You know, I once pondered what makes street preachers tick, but I came to the conclusion that no matter what, they will never be convinced that street preaching is (a) Annoying to most people, (b) ineffective as a form of converting people, and (c) just makes the preachers look like idiots, most of the time.
For about 10 years, every saturday night, in Harvard Square, cambridge, a local group of evangelicals decided to preach in what they considered the den if iniquity. Harvard Square, in Cambridge, MA, is the center of Harvard University, and is a thriving shop and restaurant district. At night, street performers of all types show up. When the preachers showed up, and started screaming at everyone, most people considered them an annoyance. At first, they were ignored.
Then they began to use personal tactics -- singling out people from passersby, and yelling rude things at them -- suggesting one woman was a whore, or that a boy in a leather jacket was a satanist. This would start shouting matches, and occaisionally caused people to walk over and sock them in the face. One young man, after hearing his girlfriend referred to as a whore (because she was apparently dressed like one), walked up to the preacher, and asked "Did you just call my girlfriend a whore?" The preacher started to explain that "if she dresses like a whore, then the Bible says..." but was interrupted when the young man pushed him and cussed him out.
Then the preachers decided to start using a bullhorn because apparently, screaming volume wasn't loud enough -- they wanted people a block away to hear them. They didn't just use the bullhorn to save their throats from going hoarse from yelling; they actually yelled into the microphone at the same volume, which made their voices irritatingly piercing, and difficult to understand. It was at this time that many of the local people had enough of them. Shop-owners and restaurant owners complained that people in their establishments complained about the noise, and asked them to please stop. The response from the preachers was to whine about having a right to be there and that they were warning everyone about Hell, which was far more important than listening to music and making money.
This is how I see street preachers. They are attention-seekers. They want people to notice them, and they get off on being the center of attention. When a street preacher perceives that he's not attracting the attention he seeks, he gets louder and more obnoxious until people simply cannot politely ignore him. They become disruptive because they need attention, and normal everyday people do not want to give them attention. They believe that their message is so important that no amount of reality checking will make them stop. If ignored, they will just say that the Bible says that people won't listen because they don't want to hear the truth. If heckled, they will say that the Bible predicts that people will heckle you. If shoved, spat on, struck, or otherwise assaulted, the bible tells them that that will happen to -- obviously whoever wrote those parts of the Bible had those types of experiences!
Every negative aspect of their preaching will just be spun into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they will just say "I guess we're doing the right thing!" Sometimes they even count assaults like merit badges, and even point out bruises and scars received while annoying people, the way old soldiers display their battle scars to young people. They are proud of being a public nuisance. The more public disruption they cause, the more their own beliefs are justified.
None of them ever considers that being a public nuisance is a negative thing. None of them ever consider that constantly hearing loud, angry, screaming voices amplified, for long periods of time can actually have a negative effect on people. None of them ever consider that perhaps it's a better idea to avoid violent confrontations, and avoid getting personal and making people angry. None of them ever consider that young kids seeing this awful display of anger and verbal abuse might be negatively affected.
The bottom line is that these types of street preachers are lousy neighbors, plain and simple. Nobody minds their message, in fact, many people are probably of the same faith. If your neighbor and his family stood on their porch every day, and screamed at everyone that walked by, and generally was loud and disruptive all the time, even when people were trying to sleep, neighbors would not like it, and if calling the cops didn't work, people would move away.
An interesting side not to this is that I am a street musician myself on occaision. I play a loud instrument -- bagpipes. Bagpipes are very loud, and they can be heard from several blocks away sometimes. When I perform, I try to pick an area that is in the middle of a public park, far enough away from shops, homes, and places where people have to be for long periods of time. I do this out of consideration for others. If there are other performers nearby, like guitarists or people playing soft instruments, I usually warn them, play a few toots from my spot, and then go over and ask them if I was far enough away to not interrupt their performance.
I've never seen street preachers show even that much courtesy towards others. Do they think that anyone who is not with them is just another hell-bound person who doesnt' deserve common courtesy? I don't know. All I know is what happened one day when I was playing. The city has a first-come, first served rule for performers. This means that if you arrive and start playing, other people who want your spot have to move, or wait for you to leave. The street preachers know this, because they have to apply for permits just like musicians. So I was playing my pipes, and a small number of street preachers started gathering nearby. When all were present, they started their preaching. I couldn't really hear them, since my pipes were loud enough to cover their screaming.
Then one of them walked over to me and asked me to talk. He asked if I'd stop playing my pipes, because they couldn't be heard with their bullhorn. I asked him if he knew what the city's policy was on street performances. He said no. I asked him if he had a performance permit, and he said yes. I asked him if he recalls the first-com-first-served clause from the rules. He tried to say that they were different from street performers, and that theirs was a special case. I asked him what was wrong with moving further away, after all, I moved to the spot that I was in so that I wouldn't disrupt a juggler a hundred yards away. He then said that the spot they chose was chosen because they wanted the best traffic. I told him that I'd like to get a lot of traffic by me, too, but I had to walk a quarter-mile away from the spot I wanted, because I didn't want to interrupt the juggler, or the guitar players. I attempted to compromise, by suggesting that they simply wait for my act to end in helf-an-hour, since I can only play for about an hour before I get tired, and my instrument gets too damp to work. He refused, and I said I'm sorry. So he walked away, and they continued their show. While I was packing up to go, the preacher who was speaking at the time noticed me, and commented over his bull horn "It's about time you stopped! Ladies and gentlemen, some people think they can drown the word of the Lord from being heard!" I even heard someone call me a tool of Satan. Interestingly, most of the music I play is actually religious music from the middle ages and the renaissance era!
