Bill Nye Takes Flack Over Creationism Comments
August 29th, 2012
|
As you may have heard, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” has been called a lot of nasty names and made the subject of a great deal of controversy after stating that creationism does not belong in US classrooms and that science should include teaching of the fact of evolution.
Here’s a video of Nye on a recent television newscast. It shows part of the original video and his explanation for the comments:
I’ve had the chance to meet Bill Nye and order a hamburger with him, and I can say, at least in my experience, he’s a pretty respectful and nice guy. Like all guests at The Amazing Meeting, he was only there to share his experiences and be part of the community – he was not getting paid for it. Bill Nye has been a popularizer of science and an advocate for strong science education.
He’s really not an overly confrontational type. Unlike some others who have been associated with the skeptic movement, Bill Nye never really goes out of his way to stoke the fires of controversy or get attention by making a scene. He’s usually pretty respectful. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that creationist interests have been fighting hard against good science education in the US and there’s only one side that any competent science advocate can take.
Are Bill Nye’s comments controversial? Some would think so, although it’s sad. His stance that evolution is science and creationism is not has been stated by nearly every major scientific organization in the United States. Many have used uncharacteristically strong language in their rejection of the notion of creationism or “intelligent design” in school curriculum. Not only that, but creationism can’t be taught in US public schools – at least that’s what numerous courts have ruled. Numerous school boards and even state education departments have tried to worm it in, but every time it has been brought before a competition judge, it has been shot down.
The fact that this is still controversial is just beyond me. But if you have any doubts, just search YouTube for the recent video responses to Bill Nye’s comments. They are so stupid, I won’t even dignify them with a hyperlink!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 at 7:42 pm and is filed under Amazing Meeting, Bad Science, Education, Just LAME, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 29th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
I don’t know. Bill might be a nice guy, but after some of the utter nonsense he said on the air last year after the Fukushima earthquake/tsunami, I don’t have much respect for him or his proclaimed knowledge of science. Some of his statements were real howlers.
Maybe, “Bill Nye the Greenpeace guy” would be a better moniker for him after that. I’m willing to cut him some slack in that he probably has had no education or training in nuclear science and technology. (In fact, I know he doesn’t and it still baffles me why the news channels like Fox and CNN were putting him on the air as an expert for interviews.) But if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then he should keep his mouth shut rather than make himself look like a fool.
He actually dredged up a statement about plutonium that was made by Ralph Nader (about how “toxic” it is) and attributed it to Glenn Seaborg. If that isn’t making yourself look like a fool, then I don’t know what is.
Attacking creationism is like shooting fish in a barrel. You don’t deserve much credit for that.
Quote Comment
August 29th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I have to agree with BMS -Nye has said some rather stupid things on occasion that has made me wonder just how much research he has done on the subjects he has held forth on.
As for taking some heat over his remarks on the creationism/evolution debate, first he could not take any other position than he did without loosing all credibility as a ’science guy’ and secondly, like all performers I am sure he knows that there is no such thing as bad publicity: stirring up a bit of sh!t might get him a few more interviews.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 7:02 am
I was unaware of those statements. I’ll have to look into it. But he’s still right about creationism.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 10:05 am
The story here is NOT that Bill Nye spoke against creationism and in favor of sound science teaching. It really does not matter to the context if he’s a nice guy or if he’s been prone to anti-nuclear soap boxing for some extra ratings.
The only story is that this was even showing up on anyone’s radar or causing any backlash at all. The fact that it *IS* news is stupid. The fact that anyone was offended or felt the need to respond is idiotic. Bill Nye is only saying what the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society and the National Association of Science Teachers and every other scientist and science organization has said.
Yep, I hit up YouTube. You would think he said something groundbreaking. A lot of people saying he’s persecuting them or out of touch or pushing an agenda. Others saying they will pray for his soul.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
“… and that science should include teaching of the fact of evolution.”
“… science should include teaching of the fact of evolution.”
“… fact of evolution.”
The above is a description of the belief of Bill Nye (and a whole lot of others) believes. It is not his quote, but it is probably accurate with respect his beliefs.
I don’t have any problem with teaching the “Theory of Evolution”. I don’t have any problem with the advocacy of Creationism. If evolution was indeed presented as a theory then there would be far less backlash from the people that see it as a threat to their self image.
When the facts don’t support a specific brand of creationism then the adherant believers will eventually fall by the wayside. The theory/faith of creationism will then need to morph (don’t want to say evolve) into somthing more believable.
Bill Nye, in the above video, talks about “… teaching science, teaching about provable science …” as imporntant to our children. People like Bill Nye, that advocate their personal faiths (nuclear is bad, “climate change” is a known & accepted phenomonon that needs to be changed, etc.) as provable science are a much bigger threat than those whose faiths have a dwindling following.
Dear Bill (& applicable others):
Teach science as science, do not use it as a tool to meld the minds of others into one coehesive blob that doesn’t allow some radical, nutty, or riduculus ideas. And, if you need to exaggerate to make your point then your point is questionable.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Don M said:
So you also have no problem with teaching the fact of evolution as well?
