"...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..." [Deuteronomy 5:8-10]
Denyse O'Leary is like a goldfish, constantly surprised to to find herself stuck in a bowl.
At Mindless Hack, one her several dozen absurd blogs, she is staggered and amazed to learn that not all white born-again Christians are Republicans. She quotes a Zogby Poll:
"In both Missouri and Tennessee, white evangelicals who ranked jobs and economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote far outnumbered those who considered abortion and same-sex marriage most important."
***** Freakin' ******. She would have known that if she'd checked Wikipedia:
The Christian right, while being a fairly large movement, does not represent all evangelicals.... The Christian Left includes some theological conservatives. Many evangelicals in both the United States and abroad are more or less politically neutral.
Hilariously, Denyse blames "media commentators" for creating a "myth of a dangerous Christian Right, poised to take over".
Huh!? If Denyse was able to find her ass with both hands, she'd know that it's the self-declared "Religious Right" itself which has created this myth, for political ends. In the 80s it cynically used the Moral Majority movement to help conservative politicians get elected. More recently, it has used the creation/evolution debacle to try and force Evangelical Christians to choose between "secular" science and religious dogma.
Here's Wikipedia again, or what happened next:
A recent study by the Barna Research Group concluded that most Americans under the age of 40 have a negative view of evangelical Christians as a result of the activities of the Christian Right.
But the well has been poisoned. Many Evangelicals in the USA still think that "evolution" is incompatible with their faith, despite what a great many Christians say to the contrary.
Way to go Denyse.
And oh yeah. I would have gently pointed this all out at her "blog". But she doesn't allow public comments.
2008 hasn't started well for the Soldiers of the Lord. Geoff Simmons of the Discovery Institute ("NAMBLA") had his ass handed to him by PZ Myers, and even more fun, self-styled wanker-for-Christ and the least pleasant man in apologetics J P Holding found himself way out of his depth after picking on prickly academic Hector Avalos.
In both cases, even the Christian peanut gallery handed victory to the godless heathens... And both Simmons and Holding have been busy re-writing history with themselves as the winners.
I'd never seen Holding's face before. I'd always envisaged him as a small chap with a Napoleon complex... But it seems he's as corpulant and as pudding-like as his bully-boy persona.
In this 30 second clip, Holding shows that his years of "study" and "ministry" devoted to convincing himself and the feebleminded that everything happened exactly like he learned in Sunday School has been a total waste of time. He shows himself that his entire life's work and religious vocation depend entirely on his ability to believe one set of fairy tales and disbelieve all others.
But hey. I'm sure he treats his dogs well.
Here's JohnLArmstrong answering Holding's question, in case anyone missed it:
Game, set and match.
Edit: Since Holding pretends his belief in the Resurrection is based on solid historical evidence, he deserves one of these...
I've yet to see the documentary "Friends of God", but this clip is quite a taster. The inherent nihilism of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity is laid bare here.
The "Behemoth Is A Dinosaur" song is so marvelous I decided I must have it. I couldn't find a downloadable version, so I tripped off to pay my $19.99 to Answers In Genesis, only to find they wanted to charge me an extra $68.21 in shipping. What a rip! I've decided to pray really hard, and see if I can get hold of a copy that way.
The original video link is dead - so I've substituted the trailer. The bit where Ted Haggard and the evangelicals lie about their sex lives is priceless. See the movie. It's great.
I guess rising from 4.5 millionth to 1.3 millionth in the blogosphere is something to celebrate. "Philosopgy". Oops. Fixed now but immortalized here :)
In other news... Radio Otherfunk has an all new rap special for your listening pleasure. And you can even subscribe straight to iTunes. The wonders of technology.
The fallout from PZ Myers annihilation of ID Creationism & Geoffrey Simmons on Christian Radio rumbles on hilariously.
Meanwhile Ucommon Descent "Blogczar" DaveScot's already tenuous grip on reality has slipped still further away. He is now claiming that he didn't delete the infamous thread where UD's own readers conceded PZ had won the debate hands down. One comment which still seems to be missing in action at UD is this from bfast:
"In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened."
That advise is clearly difficult for UD's readers to follow, as these reader comments show:
It’s clear to me that ID needs a major event, something so big that it will knock everybody’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike. Somehow, I don’t think that debates, arguments, movies and websites are going to cut it. I may sound like a pessimist but deep down, I’m an optimist. There is no doubt in my mind that we’ll win this fight when the time comes and we’ll win it hands down. When that happens, the enemy will be totally discredited and ridiculed. There is a mountain of crow waiting just for them.
...darwinist materialists often act hypocritically when they seek to maintain a reputation of loving truth where ever the facts lead, when, in fact, they often engage in lies, deceit, half-truth, character assassination, political maniputation, etc., for their own ends. Some of us think they should be taken to task for it. It’s time to make a cord of whips.