Oh, the irony. but man, what a bunch of priggish jerks street preachers can be.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Persecution of Creationists
Is Intelligent Design getting persecuted by mainstream science?
IN short, no.
What is happening, though, is that creationists, and their intelligent design hypothesis, are not conducting actual science. If they were out there conducting actual scientific experiments, doing surveys, studying the data collected from their experiments, and having it peer-reviewed, they would be conducting science properly, and would not have to feel left out.
Unfortunately, they simply are not doing anything that resembles science. They are merely squawking and writing books that promote their opinions about evolution.
If we were talking about math, and there was a group of people crusading against algebra, or saying that calculus is a faulty field, and that their new math should be included in public school, math professors, worldwide, would treat them the same way that scientists treat creationists.
What creationists are mad about is not discrimination. They are mad that nobody is taking them seriously, but they don't want to participate in science, which is how you get inclusion in the first place.
Suppose a person walked into a police station, and said "Okay, give me a badge and a gun, I'm going to be a cop!" The police officer at the desk would most likely say "Sir, you'll first have to pass a civil service test, and then for better results, you may want to take some courses in law enforcement from a reputable institution." Creationists are the same way. They want their voices heard in science classrooms, but most of them don't even want to bother with getting a science diploma (some have, but most creationist authors don't, or have resorted to diploma mills), a job as a researcher, or even submit a paper for peer review.
So here's a hint: If you want to have your "theory" taught in public school classrooms, you should first properly formulate your hypothesis, research the facts, perform tests, then build your theory THE LEGITIMATE WAY, like any other scientist has to do for their theories. You don't just start griping and demanding inclusion. That is not how science is properly done.
We then come to the phenomenon of the creationists who feel that science is too flawed -- that because it doesnt' consider subjective or supernatural claims, that it's lacking in it's ability to trully see the whole picture. These creationists are working on trying to re-write science altogether. Peer reviews -- Poppycock! They have the Bible! Experiments? Pshaw! We have divine revelations from spiritually adept people! Empirical evidence? Nonsense! we have direct communication from God, and that should be good enough to settle any issue!
All in all, there is no persecution of creationists going on. There is legitimate science, and legitimate avenues to go from a hypothesis like Intelligent Design to theory, to peer review, to inclusion. Creationists are simply not participating in the scientific community, and deliberately making up excuses for it, rather than just going ahead and doing it. Just as you have to pass certain tests to get your driver's license, a theory in science needs to pass certain tests to be considered legitimate. If you do not pass your driving test, you do not get a driver's license, and you cannot drive a car, or get a job driving a car.
If you do not submit hypothesis and theories for peer review, your theories do not get the proper scientific backing from other scientists, and you don't get consulted by textbook writers.
All creationists need to do is conduct science properly. They have had almost 100 years to do it, and have not done so yet. Instead, they whine and gripe about persecution. They get what they deserve; they persecute themselves.
IN short, no.
What is happening, though, is that creationists, and their intelligent design hypothesis, are not conducting actual science. If they were out there conducting actual scientific experiments, doing surveys, studying the data collected from their experiments, and having it peer-reviewed, they would be conducting science properly, and would not have to feel left out.
Unfortunately, they simply are not doing anything that resembles science. They are merely squawking and writing books that promote their opinions about evolution.
If we were talking about math, and there was a group of people crusading against algebra, or saying that calculus is a faulty field, and that their new math should be included in public school, math professors, worldwide, would treat them the same way that scientists treat creationists.
What creationists are mad about is not discrimination. They are mad that nobody is taking them seriously, but they don't want to participate in science, which is how you get inclusion in the first place.
Suppose a person walked into a police station, and said "Okay, give me a badge and a gun, I'm going to be a cop!" The police officer at the desk would most likely say "Sir, you'll first have to pass a civil service test, and then for better results, you may want to take some courses in law enforcement from a reputable institution." Creationists are the same way. They want their voices heard in science classrooms, but most of them don't even want to bother with getting a science diploma (some have, but most creationist authors don't, or have resorted to diploma mills), a job as a researcher, or even submit a paper for peer review.
So here's a hint: If you want to have your "theory" taught in public school classrooms, you should first properly formulate your hypothesis, research the facts, perform tests, then build your theory THE LEGITIMATE WAY, like any other scientist has to do for their theories. You don't just start griping and demanding inclusion. That is not how science is properly done.
We then come to the phenomenon of the creationists who feel that science is too flawed -- that because it doesnt' consider subjective or supernatural claims, that it's lacking in it's ability to trully see the whole picture. These creationists are working on trying to re-write science altogether. Peer reviews -- Poppycock! They have the Bible! Experiments? Pshaw! We have divine revelations from spiritually adept people! Empirical evidence? Nonsense! we have direct communication from God, and that should be good enough to settle any issue!