Don M said:
Evolution is presented as a theory, just that the people who constantly whine about how it should be taught as though it were theory don’t understand what a theory actually is (creationism is mere conjecture by comparison).
Don M said:
The facts don’t support any type of creationism (though how could they without evidence of a creator?).
Don M said:
Evolution of creationism is driven by the first amendment to the US constitution. Creation ’science’ was a way to try to get around the ban on teaching religion as though it were true in public schools, when it failed (due to being clearly religious and not science) they tried the intelligent design nonsense where they didn’t say that it was the Christian god which created everyone (until it got ruled unconstitutional).
Now they’re trying to claim that evolution is wrong (a lie, but these people don’t seem to think the 9th commandment applies to them) and also trying to push through academic ‘freedom’ bills in the hope that teachers who ignore reality can just teach what they believe.
Don M said:
So you’re one of those as well?
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“So you also have no problem with teaching the fact of evolution as well?”
“Evolution is presented as a theory…”
…if you need to exaggerate to make your point then your point is questionable.
My point is that theory is often presented and taught as fact, one big fact, not just factually correct. Middle school science teachers often don’t understand the difference, or they are not able to clearly present the difference to the kids, or they just don’t care and feel they need to use the classroom to remold the minds of the kids. (And I am not just talking about evolution discussions … chemicals in the water, EMF’s, global warming/climate change, etc.)
And no, I have no problem teaching any facts, evolutionary facts or otherwise. I have a problem with adding up all the facts, reaching a final theory, and calling that more than just factually correct. Yes evolutionary theory is accepted as factual by most, for good reason.
By “specific brand of creationism” I meant intellegent design. Some of those folks that tried to morph “creation science” into “intellegent design” accepted some of the facts associated with evolutionary theory. They said the creator said “poof” and created the biological and chemical processes that would lead to us; Then the creator poked and prodded until things got to where they needed to be for the appropriate evolutionary beginnings, then apparently stood back to revel in his (its) eventual static creation. Futher human evolution will likely show that these folks are wrong as well. In the meantime they will acquire a few new members to their belief system, but they will lose more than they gain.
In summary of this post I will quote an un-named philospher: “People have emotions, they have passions and desires. Let us not reject these feelings or try to suppress them….”
The reason people got upset with Bill Nye is that he forgets to follow this advice.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
DonM said:
Let’s get this straight from the beginning: in law, the arts and philosophy, the term “theory” describes a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to verification, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. However, in science “a theory” is a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to the former definition above that implies that something is unproven or speculative. The proponents of creationism have a very bad habit of trying to confound those two very different uses of the word to imply that evolution has the status of a speculative hypotheses even in the scientific community when it is a well-substantiated explanation based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
So if you have an issue with theory being taught as fact, I suggest you spend some time with a good dictionary, because in scientific contexts, theory is fact.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
“Theory” can mean different things in different contexts. A “Theory” is a description of a mechanism that explains observations and makes predictions. It is the description of the mechanism by which things happen.
Now I will grant you, a “theory” may or may not be proven. An example of an unproven theory is string theory. There is conjecture as to whether string theory is really a factually accurate way of describing particles.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It’s a theory because it describes the way a mechanism works. It’s a fact because there are no longer any doubts that it happens.
Here are some other examples, which I am pretty sure most would be okay with teaching as “fact”:
Cell theory – The theory that complex organisms are made of cells. Pretty well proven, since you can see them with a microscope.
Germ theory – The theory that infectious disease is caused by microbes that can be transmitted from one to another, rather than bad energy or foul smells or something.
Kinetic theory of gasses – the theory that gasses are made of molecules bouncing around.
Plate tectonics theory – Actually, at one time there was limited evidence for this and conjecture that it was factually true, but current data and precise measurements show pretty conclusively that the earth’s crust is made of plates floating and slowly moving over the mantle.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2012 at 4:51 am
DonM said:
Evolution is a fact, natural selection (along with sexual selection) is how it happens.
DonM said:
Sounds more to me like you are the one who doesn’t understand what theory means.
DonM said:
It would appear that you have a large number of irrational beliefs, quite possibly more than Bill Nye.
DonM said:
No they didn’t and they still don’t, they just appeared to if you didn’t know what was going on.
What’s going on there is that they are lying for Jesus to get around the US constitution (didn’t work for them).
DonM said:
They were purposely vague about who the creator was as part of their attempt to not have a court rule it religion, but the very strong implication was that it was the Christian god.
DonM said:
Will likely? They’ve already been shown to be wrong.
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2012 at 11:46 am
5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet
how the divine pen of Michel N. crushed the international atheist movement
skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18660
youtube.com/watch?v=s3lwG4MytSI
one applicant right here…
get the POINT, Randi….
for lies on top of lies
youtube.com/watch?v=bbmXpNEFipE
do you think you can threaten my right to FREE SPEECH?
what if I told you that I am not who you think I am….