Mountain of crow? Cord of whips?
So what's next for Uncommon Descent? Kool Aid all round? A snipers rifle and a clock tower?
No-one embodies the intellectual, moral and spiritual vacuity of the "Intelligent Design" movement more than Denyse O'Leary.
The Canadian journalist's inability to process information contradicting her petty prejudices is legendary. A recent post at Uncommon Descent lays into what she terms Intelligent design and its enemies:
"Looking at the big picture over the past seven years (when I first started to take the intelligent design controversy seriously), one item stands out: The behaviour of the promoters of Darwinian evolution."
Incredibly, after seven years of writing on the topic, O'Leary still seems clueless about what "science, "research" or "evidence" actually mean.
After a scattershot paranoic attack on her "enemies", O'Leary promotes her latest column in Mens News Daily ("ranked in the top 75 most popular right of centrer websites for 2007"). This supposed defense of abstinence education for teenage girls links to an item in the Washington Post, which referenced various studies showing such schemes were ineffective.
But O'Leary makes no attempt to address these studies or the issues they discuss. Instead, her readers are treated to a rambling discourse on O'Leary's relationship with her own father and then a list of her previous articles on unrelated topics.
How this challenges the studies reported on the ineffectiveness of abstinence education is not explained. But then to O'Leary and her target audience, explanations are unnecessary - their opinions trump any evidence. "Conservative" is right, "Darwinism" is wrong, and reality is irrelevant.
In another posting at Uncommon Descent O'Leary again links to another of her blogs, this time discussing The real reason why Darwinism is overwhelmingly confirmed - a tale for our times. Again O'Leary shows just how clueless seven years of taking the "controversy seriously" has left her: she still thinks that arguments about how evolution occurs are somehow magically evidence that it has not occurred... And that they are somehow miraculously evidence in favor of "Intelligent Design".
As a final irony, in yet another entry in yet another of her blogs, O'Leary reminds herself that the "Intelligent Design" ain't religion, no siree, lie is just a lot of hooey. Who would have known.
I was therefore interested to read this in Brent Rasmussen's review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist":
"Day... scrupulously breaks down many of the arguments and claims made by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and Onfray in their books, and then demonstrates, with meticulously detailed footnotes and references, why each one is flawed in some fashion - logically fallacious, historically inaccurate, mathematically incorrect, or statistically flawed.
This is no surprise. Anyone who thinks they can prove that there is no "greater power" in the Universe is on the same road to delusion as the South Carolina housewife who thinks Jesus helps her biscuits raise in the oven. We're all irrational beings.
The point is, of course, that the burden of proof is on those who want to argue that some definable, understandable, type of God actually does exist... And the whole point of Reason, surely, is to help us keep a collective grip on reality.
In many ways the whole argument is diversionary. As Rasmussen says:
"over the years I have come to realize that being an atheist is only rather secondary to who I am, and how I choose to define myself. First and foremost, I am a husband, and a father. Second, I am an American. After that, I am a civil libertarian politically. Then, I am an atheist.
Weirdly enough, this doesn't put me very far off from Vox Day himself -- except for the whole God and Jesus thing. Heh."
Well put.
Of course, things get gnarly when people insist that their particular irrational view of the world should be imposed on everyone else. We saw it in the 20th century with Facism and Communism, and we're seeing it in this century with religious Fundamentalism.
As ever, the conversation swiftly turned to morals in a world without God:
"If your conscience tells you that it is wrong to rape and murder, what if someone else feels it is perfectly normal to do these things? On what basis can you condemn these actions other than you feel it is wrong?"
I could never work out why anyone would think that this argument is anything more than droolingly cretinous.
But then I had a revelation. I realised Fundamentalist Christians think that in a world without "God" might would be right, the end would justify the means, and no-one would be accountable to anyone because that is precisely how their "God" acts in the Bible.
"He" is accountable to no-one - not even his own rules... Might is Right and He broaches no opposition or dissent... And the End Justifies the Means, since all arguments about "the problem of evil" ultimately come down to God being a bit of a jerk either (a) for reasons beyond our comprehension; or (b) for our own good. (Ht: AtBC).
It's not just the Fundamentalist God which is utterly absurd. The standard "Christian" view of God depends entirely on the Resurrection of Christ meaning something. But we are talking about an all-powerful omnipotent omniscient God: a God who can fix the World Series and watch Angelina Jolie in the Shower any time He wants; a God who can take the pain of a bazillion Supernovas going off directly in his face without flinching. I fail to see what could possibly be impressive about the "suffering" he incurred dying on a cross. He's bloomin' immortal, for heaven's sake.