All in all, there is no persecution of creationists going on. There is legitimate science, and legitimate avenues to go from a hypothesis like Intelligent Design to theory, to peer review, to inclusion. Creationists are simply not participating in the scientific community, and deliberately making up excuses for it, rather than just going ahead and doing it. Just as you have to pass certain tests to get your driver's license, a theory in science needs to pass certain tests to be considered legitimate. If you do not pass your driving test, you do not get a driver's license, and you cannot drive a car, or get a job driving a car.
If you do not submit hypothesis and theories for peer review, your theories do not get the proper scientific backing from other scientists, and you don't get consulted by textbook writers.
All creationists need to do is conduct science properly. They have had almost 100 years to do it, and have not done so yet. Instead, they whine and gripe about persecution. They get what they deserve; they persecute themselves.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Answers to my Quiz
Okay, I just read Ray Comfort's review of "Expelled", and apparently, he believes that this celluloid travesty was moving. Well, what do you want -- half the people who are "moved" by such films are equally likely to be "moved" by Tim Lahaye's "Left Behind" films, which are pathetic excuses for films, much less pathetic excuses for drama or science fiction.
People who are moved by "Expelled", and who do not think it's propaganda, are just dumb, Period. I mean that with all sincerity. If you saw Expelled, and you thought that it made a "powerful" case for Intelligent Design, or that it revealed any kind secret conspiracy against poor, persecuted minority groups, then you have to either be incredibly stupid, or your standards of proof are so weak that you probably believe that Pro Wrestling on TV is real, too. I'm not going to be goaded into guilt from people who complain that I'm being impolite or rude. I'm stating a fact that I can prove with objectivity. Quite simply, the film is terrible -- badly made, obviously contrived in places, and just goes way too far with it's Nazi analogies.
So I put the following quiz on Ray Comfort's blog, to see if people would bite. The answers to the questions follow the quiz.
I have a quiz to emphasize just how little actual fact is in the film. If you saw the film, and actually have graduated High school, you should be able to easily answer (or google) the answers to these questions.
(1) How many times did Hitler (or Nazis in general) speak or write favorably of Darwin? Never, or frequently? If you say anything other than never, please provide at leastone quote from WW2 era Nazis to back up your answer.
(2) What did Hitler and the Nazis do with Darwin's book, "On the Origin Of Species"?
(a) BURN IT
(b) Make every school child memorize it
(c) Re-printed it and distributed it in churches.
(d) make sure it was included with every Bible
(3) Hitler's speeches made frequent use of Christ, God, and Christianity, such as stating that it was every German's duty to Christ and God to rid the nation of Jewish Influences, or that Jews were enemies of Christ, because they crucified him. (TRUE or FALSE)
(4) How many specific facts were presented in the movie "Expelled", which were specific proofs of intelligent design? If your answer is "at least one fact", please summarize the "fact".
(5) Hitler and the Nazis did what with martin Luther's book, "On the Jews and their Lies"?
(a) BURNED IT
(b) Made every school child memorize it.
(c) Re-printed it and distributed it in churches.
(d) make sure it was included with every Bible
Now I think you all know what the answers are. If anyone has any doubts, or suspects that I have no proof, I'll gladly provide it to those who ask. It is made up of links, but I'll post the answers, complete with copious links, on my own Blog.
And now... THE ANSWERS with documentation.
(1) Hitler and the Nazis never invoked the name of Darwin or spoke favorably of the theory of evolution in any of their public speeches or writings. In fact, the only connection between Darwin and the Nazis is the Eugenics link -- but Darwin never wrote about EUgenics. Eugenics came following the realization that traits are inherited, as well as genetic disorders. Humanity was well aware that traits were inherited, and that genetic disorders were, long before Darwin wrote about it. In fact, it was the work of Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Priest and botanist, who gave us the ground work for genetics. People have been cross-breeding animals to get specific traits for centuries. We certainly didn't need Darwin to give us the notion that maybe we could do that with people, too.
Hitler and Darwin
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
Mendel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel
(2) The Nazis BURNED Darwin's book, or course, and an exhibit of banned books at the University of Arizona has a section dedicated to the official campaign of Nazi Book burning and banning. Here si a link which lists all the banned books of Nazi Germany, and which has the complete text of the official library instructions on which books to burn.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
In particular, you will note that among the rules, it specifically says "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."
If Hitler and Nazism was based in any part on Darwin's books, then burning and banning Darwin's books was a counter-intuitive way of demonstrating it.
(3) It is very true that Hitler and the Nazis frequently framed their beliefs as Christian. Here are some quotes:
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." (Mein Kampf)
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf)
"“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people." (From a 1922 speech in Munich)
Now the links:
The religious Views of Adolph Hitler
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
Wiki Quotes
http://equotes.wetpaint.com/page/Adolf+Hitler+Quotes?t=anon
(4) ZERO. Not a single fact to back up the claims of ID was presented. If they just had one scientific fact, and explained it a little, it would have at been something.
