off when god impregnated Mary. It’s six feet long, and fairly intelligent. It’s unhappy that it fell off and has been left on earth.
Not that I recommend reading the book. It may have been an influence for the surrealists, but to me it reads like an attempt to re-write ‘Melmoth the Wanderer’ in as twisted a fashion as possible.
For older novels of the faustian type (i.e. men rejecting god), I would recommend the originals, Marlowe and Goethe. I also did enjoy ‘Melmoth the Wanderer’ by Charles Maturin. There have been numerous more recent novels in the faustian vein.
I read too much.
Like the Y chromosome.
Like the Y chromosome.
Azkyroth, KiwiInOz: Again,thanks for the kind words.
You know, in sports you learn the lesson that you’re never as good as you look when things are going your way and you’re never as bad as you look when you’re struggling. I’m no saint. I get angry and frustrated at times just like everyone else.
I just try not to let it affect any public responses here. I think of myself as a guest at Pharyngula and I think as a guest I should have manners. Ironically, this seems to cause some folk here to dislike me even more! You can’t please everyone! ;)…SH
Uber: Again, I don’t want to be perceived as proselytizing. Since you asked, though, John Wesley famously spoke of a ‘warming of the heart’ and a deep conviction that there is a God, and that God loved him.
I’ve had similar experiences. They’re deeply personal, non-verbal and difficult to talk about in any meaningful way with others.
Another way to say that is that they are subjective and anecdotal and (of course) have no standing in science; I wouldn’t claim that my experience is ‘evidence’ of use to others. For all I know, it was some poorly-understood brain function acting up and any sense of communion with the divine is based upon my inability to recognize what’s really happening at that moment.
But maybe not. And, ignoring the ultimate nature of what this feeling is, it *seems* very real to me, especially as emerges from the cultural context of being raised a Christian, with all of its symbols and rituals. For another human being, in another context, they might experience it differently. But I’m not that human being and so, for me, the experience of being a Christian is part of my identity.
That doesn’t mean, however, that I feel any desire to compel others to share either my identity or my experience, though, so I must respectfully request that any further correspondence on this topic be sent to my personal email (given earlier in this thread). I’m a guest here, and want to remain a guest in good graces.
Sincerely….SH
George wrote: “If I won’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it? Is that the idea?”
No, George. I’m just not interested in debating these people’s faith-based views here. I don’t feel obligated to defend either of the examples you cited on this thread, since I don’t share their views (particularly the first, with its weird ‘sciency’ pantheism).
George wrote: “I’m not sure how I feel about that. She would no doubt wonder why some kook is sending her email attacking her views on prayer. Since I don’t know her personally, I don’t feel I have a right to intrude on her privacy.”
Well, I thought she was a menace. How menacing would she have to be until you felt the greater good would be served by confronting her? I previously suggested that I would join you in opposing this woman if she crossed certain thresholds involving the curtailment of our civil liberties. Do we agree here?
George wrote: “But I do feel I have a right to respond on a public forum like this to what she posted on the Web for all to see.”
Sure you do, but you did so in the context of inviting me (challenging, really) to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and criticize the woman’s views. Again, I don’t see why I’m obligated to do that if she doesn’t cross the line I’ve alluded to. We all have to pick our battles, right? If I concede that you are not obligated to personally engage the woman on the basis of her published views, perhaps you concede that I’m within my rights not to bother either attacking or defending same.
Now if this was the likes of Rick Santorum, Bill Dembski, Ken Ham etc. that would be a different matter, because thy do cross that line. But anonymous, uncritical, child-like Sandra? I just don’t feel menaced, sorry…..SH
truth machine: if you will check another thread, you will observe that I am a cheerleader for the public mockery of Bill Dembski.
That’s because, in my judgement, Dembski is a menace to science and our civil liberties. These others? Not so much, I think. I don’t think making that distinction makes me ‘intellectually dishonest’.
Speaking of cheerleading, when you get done venting your spleen here why not take a moment (if you have not already done so) to publicly support Matt LaClair on the Kearny public forum, as PZ suggests? That would be a far more proactive way of defending your liberty of conscience than railing against me, I would think. Assertively…SH
Scott, I originally took exception to this statement:
In other words, let’s try making arguments against what Christians actually believe rather than some cartoon version of their faith. After all, that would make us no different from creationists who argue against their own misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, right?
I thought you would be willing to argue against some of the nutty things Christians “actually believe,” so I went and grabbed a couple of sincere, uncartoonish statements of belief from the “This I Believe” site.
If you are not willing to do that, fine.
And you are right, Dembski is the true menace. Sandra is only a potential menace.
George: Your reply is far more gracious than my prior post. I regret if I misread you. Perhaps being the rare theist here makes me a little touchy. Sorry!
I also wonder: aren’t most of us ‘potential menaces’, in that our personal views once aired can be ammunition for those who want to undermine science education, religious liberty, etc…? Consider the way some of the ideas of S.J. Gould have been distorted and repackaged to serve the ends of creationists, for example.
Actually, some bloggers have checked the 90 % claim, and it turns out to that 90 % of “virtually verbatim” is 70 % in a liberal analysis of similarity. (Conservative such analysis was used and accepted in the Kitzmiller decision regarding the occurence of creationism in “Of Pandas and People”.) Which means that only 8 % of the decision is accepted proposed facts from the plaintiffs. (See for example http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/luskin_keeps_lying.php )
This was OTOH wrong. It turns out to be a misunderstanding between the paper, the reviewer and the authors. ( http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/mlr_editor_responds.php )
Actually, some bloggers have checked the 90 % claim, and it turns out to that 90 % of “virtually verbatim” is 70 % in a liberal analysis of similarity. (Conservative such analysis was used and accepted in the Kitzmiller decision regarding the occurence of creationism in “Of Pandas and People”.) Which means that only 8 % of the decision is accepted proposed facts from the plaintiffs. (See for example http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/luskin_keeps_lying.php )
This was OTOH wrong. It turns out to be a misunderstanding between the paper, the reviewer and the authors. ( http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/mlr_editor_responds.php )