The God described in the Christian Bible is a dysfunctional father. He is a bully, a tyrant and a psychopath. But beyond that, the mere notion that a Universe-Encompassing being would be so insecure as to require us to believe it and punish us if we don't, is ludicrous.
That's why I can safely say that God is a poopyhead.
A few days back, I wrote about the 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism I just couldn't seem to refute. So why, you ask, haven't I become a True Believer[tm] and signed my blog over to Denyse O'Leary? Well, you know I just might... If only someone could help with these seven questions that "Intelligent Design" just can't seem to answer...
Why the censorship?
For all their bluster about not being invited to all the best science parties, IDers are themselves staggeringly intolerant of debate. Sure, they squabble amongst themselves like a bunch of schoolgirls at the mall... But try asking them simple questions on their home ground, and you'll be shown the door faster than if you'd made a drunken pass at their mother.
"[Is] the “designer”... responsible for nature itself (in which case why should we be surprised that the universe works in wondrous ways) or is the designer only responsible for things which do not work in nature?"
Ask yourself... Why would that question be controversial?
Why the deliberate ignorance?
In the same thread at Uncommon Descent, "Unlettered and Ordinary" wrote:
"Why do you think very skeptical atheists after studying the universes physics become theists? The same goes for some who study the OOL inquiry. No one twists their arm, they come to the conclution after studying the evidence that these things were designed."
Here's my reply which was blocked:
"Physicists are substantially less likely to believe in God than the general population. Biologists are even less likely."
It seems that True Believer[tm]s don't like to be bothered with little things like "facts".
What do engineers know?
Why on earth do IDers think engineers should know more about biology than biologists? CBEB picked up on this whacko comment at UD:
"...how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any “brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to voice his incredulity."
You have to wonder how these IDers would they like it if biologists came and told them how to fix cash registers and comment their Java code...
If it's not about religion, why the Bible stuff?
Throw a rock at UD, and hit a Bible quote. One user, Lutepisc, quoted Isiah and Psalms in one post, and scolded me for asking him if "the God of Abraham" was the "Intelligent Designer" in the next:
"Why not seek an answer to your question at a church, synagogue, or mosque? Why ask it on an ID blog? (Unless, of course, you’re basically here trolling…)"
"Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted."
WTF? Do these guys use non-materialistic ideologies when building bridges or making computer chips? Do they sacrifice goats to keep struts from falling, or have to bat invisible dancing pixies away from subroutines? Do they cast runes to find out legal precedents? If not, why on Earth do they think biologists should be troubled by such concerns?
Who designed the designer?
Here's anotherquestion you can't ask at Uncommon Descent. Literally. Even ID supporters are not allowed to ask it. Why? Because the obvious answer ("It's Intelligent Designers all the way down") shows the whole ID-as-science enterprise to be completely, utterly, and irredeemably vacuous.
Where's the science?
The Wedge Document was written in 1998. And yet ten years later, despite the delusional aspirations and beliefs of ID's supporters, even William Demski and Michael Behe admit that ID hasn't "yet" produced any science. One day soon Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is going to want to know what's happened to all his money. At least Dembski has one comfort... No-one thinks he's being spending it on clothes...
So there you have it. If any IDers would like to take a stab at answering any of these questions, please, you can comment here.
Word comes from ERV that noted scientist and Discovery Institute ("NAMBLA") attack-dog Casey Luskin has sent out a scary "lawyer letter" demanding "copyright" pictures of himself be removed from the internet.
Laskin, the Chuck Norris of the cDesign Movement, knows a thing or two about copyright, having a hand in warding off allegations that William "Wild Bill" Dembski ripped off some video for one of his "presentations".
It is not known whether Laskin, picutred here, was involved in the recent theft of an M&M Parody by the noted peer-reviewed science-ology journal "Uncommonly Dense".
Meanwhile, Chuck Norris, the Casey Luskin of the action-movie world, has attracted controversy himself.
Fans of the noted not-gay scientist and movie tough-guy have rallied to his defense after a Republican Party hack called for an improbable "boycott" of Norris because, amongst other things, he does not believe in Evolution. The Church Burning Ebola Boys have more, including some priceless nonsense from Chuck's fans.
In other news... My comments awaiting moderation at UD have now been deleted for good. I can only presume they were scared the whole edifice of CDesign Proponentsism would have crashed to the ground if my words had been printed. Damn their eyes! If only there was somewhere else I could publish what I had to say. Well, somewhere where one could get insider the hermetically-sealed minds of the typical ID supporter would be nice...
Apart from that it's been a quiet day on the blogosphere. If you're looking for something remarkable, check out CBEB’s Hillbilly Gospel Show.
(And if Luskin's lawyers would like his picture removed from this blog entry, all they have to do is ask).
It's a sad day for free speech. I've only been back blogging a short while, and already I'm being silenced. It's like there is some sort of conspiracy...