(5) Hitler had "On the Jews and their Lies" reprinted and redistributed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_jews_and_their_lies
"Four hundred years after it was written, the National Socialists displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[9] Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries.[10] Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history."[Hillerbrand, Hans J. "Martin Luther," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007]
People who are moved by "Expelled", and who do not think it's propaganda, are just dumb, Period. I mean that with all sincerity. If you saw Expelled, and you thought that it made a "powerful" case for Intelligent Design, or that it revealed any kind secret conspiracy against poor, persecuted minority groups, then you have to either be incredibly stupid, or your standards of proof are so weak that you probably believe that Pro Wrestling on TV is real, too. I'm not going to be goaded into guilt from people who complain that I'm being impolite or rude. I'm stating a fact that I can prove with objectivity. Quite simply, the film is terrible -- badly made, obviously contrived in places, and just goes way too far with it's Nazi analogies.
So I put the following quiz on Ray Comfort's blog, to see if people would bite. The answers to the questions follow the quiz.
I have a quiz to emphasize just how little actual fact is in the film. If you saw the film, and actually have graduated High school, you should be able to easily answer (or google) the answers to these questions.
(1) How many times did Hitler (or Nazis in general) speak or write favorably of Darwin? Never, or frequently? If you say anything other than never, please provide at leastone quote from WW2 era Nazis to back up your answer.
(2) What did Hitler and the Nazis do with Darwin's book, "On the Origin Of Species"?
(a) BURN IT
(b) Make every school child memorize it
(c) Re-printed it and distributed it in churches.
(d) make sure it was included with every Bible
(3) Hitler's speeches made frequent use of Christ, God, and Christianity, such as stating that it was every German's duty to Christ and God to rid the nation of Jewish Influences, or that Jews were enemies of Christ, because they crucified him. (TRUE or FALSE)
(4) How many specific facts were presented in the movie "Expelled", which were specific proofs of intelligent design? If your answer is "at least one fact", please summarize the "fact".
(5) Hitler and the Nazis did what with martin Luther's book, "On the Jews and their Lies"?
(a) BURNED IT
(b) Made every school child memorize it.
(c) Re-printed it and distributed it in churches.
(d) make sure it was included with every Bible
Now I think you all know what the answers are. If anyone has any doubts, or suspects that I have no proof, I'll gladly provide it to those who ask. It is made up of links, but I'll post the answers, complete with copious links, on my own Blog.
And now... THE ANSWERS with documentation.
(1) Hitler and the Nazis never invoked the name of Darwin or spoke favorably of the theory of evolution in any of their public speeches or writings. In fact, the only connection between Darwin and the Nazis is the Eugenics link -- but Darwin never wrote about EUgenics. Eugenics came following the realization that traits are inherited, as well as genetic disorders. Humanity was well aware that traits were inherited, and that genetic disorders were, long before Darwin wrote about it. In fact, it was the work of Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Priest and botanist, who gave us the ground work for genetics. People have been cross-breeding animals to get specific traits for centuries. We certainly didn't need Darwin to give us the notion that maybe we could do that with people, too.
Hitler and Darwin
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
Mendel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel
(2) The Nazis BURNED Darwin's book, or course, and an exhibit of banned books at the University of Arizona has a section dedicated to the official campaign of Nazi Book burning and banning. Here si a link which lists all the banned books of Nazi Germany, and which has the complete text of the official library instructions on which books to burn.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
In particular, you will note that among the rules, it specifically says "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."
If Hitler and Nazism was based in any part on Darwin's books, then burning and banning Darwin's books was a counter-intuitive way of demonstrating it.
(3) It is very true that Hitler and the Nazis frequently framed their beliefs as Christian. Here are some quotes:
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." (Mein Kampf)
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf)
"“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people." (From a 1922 speech in Munich)
Now the links:
The religious Views of Adolph Hitler
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
Wiki Quotes
http://equotes.wetpaint.com/page/Adolf+Hitler+Quotes?t=anon
(4) ZERO. Not a single fact to back up the claims of ID was presented. If they just had one scientific fact, and explained it a little, it would have at been something.
(5) Hitler had "On the Jews and their Lies" reprinted and redistributed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_jews_and_their_lies
"Four hundred years after it was written, the National Socialists displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[9] Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries.[10] Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history."[Hillerbrand, Hans J. "Martin Luther," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007]
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Ray Comfort admits too much!
Ray Comfort wrote (in his Blog):
I must emphatically say that is most certainly not what we believe. One of the problems I have with evangelicals is their insistance that they know what we unbelievers believe, and their inability to represent what we believe accurately. More often they don't just the bullseye of the target, they miss the target completely.
Let me correct Ray by telling what I belive. It's good to cut down trees. See how wrong he is, already? Trees are excellent resources. The problem is that too often, trees are cut down without being replaced, and this makes wood more scarce, and thus, more expensive. The other problem is when tree-cutting is mismanaged, and we end up with not enough trees to help clean the air. You need forests and green parks near cities to counter the air pollution caused by all the cars and industry. Also, help beautify our living areas. You wouldn't want to live in a wasteland of concrete and steel, with no plants or animals anywhere nearby, would you?
Ray goes on to get everything wrong by stating:
This part of Ray's paragraph borders on incoherent. Not only did he fail to represent what atheists beleive, he completely misrepresented several science topics, and though he tried to make a joke, I'm afraid that the only thing funny is the irony that we atheists find in just inanely he wrote it.