Not Dennis Markuze – but a FAN!
youtube.com/watch?v=nvatDdOWcLw&lc
you’re not the center of the universe!
youtube.com/watch?v=3yRpSNIOwA4
a dishonest liar
____
youtube.com/watch?v=ruQFh_TkPto
WHINE WHINE WHINE
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Who let Dennis out of the nut house?
Quote Comment
August 31st, 2012 at 1:07 pm
The links dmarx ’supplies’ won’t work on my mobile phone and I’m not going to waste any of my life C&Ping them.
But I’ll bet you all a pint of finest English ale that Depeche Mode make an appearance.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2012 at 12:10 am
DV82XL said:
I think any dictionary will do; no need add the qualifying adjective unless sarcasm is intended. The dictionary definition of “theory” that you used (or copied from some other discussion) includes the term “commonly regarded as correct”; most people are not going to accept “commonly regarded as correct” as being good enough to overrule their faith or the faith that they are trying to push their children towards. To those same people “fact” means something known or accepted based on their own observational knowledge (however lacking it may be).
The common definition of “fact” is “something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened”. The definition of “fact” does not include the term “commonly regarded as correct”, nor should it.
The definition of “Scientific fact” on the other hand means “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)”. I don’t know how long this definition has been in play, and teaching most theory to middle school kids as “scientific fact” is reasonable. There is a difference between fact and scientific fact. If you lose the qualifier though, you have a different meaning.
I’ve done the dictionary thing…. Now I strongly suggest that you take the time to understand the difference between “manifest fact” and “inferential fact”. Then, more importantly you could follow up with the papers by a few evolutionary biologists. W. J. Bock (“Explanations in Evolutionary Biology”, 2007) and Kirk Fitzhugh (“Fact, theory, test, and evolution”, 2007) discuss the differences between theory and fact in the realm of evolution, but the discussion is also relevant to all scientific theory.
Wikipedia, “Evolution, fact and theory”, summarizes both sides of this argument, and does so better than either one of us. The reason for the different understanding in reference to evolution as fact and/or theory is that the “theory is fact” stance refers to evolution in broader terms, whereas I see the need to teach theory by emphasizing “the importance of constructing theory in the strictest sense for testing explicit hypotheses through specific reference to the facts in need of explanation.” Without this method there will be more arguing than learning, and there will be more opportunity for bad teachers to push bad science. [annon, please do not take this last bit out of context and assume that it refers to evolution, or anything else to which you have an emotional attachment]
Mebbe Mr. Fitzhugh & Mr.Bock (and the other folks at Wikipedia) need a better gooder dictionary too.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2012 at 12:19 am
The above is in response to DV82XL, in post #8, I haven’t figured out how to reference other post quotes. [More ammunition for anon....]
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2012 at 10:25 am
Anon said:
Just to give some information and context to this: Yes, that is Dennis and he has been posting to my blog and many others recently. Most of the comments end up in the spam filter, but some get through.
Yes, he is out and posting and that’s really no surprise. In fact, it’s a good illustration of a major problem facing society these days. (Dennis is Canadian, but this problem is by no means a Canadian one. It’s faced by most modern countries and certainly the United States.)
It’s very rare for a mentally ill person to be committed to long-term inpatient care. For one thing, it’s extremely expensive and for another, the courts are apprehensive about being overly punitive toward those with mental health issues and subjecting them to unnecessary long term commitment, especially when many of them are okay as long as they are supervised and medicated. But really, it comes down to resources: limited number of facilities, limited number of beds and limited amounts of money.
Those who are committed for long periods of time are usually just the ones who are at the extreme end, for example those who were found “not guilty by reason of insanity” for murder. Dennis was never directly violent. He may have made threats, but that’s very common. Therefore, he would not have been considered a super high priority for long term, expensive, institutionalization.
Sooner or later (and usually sooner) these people get released back into the population. There are often orders that they stay on medication and receive some level of supervision or stay away from certain people or the internet etc. For some, this works out okay, as modern anti-psychotics can be very effective (but only if you take them).
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to impossible to keep tabs on people released all the time. Relapsing is very common. Many don’t take their medication. The result is a “revolving door” situation. They may end up back in overburdened courts, ordered onto meds and the cycle repeats itself. Others eventually do commit a serious crime and end up in prison. Prisons are therefore full of mentally ill persons.
Like I said, this is a problem all modern societies are currently grappling with.
At one time, millions of people around the world were warehoused in mental hospitals. Many of them were not even insane, just slightly mentally ill (for example, with severe social anxiety, prone to depression, OCD and so on). I don’t think anyone would argue we would be better off going back to those days, but at the very least, that practice did manage to prevent mentally ill people from entering the state we now have of being in and out of problems with the law.
Quote Comment
September 1st, 2012 at 11:00 am
DonM said:
What you chose to believe about evolution is immaterial to me. I have long lost patience with those that argue against it, or claim that it is still somehow conjectural, or assert that there is room for doubt on the basic premises. However I will not let the rhetorical tactic of confounding the definition of the word ‘theory’ stand unchallenged. This was the thrust of my comment.
As for your attempt to invoke other similar dialectic arguments it only underlines the fact that critics of evolution simply cannot muster any real scientific opposition and are forced to try to undermine it by playing word games in what is clearly a pathetic attempt to FUD the topic.