First, Reasonable Kansans wouldn't publish my comment on their blog entry about what a nasty racist Charles Darwin was. All I did was agree with them that racism didn't exist before Darwin. What's so controversial about that?
Then, the very same blog ripped off my crappy picture of Darwin with scary eyes and didn't even say where they got it from. That's cold, man.
Even worse, I have a whole bunch of comments "awaiting moderation" on a thread at the ID Blog Uncommon Descent. There's nothing rude in them... But I guess they might be considered "awkward questions". I mean - are my meandering words really going to bring the whole edifice of ID down if they are published? It seems unlikely.
And finally, due no doubt to some administrative oversight, my access to the press section of the forthcoming movie "Expelled" seems to have been revoked. I can't think why.
I'm not saying in the slightest that blog owners should not have the right to moderate or even delete comments... But one has to ask oneself, surely, why Creationist and ID websites and blogs practically never link to sites with opposing viewpoints. Compare that with their "enemies". We almost universally do link to creationists and IDers.
Ask yourself why.
For now, I'm going to try that "faith" I keep hearing about. I'm going to pray really hard, and maybe, just maybe, Godthe Intelligent Designer will speak to someone with the courage to stand up to censorship (Enbay Einstay!?) who will come to my rescue.
After all, we know for a fact that the ID community regularly use the supernatural in their work as engineers, lawyers, journalists, computer scientists and speech writers. That's how they are so sure that "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins". If it works for the ID crowd, surely it will work for me too!
I'll let you know if anything changes. Fingers crossed. Pray for me.
LOL...Oh, I knew you'd be slithering around soon enough and provide us with said link.
Thanks for a horrible night's sleep. Your Darwin is creepy...it made me dream about freaky transitional zombies chasing me in an attempt to kill off the weaker link. Oh the HORROR!!!
Nice. Still nothing on their racist Darwin thread. But hey...
Update 2:
My comments are no longer "awaiting moderation" at Uncommon Descent. They've been deleted entirely. Damn! And I was so close to bringing down "Intelligent Design" too. So much for the power of prayer. It's no wonder I hate God so much.
I've been investigating creationism for around eight years, on and off. Luckily, my heart is hardened to the Infinite love offered freely and without precondition by The Good Lord God, and I have so far been immune to all attempts to save me from eternal hellfire. Praise SatanDarwin.
Recently, however, my faith in un-belief has been troubled.
A new intriguing concept called "CDesign Proponentsism" has appeared, offering a new way of looking at the Universe not tied to outmoded, intellectually bankrupt notions such as logic, evidence, or testability.
CDesign Proponentsism challenges not only secular progressive humanist atheist daughter-defilers like myself, but also Theistic Evolutionists (the same thing, of course). For the first time in several generations, we are at risk from losing the secular stranglehold which keeps our country from being great.
As we atheists and fellow travelers know, CDesign Proponentsist's do not read our blogs or websites. Why else would they not to link to us? Safe in the knowledge that this post will be kept secret and between ourselves, I would like to share my concerns with you.
There are, as far as I can see, seven irrefutable arguments in favour of "CDesign Proponentsism". Luckily, I have something called "Cognitive Dissonance", and I am immune to their power.
If you feel that your atheistic commitment to living without moral limits is fragile in any way, I would urge you to stop reading here. The rest of you may proceed - with caution...
I give you.... 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism.
1. The Explanatory Filter
The world's greatest living Mathematician is one William Dembski, the Paris Hilton of Information Theory. Dr Dembski has created the notion of the "Explanatory Filter", which I shall explain by applying it to a mystery uncovered recently by the elusive Dr. Snail.
One Galapagos Finch posted an M&M "survival of the fittest" parody at Uncommon Descent on 24 January which is remarkably similar to one which appeared anonymously last year on Craigslist. (My 37173 g00gle skillz suggest it dates back to at least 2003).
As a committed materialist, it is painful for me to admit that the scientific method offers no answers as to how such near-identical complex specified information systems could have arisen independently on at least two separate occasions. I could of course use imaginary, psuedo-scientific concepts as "convergent evolution" in order to construct a just-so-story as to how this might have happened.
Dr Dembski's "Explanatory Filter", on the other hand, offers a much more satisfactory conclusion. The parody was quite obviously coded into the DNA of the original writer and of DembskiGalapagos Finch, and was triggered only to appear in the latter's consciousness at a time and place foretold by the Bible Code. It's that simple.
2. Irreducible Complexity
As Dr Michael J. Behe explains here to Stephen Colbert, the component parts of a mousetrap have no function whatsoever.
3. The Controversy
There is no controversy? The mere fact that I am talking about CDesign Proponentsism proves there is a controversy.