The Ray goes on to blunder:
That is really quite an unflattering thing for Ray to admit. He apparently doesn't realize how disrespectful he is to his god, whom he allegedly worships and trusts? He is literally saying that it's perfectly okay to trash his God's creation, and just be disrespectful towards it, because God can just fix it with his omnipotent powers if we screw it up too much.
Suppose instead of God, we were talking about your neighbor. Suppose your neighbor asked you to house-sit for him while he was away. During your stay, you wreck his house, and break a bunch of his belongings. When he gets back, you just flippantly say "sorry bout' the mess, mate, but you can just get some new stuff to replace the lot that I broke..."
I am totally amazed at what a childish, almost selfish attitude Ray just admitted to having. It doesn't speak well for him or the people who will defend it. In fact, it's downright thoughtless.
"The reason atheists and skeptics get so upset when I say it’s good to cut down trees is that this world is all they have. If it gets completely wrecked, it’s all over for them. That’s what they believe"
I must emphatically say that is most certainly not what we believe. One of the problems I have with evangelicals is their insistance that they know what we unbelievers believe, and their inability to represent what we believe accurately. More often they don't just the bullseye of the target, they miss the target completely.
Let me correct Ray by telling what I belive. It's good to cut down trees. See how wrong he is, already? Trees are excellent resources. The problem is that too often, trees are cut down without being replaced, and this makes wood more scarce, and thus, more expensive. The other problem is when tree-cutting is mismanaged, and we end up with not enough trees to help clean the air. You need forests and green parks near cities to counter the air pollution caused by all the cars and industry. Also, help beautify our living areas. You wouldn't want to live in a wasteland of concrete and steel, with no plants or animals anywhere nearby, would you?
Ray goes on to get everything wrong by stating:
"... that life then ends. That’s unless Mother Nature or Father Evolution (whoever they believe made everything) makes some more trees, etc. Of course if it has to start all over again, they have to wait for around 4.5 billion years. That’s what they believe, and I guess that’s a little too long for them to wait."
This part of Ray's paragraph borders on incoherent. Not only did he fail to represent what atheists beleive, he completely misrepresented several science topics, and though he tried to make a joke, I'm afraid that the only thing funny is the irony that we atheists find in just inanely he wrote it.
The Ray goes on to blunder:
"So they get antsy when Christians are a little flippant about creation. But we can’t help it. We don’t value creation as though our life depends on it. That’s because we know and trust Him who made all things, and if humanity wrecks this earth, we have His immutable promise that He is going to make all things new."
That is really quite an unflattering thing for Ray to admit. He apparently doesn't realize how disrespectful he is to his god, whom he allegedly worships and trusts? He is literally saying that it's perfectly okay to trash his God's creation, and just be disrespectful towards it, because God can just fix it with his omnipotent powers if we screw it up too much.
Suppose instead of God, we were talking about your neighbor. Suppose your neighbor asked you to house-sit for him while he was away. During your stay, you wreck his house, and break a bunch of his belongings. When he gets back, you just flippantly say "sorry bout' the mess, mate, but you can just get some new stuff to replace the lot that I broke..."
I am totally amazed at what a childish, almost selfish attitude Ray just admitted to having. It doesn't speak well for him or the people who will defend it. In fact, it's downright thoughtless.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Arrogance and the psychology of Evangelicals
Many people, after encountering Evangelicals, consider them to be a bit arrogant, and perhaps a little bit obsessive. The Evangelicals, if accused of being arrogant, usually try to explain that they had a life-transforming experience, and that God talked to them, and they cannot forget it. It is difficult to argue against the idea that the transformed evangelical actually communicated with God. After all, you cannot peer into their heads and read their minds and verify if they actually experienced what they claim. Unfortunately, with subjective experiences such as spiritual epiphanies, there is no way to confirm or verify that they are genuine. We, as the outsiders, have to step aside and argue around the topic.
Consider this possible explanation for the perceived arrogance of Evangelicals (and indeed any religious people who try to sell their religion to you).
At the time of their epiphany, the Evangleical feels that they are finally right about something. All of their lives, they "sinned" and behaved wrongly, but now, after their spiritual enlightenment, they are finally on the right track, and living their life correctly. God, and the Bible, is their guidebook to everything that is right and good, and they feel that as long as they have faith, trust God, and read the Bible, they will always be right. Many of them even say things like "I answer to nobody but God."
Imagine if a person had a direct link from their brain to a supercomputer full of information. They could call up facts on the fly, and always have the correct answers. This is how many of the evangelicals feel about their new way of life. They feel that they are right about everything, and that if they have questions, faith and reading the Bible is the way to find the answers. They've found God, and they're now right. What they think in their heads is now guided by God, and many Evangelicals claim to talk directly to God, and so they just know that they're right now.
From the point of view of an unbeliever, it seems that many true believers don't distinguish between what they're thinking, and what God tells them when they talk to God. Perhaps after a while, the believers become so accustomed to the feeling of communication with God, and it becomes second nature to them that even they can't tell their own ideas from God's. UNfortunately, the unbeleivers cannot tell if the believers are delusional or genuinely receiving divine inspiration.