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2012 at 2:01 am
Did you take a look at the paper by Bock? It suprisingly easy reading, but if you don’t want to put in the time you could just skim through [read anon] the first page, and then read the full conclusion.
Quote Comment
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:55 am
DonM said:
The point that the fine details of evolutionary mechanics are still being determined is not lost on me. However the same can be said to be true in several scientific domains, yet it is only the theory of evolution that draws demands that it be presented in schools with as much uncertainty attached as can be managed. Of course this is motivated by nothing more than a wish to inject as much doubt into the minds of those being taught in a transparent attempt to create a wedge in which to drive in creationist ideas.
I am an atheist, but one educated in a very religious system, but even those Jesuit brothers, as dogmatically Catholic as they were, did not stoop to tricks to defend the faith. Faith to them was a mental state of being that one entered by choice, in fact one had to enter by choice if there was to be any salvation from the process. I really wonder just what sort of deity is worshiped by those that think that tricking others to believe with half-truths, rather than letting them find redemption through grace. Methinks they should spend some time considering what is written in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.
Quote Comment
September 4th, 2012 at 1:37 am
Has anyone seen the episode of Futurama about robo-evolution? The scene at the beginning when the professor is arguing with the ape about evolution is a scream.
“You have no link between apes and modern man.”
“Yes we do, it’s homo erectus.”
“A ha, but what is the link between apes and this homo erectus.”
“Homo habilis.”
Several hours later
“Okay, but you have no link between apes and this *about fiftieth ancestor of modern man*”
Quote Comment
September 4th, 2012 at 5:33 am
DV82XL said:
Agreed. Until the Higgs Boson we were/are still unsure about the fine details of the mechanics of mass and by extension gravity. But no-one questions the Theory of Gravity.
Now, if someone wants to say that no-one can precisely say whether the hand of God is or isn’t present in the scale of manipulation or mutation of DNA sequencing leading to a chosen evolutionary path – the outcomes of which an omniscient being would be able to foresee – is all up to them. I don’t personally believe it, but I have no capacity or even intention of proving that belief to anyone else.
As for climate change, it’s not really open for debate, it’s pretty much happening. The difficulty is in knowing a) whether human actions are actually significant in the grand scheme of things; and b) where it’s going next and therefore what the consequences are and what measures should reasonably be taken.
To my knowledge there is a consensus on (a) being true, that human action does have a noticeable impact on a global scale. Point (b) is definitely more open to debate and becomes a tough question of what we are and aren’t prepared to sacrifice to change our impact. I have no idea what the answer to that is.
Quote Comment
September 4th, 2012 at 10:46 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
Nor could you even if you wanted to, as in essence one would have to prove a negative, a logical impossibly. At any rate “Directed Evolution” arguments fail Ockham’s razor as they require too many assumptions.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2012 at 6:32 am
I think looking at the divine intervention and creationist arguements of evolution is fun because it reminds me as a scientist that no theory should be sacrosanct. Physicists still poke at Einstein’s theories. Geologists who pooh-poohed the biblical (and many another lore) flood account for years have come to realize that there were large (though not whole earth covering) floods after the glaciers melted, indicating a kernal of truth to the biblical stories. Science is rarely settled to 100% certainty and a good scientist realizes this. What makes science fun to me is the challenging of theories and ideas. When anybody wants to restrict that in any way, I tell them to bite me. If science continues to prove the theory of evolution, it will survive just fine, but why not let it get challenged? DVX will say the C/DI challenge is irrational and he is probably right, but this leads me to my next observation.
What is most fun to watch, because there is so much hubris, is how the god-exists/god-doesn’t-exist factions grab science for their respective sides. Science cannot prove either the existence or non-existence of God which is what the whole evolution arguement seems to be about. The question that is begged in all of the hubris surrounding the God existence question is “why are we here?”. Is there a reason for our being here or is it some big cosmic joke? This won’t be answered in my lifetime. However it is sure a lot of fun trying to figure it out, whether with science or philosophy/theology. I accept that my belief in God contains scientifically irrational elements, but I also accept that as a scientist I do not know everything and cannot reject the possibility of God. Besides, it is my observation that a belief in God has done a heck of a lot more good for societal structure than harm (don’t bother coming back with the harmful list, I know them), so overall it is not a bad thing to promote the existence of God. Societies promoting non-belief seem to struggle – the USSR being a good example. China may be an exception to this, but I doubt their experiment will be finished in my lifetime, but you never know. Looking forward to DVX’s arguments.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2012 at 8:53 am
Leg said:
The real question is: what constitutes science? Science is a subset of the broader term ‘natural philosophy’ and that broad description can encompass the issues of the existence of a deity or the reason we are here, but science per se is natural philosophy practiced by Method, and as such is a poor tool for the study of existential questions. It is this difference that needs to be defended. Method is far from perfect, and there are areas of inquiry that will always be closed to it, however in its domain there is no better way of determining truth. When those with a religious agenda try and highjack the term science to give weight to their beliefs then they must be opposed or all of science will suffer.