4. It is not Creationism
When watched in the light of Scripture, this video clip demonstrates conclusively that CDesign Proponentsism is not creationism.
5. Parodies
What greater evidence is there is of the moral bankruptcy of a position than when its adherents go the trouble of creating elaborate parodies of their opponents? Take this song, for example, written by Amadan and sung here by Karl J. Mogel:
Here Chuck Norris, playing the part of blowhard reporter William "Bill" O'Reilly, endorses "Intelligent Design - that is 'a Deity Created life'". Also watch out for noted scientist Ben Stein, who rightly points out that cells contain "hundreds of thousands of moving parts each of which has to work perfectly"; and that "maybe we're wrong... maybe we're stupid, but we'd like to be able to ask the questions..."
7. Scriptural Support
How could the Bible, written by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders 5,000 years ago, have anticipated modern scientific understanding so exactly? CDesign Proponentsism does exactly what it says in the Bible.
There we have it. The best evidences that CDesign Proponentsism can offer. And still I am unmoved. Praise SatanDarwin indeed!
Both interviews show how far removed the average ID supporter is from the reality of ID's Hideous (un)Truth.
In the first conversation, the interviewer gushes about all of the wondrous science ID has produced. Dembski has to point out that, err, there hasn't actually beenany science resulting from his "ideas".
"CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?
WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."
When you've picked your jaw up from the floor following that little revelation, check out Michael Behe coming so far off the fence on Common Descent to give the average Uncommon Descenter a clutcher...
"ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?
MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."
Well, maybe I've got it all wrong? Maybe Dembski and Behe are just substantially more intellectually honest than the cdesign proponentsists I tend to come across.
I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory... ...I actually read the court transcripts (and not from Wikipedia or T.O.). I know what Behe said, and he did not say that ID is no more scientific than astrology."
Well, if the guy will repeat nothing but creationist drivel, he's going to look like a moron no matter how smart he is. Poor sod. And I just love the concept that the same information has a different value because it comes from a "conservative" source (he linked to ARN) than it does if it comes from Wikipedia or T.O..
Thank God for Conservapedia, huh? Although by my experience, any time that organ says anything sensible, it's enough to make a creationists head asplode.
And for the records, Michael Behe did say in court that if ID were to be considered a scientific theory, astrology would too.
"The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS or Behe's definition of science 500 years ago. The problem is that it is not supported by the evidence. That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms. Nor do serious academics reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of astrology, as serious scientists do for ID."
The minute "serious scientists for ID" can quote any part of the scientific literature as positive evidence for "Intelligent Design", Behe will have established that ID is more scientific than astrology.
Until then... I believe Jesus was a Capricorn. Or did I dream it?
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Thankfully they tell us. It was Charles Darwin in his, Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.
Look, I've drawn a Hitler-moustache on a picture of Darwin so you can see just how evil he was.
Do you know who else was racist?
That's right. It was Hitler.
And as we all know, there was no racism before Charles Darwin.
It was Charles Darwin who inspired Adolf Hitler to write these words in Mein Kampf:
"The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
And it was the rejection of its long tradition of Darwinism in 1995 which allowed the Southern Baptist Convention to say:
"Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and... we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty..."
Yes indeed. Before Darwinism took over, Christians in America were never done being nice to Jews and Black people; inviting them to join their country clubs and marry their daughters; not publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact or making them sit at the back of the bus; and the like.
It's been a long time since I posted here. Even so, every once in a while I get emails from people discussing something or other I wrote long ago. Such is the joy of blogging. Apologies if you are one of these people and I didn't respond. It was nice of you to get in touch. And I do appreciate it. You are all lovely.
The problem is, though, some times I do respond, and sometimes when I respond to evangelising christians, I get dragged into meandering discussions of such intense depressitude that it puts me off the whole blogging endeavor yet again.
What is it with these people? Why can't they love me as their neighbor and accept I might not want to be a batshit crazy as them, talking daily as they do personally to their lord and savior and all? I'm sure they are very nice. But they are so ingrained in their voluntary brain-damage that it hurts. I'm too smart to believe in evilutionism, they say. Did I know about the 6 million prophesies in the Bible that Jesus personally fulfilled? Maybe if I could just for one minute ask their God to come into my heart I'd be prepared to blow myself up for His Mercy. That kind of thing.
Case in point.
I heard about this one movie "Expelled", which claims that the Fundamentalists nutjobs who run large parts of Americanian culture are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to bring their invisible friend with them when they go to science class. As ever with these lying scumbags, the movie (from its publicity material) doesn't even bother to explain to the audience what "evolution" and "intelligent design" are... It just allows them to wallow in their ignorance, portraying the intelligent, educated segment of the culture as atheistic pondlife, intent on corrupting America's daughters. (Which is a fair point. If any of America's daughters out there would like to be corrupted, drop me a line. 18+ only. 14 in Iowa with parental consent, apparently).