Whatever the case is, Evangelicals do tend to believe that they are always right, and it stems from the idea that God is telling them what's right. UNbelievers are often accused of being arrogant because we criticize believers, but as far as I'm concerned, objectivity always trumps subjectivity -- in other words, an objective fact, which is documented and can be demonstrated, always trumps what a person feels or believes in their heart that the facts are. When a person talks as though they are always right, and they try to throw the authority of their experience with God in your face, which you are not allowed to question, how is that NOT arrogant?
There is a difference between being right objectively, and simply proclaiming that you're right. Evangelicals need to learn a little objectivity if they don't want to look arrogant.
Consider this possible explanation for the perceived arrogance of Evangelicals (and indeed any religious people who try to sell their religion to you).
At the time of their epiphany, the Evangleical feels that they are finally right about something. All of their lives, they "sinned" and behaved wrongly, but now, after their spiritual enlightenment, they are finally on the right track, and living their life correctly. God, and the Bible, is their guidebook to everything that is right and good, and they feel that as long as they have faith, trust God, and read the Bible, they will always be right. Many of them even say things like "I answer to nobody but God."
Imagine if a person had a direct link from their brain to a supercomputer full of information. They could call up facts on the fly, and always have the correct answers. This is how many of the evangelicals feel about their new way of life. They feel that they are right about everything, and that if they have questions, faith and reading the Bible is the way to find the answers. They've found God, and they're now right. What they think in their heads is now guided by God, and many Evangelicals claim to talk directly to God, and so they just know that they're right now.
From the point of view of an unbeliever, it seems that many true believers don't distinguish between what they're thinking, and what God tells them when they talk to God. Perhaps after a while, the believers become so accustomed to the feeling of communication with God, and it becomes second nature to them that even they can't tell their own ideas from God's. UNfortunately, the unbeleivers cannot tell if the believers are delusional or genuinely receiving divine inspiration.
Whatever the case is, Evangelicals do tend to believe that they are always right, and it stems from the idea that God is telling them what's right. UNbelievers are often accused of being arrogant because we criticize believers, but as far as I'm concerned, objectivity always trumps subjectivity -- in other words, an objective fact, which is documented and can be demonstrated, always trumps what a person feels or believes in their heart that the facts are. When a person talks as though they are always right, and they try to throw the authority of their experience with God in your face, which you are not allowed to question, how is that NOT arrogant?
There is a difference between being right objectively, and simply proclaiming that you're right. Evangelicals need to learn a little objectivity if they don't want to look arrogant.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Same Old Questions...
There are certain issues that pop up over and over again, in the
philosophical battlefield between Christianity and atheism. This
article attempts to deal with these issues so that Christians will
better understand where we, as atheists, start from, and might
possibly prevent repetetive and oftentimes annoying re-debates.
(1) "Millions of people all over the world believe in God. Are you saying that they're all wrong."
Essentially, YES, but there is nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with preferring the color blue to the color red, or preferring vanilla to chocolate. Like any other descision in life, Belief in God has different opinions available. Some people prefer to believe in one, others don't. Atheists choose to not believe in God for many reasons, usually because they cannot find any proof that one exists. You cannot convince a person who prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream that chocolate is better or right, and vanilla wrong. The same is true in this case.
(2) "Where did the universe come from if there wasn't a God to create it?"
Christians assume that God created the universe. Atheists admit that no man knows what created the universe. In fact, there are many origin theories to choose from. One theory suggests that the universe simply always existed (much the same way Christians maintain that their God always existed and had no beginning nor end), while another suggests that the universe was created as the result of a process that we do not fully understand yet.
(3) "How can you be moral without belief in God?"
Are all Christians moral? Are any non-christians moral? Morality has absolutely nothing to do with belief in God. Morality is a way of conduct that is beneficial to society, or considerate to others. Manners, politeness, and ethics are all practiced by many non-christian cultures, as well as atheists. you do not have to be a believer in God to be moral -- you just have to be considerate of others.
(4) "What about your soul? Do you want to suffer for eternity?"
Most atheists do not believe that the soul exists. We maintain that personality, consciousness, intelligence, and talent are all contained in the organ known as the brain, and there is considerable scientific and medical research that proves this to be true. When confronted by the facts about the Brian-mind connection, many Christians opt to describe the soul as having nothing to do with intelligence, perception, or personality. If that is the case, then what does the soul do? what evidence is there that such a thing exists?
(5) "What happens to you when you die? I know I am going to heaven!"
Sadly, we atheists cannot offer any pleasant stories to comfort a person's fear of death. We do not believe in an afterlife. We believe that when you die, that is it. We believe that death is final, and that nobody has an afterlife. We discount all stories of "near death experiences" as fantasies that people under very traumatic
circumstances have, very similar to the hallucinations that child molestation victims create to blank out the memories of abuse. We simply accept that death is the end, and get on with our lives.
(6) "Why live, then? Why not just kill yourself?"
This follows from question #5. If we have no prospect of an afterlife, that doesn't make living any worse. Instead of striving for some imaginary goal that will only come after death, the accepting of death as our ultimate end gives us less time to worry about the afterlife, and lets us concentrate on enjoying this life -- the only
one we have. We are no more or less depressed about death than a christian would be. We simply accept it's finality, where the Christian has to cling to a myth about an afterlife.