The problem with trying to shoehorn scientific observations into biblical exegesis is illustrated by the words of Ananda K. Coomaraswamy who seeing the traces of subatomic particles in a cloud chamber said “Shiva dances.” Does this then serve as proof of the correctness of Hindu theology? Most Christians would reject this interpretation. The human mind is very good at detecting parallels, but that does not mean that these are necessarily valid. The same is true for cases of what looks like ‘kernels of truth’ in the Biblical record.
As for the relative, historical value of faith, one must take a very broad look at what it has been before coming to a conclusion. Certainly it represents an attempt at establishing a general philosophical framework in an attempt to understand the universe and in the past it was better than nothing. However, knowledge evolves too and the answers given by religion have been overtaken as our understanding of the universe has grown. If you are arguing that it has some utility in providing moral compass, the fact is that there are several Humanist philosophies that would serve this purpose just as well.
But in the end the issues of religion vs. science have little to do with moral questions. The fight is one of trying to defend a philosophical system that allows for the rather self-centered and basically selfish belief that somehow there might be a possibility that one would survive death in some magical way through the agency of some supernatural being, and failure to see that this is at the root of the debate is being delusional. As such faith in any religious dogma strikes me as intellectual cowardness, especially from anyone claiming to be a scientist.
DV8
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU
which WORLD-VIEW will not exist, sh*thead?
______________
5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet
how the divine pen of Michel N. crushed the international atheist movement
sguforums.com/index.php?topic=43121.0
youtube.com/watch?v=s3lwG4MytSI
one applicant right here…
get the POINT, Randi….
for lies on top of lies
youtube.com/watch?v=bbmXpNEFipE
do you think you can threaten my right to FREE SPEECH?
what if I told you that I am not who you think I am….
Not Dennis Markuze – but a FAN!
youtube.com/watch?v=nvatDdOWcLw&lc
you’re not the center of the universe!
youtube.com/watch?v=3yRpSNIOwA4
a dishonest liar
____
youtube.com/watch?v=ruQFh_TkPto
WHINE WHINE WHINE
______________
——-
BRING IT ON!
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Leg said:
Not that one.
Though the stories probably originated from local scale flooding (relatively large floods, such that it would appear that everything is flooded if you don’t have a helicopter do indeed occur from time to time).
Leg said:
A good scientist also recognises when something is settled to about 99.999% certainty and also accepts that as enough to teach only that explanation in school.
Leg said:
Every new species discovered, whether alive or as fossils is a test of evolution.
So far it’s survived everything thrown at it.
Leg said:
If you can not show that god exists then you must assume that there is no god (and even if you do show that there’s a god, you’re still no where near any Earth religion).
There is still no logical argument for why there must be a god and no evidence that such a being exists. Science has been very successful at explaining how the universe works without need of a god and the descriptions of the gods in most religions contradict reality.
Leg said:
Why not just accept that we are here and that we have to find our own meaning of life?
Oh and if we do know the answer for why there is something instead of nothing it won’t be theologians who answer it, it’ll be physicists (and they’ll probably be atheists).
Leg said:
Which god? Can you reject the possibility of Odin?
Leg said:
Aside from societies with high levels of theism being worse.
See http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
Leg said:
Communism has more in common with Christianity than the adherents of either belief would like to admit (and the repression of the communists was partly learnt from the Christian tsars).
OTOH if we look at countries with the highest levels of atheism (which also tend to be ones where there was no repression) we find that they are actually doing better than the more religious countries.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Enjoy your stay at L’Institut Philippe-Pinel Markuze? How would you like to rot there? I live in Montréal too, and if you give me the slightest excuse I’ll see you arraigned. You have been warned.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 6:33 am
Anon: you missed my point – keeping an open mind can be difficult when we start connecting science and religion. I really don’t disagree with much of what you said, and the couple things I think you might be wrong about I would have to do some more homework. The flood thing is just my example that lore can actually give us some insight into looking for things that might explain what our long, long lost ancestors might have observed. There is often a kernal of truth in the lore. In a nearer time frame, my family lore had a general serving in the American Revolution. Go to heck if I didn’t find the relationship while doing a genealogical search. Lore can be valuable. I’ve seen scientists dismiss lore because it was connected to religion, and I think that is stupid. As for Odin, he has always been one of my favorite humanizations of God, and as a kid I never missed the comic books of Thor. : ) I am NOT a biblical literalist in any way. I view the Bible and similar documents as guides to societal development with stories explaining events that lore has handed down and stories that illustrate why the authors think society should be organized. The Bible says God brought the floods; what other explanation was available – they didn’t understand glaciation and melting. And there are things I find curious such as the Genesis explanation for the beginning of the earth. Not the time frame, but the sequence of events seems to follow what we know today. It’s weird to me that the Genesis authors would come up with this.
DV8-
Paragraph 1: no disagreement.
Paragraph 2: You are misreading my comment on biblical kernals of truth. See above.