And this ignorance has been headily on display on the IMDB message boards for Expelled, where I've been hanging out a bit, and where the quality of "debate" from the "pro-ID" crowd has just brought home to me time and time again why I stopped talking to these assholes in the first place. Some of them even seem embarrassed by the crapness of their own arguments. Others post the same non-sensical garbage over and over again, doubtless in the hope that everyone else will get bored eventually and go home and they can claim victory.
But hey.
There are some nice things in blogland. The Church Burning Ebola Boys have brought a smile to myself... And it's been fun watching the IDiot crowd trying to get their heads round some of the extremely technical ID-related sciency arguments posited at Overwhelming Evidence.
And if you've got this far, why not leave a wee comment and then check out Radio Otherfunk?
Crikey. I have been away from Blogging for a while... After all, arguments about religion and belief are often largely pointless, especially when people don't actually read what they are arguing against.
Hell's teeth now Christopher Brookmyre is at it, attempting to disprove the existence of God and all things spiritual in his latest novel... What is it with these people? Can it be that they have no knowledge of the real scientific world in which corruption and bigotry sit side by side with the 'scientific method'...
Scientists are as prone to all the faults and foibles of humanity as the rest of us. We are all of us seeking for ways of describing, of coping with the world. And for sure, all things come to sadness in the end. But a lot of the time people (and it so often is women, although not invariably so) have an inkling that there is more to life than meets the eye...
But most of all, I think, I object strongly to the assumption that all spirituality is a sticking plaster which we poor blinkered souls use to protect ourselves from the more unpleasant aspects of life. And again I say hubris. Bloody overweening pride that subsumes any sense of humility in its own arrogant certainty. If you can't speak with a modicum of wisdom then better, perhaps, to say nothing at all.
Nowhere in Chris Brookmyre’s book does he attempt to "disprove the existence of God and all things spiritual". All he says is we can’t prove them. Do you believe in the tooth fairy, Allah, reincarnation or ouija boards?
Of course there is more to life than meets the eye. But isn’t it hubris to pretend that our own pet beliefs about "spiritual things" are true without evidence while rejecting other peoples? All Brookmyre asks, surely, is that we don’t open our minds so much that our brains fall out. And what shows "arrogant certainty" more than refusing to accept that evidence and reason might prove our beliefs to be wrong? At least Brookmyre has the wit and wisdom to accept that he can be "self-indulgent and whiny". Were that religious types did that occasionally...
On the basis of apparently incontrovertible evidence, commentators of various persuasions... are convinced that we are witnessing an upsurge in religious observance and influence...
But I see the same evidence as yielding the opposite conclusion. What we are witnessing is not the resurgence of religion, but its death throes...
When a climate of heightened tension such as this prompts activists in one religious group to become more assertive... other religious groups, not wishing to be left behind, follow suit... The effect is that suddenly it seems as if there are religious devotees everywhere, and the spurious magnification of their importance further promotes their confidence. As a result they make some gains, as the faith schools example shows...
Yet the fact is that only 10 per cent of the British population attend church, mosque, synagogue or temple every week, and this figure is declining in all but immigrant communities... Yes, over half the population claim vaguely to believe in Something... but they are functionally secularist and would be horrified if asked to live according to the letter of (say) Christian morality: giving all one’s possessions to the poor, taking no thought for the morrow and so impracticably forth. Not even Christian clerics follow these injunctions. This picture is repeated everywhere in the west except the US, and there too the religious base is eroding...
As private observance, religion will of course survive among minorities; as a factor in public and international affairs it is having what might be its last - characteristically bloody - fling.
While Haggard has only partially admitted guilt, the situation in its entirety is a stark reminder of man’s sinfulness and a dark exposure of how deeply the sin of homosexuality has taken root in the American society. If the accusations are indeed true, now would be the time for the Evangelical community look within its own walls and battle against the culture of sin that looms before the Church of Christ.
It'll be interesting to see how this call for a witch-hunt against homosexuals in the church pans out. There are sure to be many potential targets...
And finally, here's a factoid. Did you know that founding member of the Dead Kennedys Carlos Cadona ("6025") left the band after suffering from schizophrenia and later became a born-again Christian?
This quotes Lee Strobel as saying, "Christians can stand confidently within biblical truth knowing that it's in line with astrophysics and cosmology".
He ignores the incontrovertible, inarguable and easily verifiable fact that most scholars in their relevant fields do not consider that the Bible is "in line" with these scientific understandings – or indeed that the Bible contains an inerrant history. This is true whether they are Christian, Jewish or otherwise.
How many of your readers know that over 10,000 American clergy have signed "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science"? This says, "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth… is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children... "
It may be that you discount these opinions based on your publication's Statement of Faith. This reads "the Bible, consisting of Old and New Testaments only… is the infallible and authoritative Word of God…".