(7) "Why be moral? If there is no ultimate justice for people who commit crimes, why not lead a life of crime?"
This also follows from question #5. Essentially, it is much more beneficial for survival to behave in a moral way, and avoid crime, because criminals tend to be hunted by their victims, and a life of crime is typically short and brutal. Few criminals have ever been able to live pleasant lives. They usually end up dead or in a prison cell somewhere. It is better to live in an ethical way, because people will be less likely to kill you if you are nice to them.
The very notion that "if there is no God, and there is no judgement, why not be as bad as you want?" speak a lot more about the Christian using this argument than it does about atheism. It speaks of a person who feels that if it were not for God and the Christian belief structure, they would just go hog-wild, kill, steal, and rape their way through life. If that is how these people trully feel, and if it really were possible for them to do that, it doesn't give a very positive message about that individual. It is actually quite pathetic.
philosophical battlefield between Christianity and atheism. This
article attempts to deal with these issues so that Christians will
better understand where we, as atheists, start from, and might
possibly prevent repetetive and oftentimes annoying re-debates.
(1) "Millions of people all over the world believe in God. Are you saying that they're all wrong."
Essentially, YES, but there is nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with preferring the color blue to the color red, or preferring vanilla to chocolate. Like any other descision in life, Belief in God has different opinions available. Some people prefer to believe in one, others don't. Atheists choose to not believe in God for many reasons, usually because they cannot find any proof that one exists. You cannot convince a person who prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream that chocolate is better or right, and vanilla wrong. The same is true in this case.
(2) "Where did the universe come from if there wasn't a God to create it?"
Christians assume that God created the universe. Atheists admit that no man knows what created the universe. In fact, there are many origin theories to choose from. One theory suggests that the universe simply always existed (much the same way Christians maintain that their God always existed and had no beginning nor end), while another suggests that the universe was created as the result of a process that we do not fully understand yet.
(3) "How can you be moral without belief in God?"
Are all Christians moral? Are any non-christians moral? Morality has absolutely nothing to do with belief in God. Morality is a way of conduct that is beneficial to society, or considerate to others. Manners, politeness, and ethics are all practiced by many non-christian cultures, as well as atheists. you do not have to be a believer in God to be moral -- you just have to be considerate of others.
(4) "What about your soul? Do you want to suffer for eternity?"
Most atheists do not believe that the soul exists. We maintain that personality, consciousness, intelligence, and talent are all contained in the organ known as the brain, and there is considerable scientific and medical research that proves this to be true. When confronted by the facts about the Brian-mind connection, many Christians opt to describe the soul as having nothing to do with intelligence, perception, or personality. If that is the case, then what does the soul do? what evidence is there that such a thing exists?
(5) "What happens to you when you die? I know I am going to heaven!"
Sadly, we atheists cannot offer any pleasant stories to comfort a person's fear of death. We do not believe in an afterlife. We believe that when you die, that is it. We believe that death is final, and that nobody has an afterlife. We discount all stories of "near death experiences" as fantasies that people under very traumatic
circumstances have, very similar to the hallucinations that child molestation victims create to blank out the memories of abuse. We simply accept that death is the end, and get on with our lives.
(6) "Why live, then? Why not just kill yourself?"
This follows from question #5. If we have no prospect of an afterlife, that doesn't make living any worse. Instead of striving for some imaginary goal that will only come after death, the accepting of death as our ultimate end gives us less time to worry about the afterlife, and lets us concentrate on enjoying this life -- the only
one we have. We are no more or less depressed about death than a christian would be. We simply accept it's finality, where the Christian has to cling to a myth about an afterlife.
(7) "Why be moral? If there is no ultimate justice for people who commit crimes, why not lead a life of crime?"
This also follows from question #5. Essentially, it is much more beneficial for survival to behave in a moral way, and avoid crime, because criminals tend to be hunted by their victims, and a life of crime is typically short and brutal. Few criminals have ever been able to live pleasant lives. They usually end up dead or in a prison cell somewhere. It is better to live in an ethical way, because people will be less likely to kill you if you are nice to them.
The very notion that "if there is no God, and there is no judgement, why not be as bad as you want?" speak a lot more about the Christian using this argument than it does about atheism. It speaks of a person who feels that if it were not for God and the Christian belief structure, they would just go hog-wild, kill, steal, and rape their way through life. If that is how these people trully feel, and if it really were possible for them to do that, it doesn't give a very positive message about that individual. It is actually quite pathetic.
Friday, March 7, 2008
A Solution to ID in Public School science classes.
The Solution to getting Creationism Taught in Public School
Okay, I know a lot of people will say that this idea is crazy, because it dignifies the Creationists by treating them seriously, but after reading my article, maybe you'll understand where I am coming from, and that I'm really being quite devious.
No self-respecting science teacher wants to have to teach creationism or "Intelligent Design" (ID) in their science class, and every year, there seems to be yet another attempt by a Fundamentalist-dominated school board to include ID or challenge evolution (and all of science in general, as a result). Well, they will keep trying, and they'll probably keep losing.
So here's a way I thought of to try and get both Evolutionary biology teachers and ID proponents satisfaction.