Paragraph 3: no great disagreement, and there are many things I like about humanism, but I do not have a lot faith that mankind is at a stage of development that we are capable of self-fulfillment and ethical conduct. Maybe we will get there, but it will be a looonnnggg time yet. Additionally humanism does not satisfy my quest for the answer as to why we are here.
Paragraph 4: You say, “As such faith in any religious dogma strikes me as intellectual cowardness, especially from anyone claiming to be a scientist.” Ah, such a nasty barb thrown at me, which reinforces my belief that some, not all, humanists and atheists have problems with the ethical conduct thing (not that Christians or others can be any better). If believing in God and having a soul (spirit or whatever) gives me comfort at the time of my demise, why do you begrudge me this? I have no idea if my beliefs are right or wrong, but they do give me comfort. Prior to Viet Nam and having a Jesuit education like you, I wavered a lot regarding the question of the existence of God. However, a few close calls in battle and I became an example of the saying, “there are no atheists in a foxhole”. Rational? A good question I cannot answer. Intellectual cowardice? No.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 7:08 am
As I was away from this website for quite awhile, I apparently missed this Dennis guy. Could someone give me a quick synopsis of what he has been doing? His postings are mighty strange!
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 9:04 am
The flood story has more of a kernel of Gilgamesh. There’s nothing unusual about widespread flooding, as hurricane Isaac can illustrate, and it’s no surprise that a particularly bad flood would become the stuff of legend. Oral tradition has a way of making stories grow, and irrational explanations are needed to satisfy rational questions about the story, e.g. Noah took two of every animal with him (two of every beetle alone would have killed that idea.) And the creation story is not as well aligned as I would like, as it is too geocentric. In it, God created the heavens, then the Earth, then the Sun.
But none of this should be material to studying the Bible. The Jews themselves generally regard the Bible in figurative terms. It’s an strange (though widespread) brand of Christianity who can accept the constant use of parables by the incarnate God, but cannot accept that the same God might have used the same type of story-telling in the Old Testament.
The Bible is of value to the studies of history, anthropology, and philosophy as a repository of historical records, descriptions of customs and law, codes of conduct, codes of morality, poetry, and beliefs about the nature of man and his place in the Universe. It is also a testament to the value of writing. Consider a relatively small kingdom/empire among empires, often at war, and eventually exiled. Exiling the upper classes of a nation was an extremely effective method of destroying that nation and its culture. But a small group of those exiled to Babylon, knowing that their culture was likely doomed to this fate, determined to band together, separate themselves culturally from the Babylonians, and write down their oral traditions (borrowing heavily from their Babylonian hosts.) It is the static nature of that written record that has allowed the Jews to persist as a culture for millennia while stronger and more remarkable nations have long since been lost. There’s a lesson not to be forgotten, and a victory for the written word not to be rivaled until the printing of the Gutenberg Bible.
All that being said, the stories of the Bible are of no use in advancing or guiding the hard sciences, which rely on observations to arrive at truths. What did I read on xkcd.com? “You don’t use science to show that you’re right, you use science to become right.” Approaching science with a biblical “truth” is a case of using science to show that you’re right. But it is incumbent upon a scientist to be no more biased by an openness to religion that he is by a rejection of it. Science should not care if God is responsible for truth, or whether there is an ancient record of a truth, only what that truth is, arrived at by unbiased observation. I don’t mind if a scientist is a Christian, a Buddhist, an Agnostic, a Gnostic, a Pagan, a Deist, a Muslim, or Mormon, as long as he can approach his science unbiased by his religion.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 9:41 am
@ Leg – First it is highly unlikely that the Biblical (and other) stories of the Flood have anything at all to do with melting after the Ice Age, nevertheless this stands as a well-formed hypothesis, and can be examined as such scientifically. To the best of my knowledge however, no evidence for this exists, and certainly a great deal of work has been done in the field of diluvial geology such that one would think that this would have come up if there was any. It has been pointed out that much of the ancient population lived near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods could be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology and this stands as a more likely explanation for these stories.
Your personal delusions are, of course, your own affair and I certainly could not care less – as long as you keep them to yourself. However I am free to judge you by them and frankly that you do chose to believe such things without proof does speak to your credibility in other domains, and that holds true of anyone else with similar predilections. It also becomes my business when those holding these notions apply them in matters which which have an impact on me, such as public policy including using publicly funded schools to transmit them. And yes, that you and others like you cannot accept the fact in the face of overwhelming evidence that one day you will not exist and have to salve your fears of this with fairy-tales is a sign of cowardness in opinion. So sue me.
It is ludicrous to make the claim that humanists and atheists have problems with questions ethical conduct. Certainly the former have made more inroads into that area than any religion has and has done so by applying logic and reason rather than producing arbitrary lists of required behaviour enforceable by the wrath of some unseen being or the illusion of some future reward after death. And as you assert that the religious are no better than atheists in this domain you are simply begging the question. Quite frankly it is my observation we are far more concerned with our own morals and ethics than any religious person I know, most of whom seem more interested in finding fault in others while being blind to their own shortcomings in this regard.