But that would be dogma, not science.
You are free to disagree with the opinions of others. However, it is surely bearing False Witness to pretend that these opinions simply do not exist.
Your readers can check the sources for my statements here.
Two things stood out for me. One was Pastor Becky Fischer watching a video of children being whipped up into an emotional frenzy over the issue of abortion. "Extreme liberals", she conceded, might be disturbed by that.
The other was 12 year old Levi, describing how dealing with non-Christians makes him feel "yucky". He says "A lot of people in this world are sick". He's told repeatedly that he'll be something important in the future... On one scene, he idolises Ted Haggard, who as we all know now is a "liar and a deceiver". It's hard not to see Levi as some sort of future Travis Bickle in-the-making. Poor kid.
"We can't have phoneys in the army of God", bellows Pastor Fischer at one point in the film.
And all this brought home a vital element of faith missing from the discussions in my previous two posts here on Doublethink and religious belief... That of blind, wilfull ignorance in the face of overwhelming reality to the contrary.
Simply put, these people actually believe that the crap they spout is true - and that they can safely ignore any evidence or opinions to the contrary.
Here's a quote from a religious-type, from a current Talk Origins POTM nominee post....
...my understanding is that about 90% of Americans believe in God and creation of some kind. I hear that about 50% of Americans believe in creation as the Bible describes it. I find it hard to believe that these 50-90% of Americans are the uneducated, while the unbelieving 10% are the educated and enlightened.
The vast majority of creationists and their ilk just do not get that their beliefs are based on ignorance, and that it means something that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in God or "creationism".
I was just surfing Brent Rasmussen's blog, and he has a quote from the very wonderful Dan Savage (of Savage Love) about Ted Haggard's fall from grace. You remember Ted Haggard. He's the guy who led a homophobic evangelical church and went on and on and on about how terrible gayness was. Surprise, surprise, it turns out he was a "liar and a deceiver". But as Dan points out, there is a special level of hypocrisy in Ted Haggard's behaviour, as he was one of the leading advocates of the idea that sexual "aberrance" could be cured by following the proper path of Jesus. Dan writes:
"If you believe that Jesus Christ can change the sexual orientation of a believer, why on earth did he refuse to cure Haggard? Haggard founded a church that has 14,000 members! Thousands were brought to Christ by Haggard's preaching. Mixed in with Ted's meth-fueled gay-sex romps and hypocritical gay-bashings were, without a doubt, thousands of good works.
Did Jesus help Haggard out? No. Haggard struggled with temptation all his life. He tried to battle off his "dark" desires, but nothing proved effective. There was no cure for Haggard, no miracle. No matter how long he struggled, no matter how much faith he had, Haggard's sexual orientation remained unchanged. Nothing helped. Not prayer, not Jesus H. Christ on his cross.
Nothing.
If giving his heart to Jesus couldn't cure Haggard, what hope is there for the likes of me? If Jesus can't be bothered to work a miracle for the most powerful evangelical minister in the country, what "hope" is there for the average dyke?
None.
The ex-gay thing is over. It's dead. It was bullshit from the start, and it's bullshit now."
Very nice. Dan's column also talks about his part in the defeat of Senator Rick Santorum in the recent elections for the US senate. He links to this video clip where the ex-Senator attacks "liberals" for being, supposedly, inherently evil and irresponsible.
Quite staggeringly amusingly, Santorum says repeatedly that liberals believe that they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do - have abortions, have sex, whatever they like - and at each turn you can see him choking down the words "...as long as no-one gets hurt". Because, of course, those words destroy his whole argument.
For the longest time, I've been trying to come up with a word to describe the "Religionist" behaviour of saying and believing things which are blatantly untrue.
Take for example the recent changes to the law regarding rape in Pakistan. Until now, four male witnesses were needed for a charge to succeed. Otherwise, a woman complaining of rape would face the very serious charge of adultery. This brough an utterly ludicrous reaction from some Fundamentalists:
Islamist lawmakers walked out of parliament, boycotting the vote, after leader Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman told the assembly the change to the law would encourage free sex.
"This is an attempt to create a free sex zone in Pakistan," he said.
The mind boggles.
Now, Mr Fazal-ur-Rehman isn't lying here, because he fervantly believes what he is saying to be true. But what does one call this extreme level of cognitive dissonance?
I recently came across a description of what is known as "Tolstoy Sydrome" which seems to fit the bill. It's named after description by that great Russian author:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
The concept of accepting two mutually contradictory opinions (that tightening rape laws will lead to free sex) was beautifully described by George Orwell in his seminal novel 1984, in his description of Doublethink:
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary."