First, we pass a bill to include ID in public school science class as a topic. The Bill will be deceptively titled and promoted as a bill that would introduce ID in the classroom. The actual text of the bill would contain the following:
(1) ID would be introduced as a topic in biology class.
(2) When discussing ID, teachers must use only what is considered current, modern, science, as approved by the world's academies of science.
(3) All materials used to teach about ID cannot be given to teachers by organizations with religious ties, or which are not considered part of the body of scientists from the world's working scientists. The only materials allowed must be comprised of current, accepted science.
(4) All science classes will teach the scientific method, and the characteristics of science as part fo their curriculum.
(5) Everthing taught in science class must be factual in nature, and scientifically justified.
Secondly, we get America's academies of science to develop a short, but effective seminar that wouldn't take more than a class or two, where students will be taught about ID. Of course, the material will not be from the Discovery Institute or a church. It will be only what the plain simple facts about ID are. It will teach that most of the literature from ID proponents is rife with inaccuracies and outright lies (which can easily be demonstrated objectively very easily) and that Michael Behe, the originator of the term "Intelligent Design" defines science in a way that allows Astrology to be considered a science. The material will contain just facts about ID, and make it clear to the student (hopefully with dramatic and practical demonstrations and diagrams) that ID should not be taken seriously as a science. We have this material be in the early introductory biology classes.
Thirdly, we incorporate more logic and reason into the Public School curriculum -- not just classes in formal logic, but logic and reasoning that is simply part of the way things get taught, so that students pick it up, and get used to using it in all aspects of their studies. The idea is to offer an education that actually improves thinking by promoting good logic.
ID will get talked about in public school, and science teachers will not have to fight it, because they would be teaching only what current standard modern science says. Of course, the ID people will eventually see the trick, and complain about it, but who can be taken seriously when they try to argue that science classes shoudl not be teaching what is currently accepted standard science by the world's science academies? It wouldn't sound very good.
This sort of stealth tactic is how ID proponents thought they'd get ID in the class, and this is a sort of a reversal of it.
People have already said that my idea just legitimizes ID by giving it a mention in the first place. I agree only partially. ID is a legitimate topic that is a very hot issue, but it certainly is not science, and does not deserve to be given equal time. My tactic would make ID proponents think that they're getting inclusion, but on Science's terms. It could actually be fun to watch them protest after they've realized they've been had!
Okay, I know a lot of people will say that this idea is crazy, because it dignifies the Creationists by treating them seriously, but after reading my article, maybe you'll understand where I am coming from, and that I'm really being quite devious.
No self-respecting science teacher wants to have to teach creationism or "Intelligent Design" (ID) in their science class, and every year, there seems to be yet another attempt by a Fundamentalist-dominated school board to include ID or challenge evolution (and all of science in general, as a result). Well, they will keep trying, and they'll probably keep losing.
So here's a way I thought of to try and get both Evolutionary biology teachers and ID proponents satisfaction.
First, we pass a bill to include ID in public school science class as a topic. The Bill will be deceptively titled and promoted as a bill that would introduce ID in the classroom. The actual text of the bill would contain the following:
(1) ID would be introduced as a topic in biology class.
(2) When discussing ID, teachers must use only what is considered current, modern, science, as approved by the world's academies of science.
(3) All materials used to teach about ID cannot be given to teachers by organizations with religious ties, or which are not considered part of the body of scientists from the world's working scientists. The only materials allowed must be comprised of current, accepted science.
(4) All science classes will teach the scientific method, and the characteristics of science as part fo their curriculum.
(5) Everthing taught in science class must be factual in nature, and scientifically justified.
Secondly, we get America's academies of science to develop a short, but effective seminar that wouldn't take more than a class or two, where students will be taught about ID. Of course, the material will not be from the Discovery Institute or a church. It will be only what the plain simple facts about ID are. It will teach that most of the literature from ID proponents is rife with inaccuracies and outright lies (which can easily be demonstrated objectively very easily) and that Michael Behe, the originator of the term "Intelligent Design" defines science in a way that allows Astrology to be considered a science. The material will contain just facts about ID, and make it clear to the student (hopefully with dramatic and practical demonstrations and diagrams) that ID should not be taken seriously as a science. We have this material be in the early introductory biology classes.
Thirdly, we incorporate more logic and reason into the Public School curriculum -- not just classes in formal logic, but logic and reasoning that is simply part of the way things get taught, so that students pick it up, and get used to using it in all aspects of their studies. The idea is to offer an education that actually improves thinking by promoting good logic.
ID will get talked about in public school, and science teachers will not have to fight it, because they would be teaching only what current standard modern science says. Of course, the ID people will eventually see the trick, and complain about it, but who can be taken seriously when they try to argue that science classes shoudl not be teaching what is currently accepted standard science by the world's science academies? It wouldn't sound very good.
This sort of stealth tactic is how ID proponents thought they'd get ID in the class, and this is a sort of a reversal of it.
People have already said that my idea just legitimizes ID by giving it a mention in the first place. I agree only partially. ID is a legitimate topic that is a very hot issue, but it certainly is not science, and does not deserve to be given equal time. My tactic would make ID proponents think that they're getting inclusion, but on Science's terms. It could actually be fun to watch them protest after they've realized they've been had!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