The real amusing thing in my opinion with these arguments is that they presuppose that scripture was written under divine revelation, again a notion that persists without a shred of proof. As this cannot be established the only rational conclusion is that they are just as much works of the human mind as any humanist text and as such can be judged and found wanting on their content alone. The body of work produced those old Bronze Age scribes cannot hold a candle to those done by by the great secular humanists since.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
DV8
You are about the only atheist, I have interacted with, who is well steeped in the humanities and you make solid arguements for atheism. I really respect that and want to get more insight into atheistic philosophy as practiced by today’s atheists. But could you do me a favor and knock it off with the angry, acerbic, and bullying comments. They diminish your well thought out arguements.
I am busy for the next couple days but hope to get back to your last comments as soon as I can. But a quick response to this line: “…cannot accept the fact … that one day you will not exist”. I made my peace, and acceptance, to that fact a long time ago in the jungles of Nam.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Leg said:
The evidence indicates that those who don’t have a religion tend to do better on that then the religious.
Leg said:
That’s irrelevant. There may not even be an answer anyway.
Leg said:
So almost getting killed (and presumably seeing other people get killed) somehow makes you think there is a god?
Leg said:
Be glad you missed him.
Previous postings on him here can be read at http://depletedcranium.com/sorry-if-your-comment-doesnt-show/ and http://depletedcranium.com/dennis-markuze-arrested/
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Leg said:
No, I will not, and this is why: If an adult with an otherwise sound mind states that he believes in Jehovah, who lives in Heaven surrounded by angels and that this Jehovah monitors the behavior of humans on Earth, rewarding those that are good and punishing those that are evil, I’m expected to respect this view and defer to it as culturally acceptable. HOWEVER, if we substitute in the words Santa Claus, North Pole and elves into the same belief structure of an otherwise rational adult, no one would criticize me for ridiculing this notion. Yet there is no more evidentiary proof for the former than there is for the later. This type of hypocrisy does not sit well with me at all, and I will not grant any latitude to those that follow an established faith simply because that mythos has some historical precedence over newer ones.
Furthermore, the religious almost always feel they are entitled to voice an opinion over what they believe is the probable fate of those that do not follow their chosen path, and are quick to suggest hidden motives for our non-belief. Consequently I claim the same right for myself. If you don’t like that, and do not wish to engage with me over it, that is your choice, but ask yourself is it because you dislike my tone, as you assert, or is it really because what I write hits a nerve. And be honest with yourself – few that have tried to compartmentalize their faith while otherwise behaving rationally can take it when someone else starts knocking the barrier down and starts shinning a light on to the logical underpinnings of what they believe – and that is just what I am doing when I suggest that your faith is driven by fear.
Quote Comment
September 7th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Leg said:
I agree with you to some extent, and we certainly should always have some level of question of any theory, regardless of how well established it is.
However, pushing creationism is almost always done for reasons other than valid scientific critique. The “Creation science” groups are a transparent effort to push someone’s beliefs into the science classroom so they can be taught with taxpayer money. Notice the arguments are always for a “creator” and not “creators.” It’s mainstream Christianity wrapped in scientific jargon to try to sneak it into the public education system.
To ask “Why are we here” or “What is the greater meaning” is fine, but not really a question for the science department.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 5:32 am
Buzzo: Those were the points I was trying to make. If you note, I never said creationism should be taught in schools, nor do I think it should be.
It may be a character flaw, but I enjoy twitting zealots whether religious/non-religious or liberal/conservative. I am having fun stirring the waters and watching DV8 and Anon in full attack mode. I hope to learn something from such interactions, and usually do. Neither have seen me twit a religious zealot, but I do.
DV8: ALL I am asking for is civility. I have said it before, I’ll say it again: I enjoy your arguements. However when you resort to cutting remarks, you lose me. In debate, if a person resorts to name-calling it usually means a nerve has been struck and their argument is weak. With you, in one paragraph I am saying, “Great arguement”, then the next minute I am saying, “Whoa, angry remark! Loss of rationality. Lose a point.” I know you can do better.
Re # 35, first paragraph: Correct me if I am wrong, but I am taking away from this that you view atheism is a faith. As I see faith related things in Humanism (what I see as the basis for atheism), I’ve contended that atheism is a faith. Knowing you are better at philosophy than I am, I’m curious as to your thoughts on this.
Re the second paragraph: Have I ever suggested a hidden motive in your beliefs or that you will suffer a bad fate if you do not believe as I do? Having an affinity for cantankerous people, I hope your fate is a good one up to your demise. After that, it is either a moot point (your view) or who knows (my view). After 25 years of refereeing fairly high levels of soccer, it is rare that an insult will get to me. The fact is, it bugs me when you throw an insult because I see it as a sign of weakness and I much prefer strong opposition – I learn more that way.
Anon: Okay, you prodded me enough to read Zuckerman’s paper. My two word critique: confirmation bias. Recently I was prodded into reading some Texas university sociologist who “proved” children of gay parents have a harder time in life. I gave the same critique. Geez I hate sociology. Every two bit idiot has to prove his/her point of view and invariably uses piss-poor statistical work to “prove” it plus making sure to bash the other side.