So, I guess, I don't need a new word. Doublethink and Tolstoy Syndrome (and good old cognative dissonence and blind ignorance) sum up the "religionist" mindset very well.
There's a great example in a recent opinion piece in the wonderfully named Texarkana Gazette, from a chap called Derrell Murphy:
"The liberal Secularists’ actions [in banning school prayer, the public display of the ten commandments, et al.] have overthrown centuries of established legal precedent, based on the Bible."
Whether you believe that prayer in school is bad or good, or the ten commandments should be displayed in public or not, the idea that the legal precedents involved have been "based on the Bible" is just nonsensical. It's wrong, false and untrue. But people keep believing it, because they are told it repeatedly, and because to accept that this is wrong (which as I may have mentioned it is) would demolish their entire argument.
But hey. Such is the world we live in (and, to be fair, and long lived in).
It's a while since I wrote regularly as PTET. Maybe it's time to start back up.
When I started this Blog, I thought I would be able to reason with Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists. I didn't expect to "deconvert" anyone, but I did hope to have them question their beliefs - and I hoped too that they would help me question mine. I've learned a lot in my writings and explorations... But there is of course a whole lot I don't know - and there always will be.
At first, I tried to reason with these "Religionists". Invariably, they came back with the same arguments and sets of factoids which they said supported their beliefs. It was like arguing with people who were reading from a script. I then tried to show them that their script was wrong. I took great care to check their sources, and to show in detail where and why their sources were incorrect.
I would demonstrate, for example, that evolutionary theory did not "exclude" ideas of God, by showing that most religious scientists had no problem reconciling their faith with the "fact" of evolution. I laid out how archaeology and history and studies of comparative mythology should as sure as anyone could hope for that the Bible was not literally true, or historically accurate, or anything which could even be said to approach being "inerrant".
But still, the same arguments came back, time and time again, as if those arguing with me inhabited an alternative reality.
This became frustrating, and I tried a different tack. I pressed the point that the sources used by these Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists were demonstrably wrong and mis-represented the opinions of scientists and theologans... And that the repeat them was to bear False Witness. In effect, I thought, they were *lying*. However, these accusations only led to anger, and those arguing with me becoming ever more entrentched in their positions.
And, after a while, it all became just too tiresome, and I came to the conclusion that these people were just crazy.
But of course, they are not "crazy". And they are not exactly liars either - because no matter how much their opinions differ vastly with reality, and no matter how much they are demonstrably wrong, the simple sad fact is that Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists believe fervently, sincerely, and wholeheartedly that they are true.
The beliefs of Fundamentalist Christians and Creationists aren't based on reason. Therefore they are not open to reason in arguments against them. Their beleifs come from faith, and this faith that they are right infects every part of their thinking.
Quite terrifying, this "faith based reasoning" has escaped from the confines of religion, and has become a standard part of the political, moral and philosophical discourse of the twenty-first century.
In the past few years we've seen an ill-judged war in Iraq inspired, fought, and mis-managed beyond belief not on the basis of reason and fact - but on the understanding (not always inspired by religion) that the mere *belief* in the existence of weapons of mass destruction, or that a war could be won with minimal resources, or that the Iraqi people would treat the Americans as liberators, would make these things come true.
It's important to stress that this faith has not all been religious... However, without a doubt the increase in the influence of faith-based reasoning has been led, inspired and promoted by religion - and by those who's sincerest wish is to take humanity back, back before the time of the Enlightenment, back to a mythical golden age when religion and faith ruled humanity, and science and unpleasant reality could and should be ignored.
And with that, I think it's time I got back to some occassional blogging :-)
I started this Blog in an attempt to understand the minds of Christians, to learn what they had to say, and (I hoped) to persuade others if not them of the irrational and bizarre nature of Fundamentalist beliefs...
I guess what I really learned is "these people are crazy".
I'm sure I'll return to regular posting one day, but for now, if you've enjoyed (or hated) anything you've read here, please check out Radio Otherfunk, which features the odd bit of religion and philosophy amongst the music...
And a final thanks for the nice emails I've had from various people over the past few months. You know who you are. Very much appreciated.
"The President can't imagine that someone who is President of the United States could not have faith, because he derives so much from it", Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said. "I can see him struggle with other world leaders who don't appear to be grounded in some faith," he said. He added, "The President doesn't care what faith it is, as long as it's faith."
Denyse O'Leary is like a goldfish, constantly surprised to to find herself stuck in a bowl.
Huh!? If Denyse was able to find her ass with both hands, she'd know that it's the self-declared "Religious Right" itself which has created this myth, for political ends. In the 80s it cynically used the Moral Majority movement to help conservative politicians get elected. More recently, it has used the creation/evolution debacle to try and force Evangelical Christians to choose between "secular" science and religious dogma.
Way to go Denyse.
subscribe to PTET