There is a theory I only know as the death/dying theory. Taught to me by my brother, a Jesuit priest (DV8 will love that!), it essentially describes the emotional and mental stages of those who are facing death. The main stages I remember are: anger, denial, recognition and acceptance. Getting past the first two stages is difficult for many. He pointed out that my emotional and mental responses to my Nam experience were a form of this theory. I had come to an acceptance of death. Time and time again, I’ve asked myself the question as to why this led me to cement a belief in God. My honest answer, I don’t know. It just did. I had no visions nor heard voices, but at the end of the three month process I both accepted death and God (I actually had some pretty nasty things to say about God early on in the process). I hope you do not have to go through the process because I can tell you it is not fun.
Now I also had the experience of working with dying people during my career. The profound and wonderful changes seen in those who came to the acceptance of death marvelled me. Those who got stuck in anger or denial, I could only pity. The theory, when adapted to everyday life, is remarkable for you can quickly recognize the emotions in yourself and move to an acceptance/solution. Ever stuck in a job you did not like? When you apply the theory and move quickly through the anger/denial stages, you can move on to a different job with ease. Worked for me.
I would like to ask a favor. Please never be cavalier in mentioning the taking of life to any soldier who may have participated in combat. If the soldier is anything like me, the memories are wounds that have to be salved every single ensuing day of his/her life. I take no umbrage with you this time.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 11:11 am
@Leg- This is a public debate, in a public forum, not a private conversation and therefore I write for a broader audience making my points more stridently than if we were exchanging e-mail. The observation about the attitudes of the religious in debate was a general one, as many other statements I made, and you should not assume they were directed at you personally.
Categorically I can state that atheism is the absence of faith, not a faith in and of itself. This is a tired argument that deists often try and use in debate in an attempt to imply that we are also holding a belief that is just as devoid of evidential foundation as their notions are. Nor is Humanism the at the root of atheism per se. While certainly Secular Humanism is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality, there are schools of Religious Humanism that take the position that religions taught important truths about the world, albeit these truths were expressed through metaphors that are not always suited to modern understanding. While I reject this latter view clearly Humanism can encompass deist ideas.
In the end it is the rejection of the supernatural and the requirement that testable proof be offered for any claimed explanation of how the universe works that defines an atheist. What other philosophies he/she may choose to value are judged by these criterion: they don’t generate them. As well Humanism is a very broad term with several schools of thought which are not always in full agreement; I tend towards Utilitarianism and don’t think much of Ethical Egoism, for example, yet both are certainly part of mainstream Humanism.
The Five Stages of Grief are known as the Kübler-Ross model includes denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance in no defined sequence. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross was a psychiatrist who explored the physiology of death and dying and wrote extensively on the subject. The Five Stages of Grief were introduced in her book: On Death and Dying. (1969) She was not a Secular Humanist as she also had some strange ideas about transmigration of the soul.
If you are arguing that religion has utility because it provides comfort to the dying the fact is that the same thing can be accomplished with narcotics and I might add with higher guarantee of success. The conceit that somehow faith is better is still based on the assumption that there is some truth underlying it, and again there is just no evidence that this is so. The evil monster that was Mother Teresa embodied this and condemned those in her hospices to the worst sort of deaths in the opinion that this was their best way of finding grace. Frankly I see more than a little of this sort of thinking in what you wrote and I am not impressed.
If you fought in Vietnam them you are at least as old as I am which is to say we are on the wrong side of sixty and can’t hide from the fact that there are more years behind us than ahead so what follows is not the opinion of a callow youth. I can appreciate that you suffered through some traumatic experiences in combat, and while I cannot fully appreciate what that means, I can surmise that it would render anyone exposed very venerable physiologically, and not just for the duration of the event. Now if you claim to follow science and accept rationality as the route to truth, you cannot reject the likelihood that your faith is product of that trauma with its roots in the fears that caused it. In my opinion failure to do so is delusional.
My problem is with those holding these delusions acting upon them in ways that impact me, simply because they are ideas with no foundation in reality. The bottom line is that these ideas are accepted without proof or any evidence outside of what the individual sees in their own mind. When they act on them, those actions do not reflect reality but instead their own imaginations. It is easy to see this with the extreme outliers who engage in mass suicide and other outrages, but the fact is that damage is done at all levels and yes that includes those who use it to deal with their participation in war. Strip away the illusion of a caring god and the possibility of an immortal soul from everyone and I suspect there would be little stomach for dirty little neo-colonial wars.
Finally you would be better off marshaling your own arguments rather than making demand on how we present ours.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Actually Legs throws in the two cliches that are always directed at athiests.
1. We have no concept of morality.
I don’t kill, steal because I know it’s wrong. That is morality. His argument is that the only reason he doesn’t do it is because he’s frightened of his god.
2. Atheism is a belief in itself.
Someone once said that athiesm is no more a faith than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
One final note. There are athiests in foxholes. Four wars I’ve been involved in destroyed any, however tenuous, belief I may have had in an invisible sky wizard.
If that seems a little angry, good.
I lost good mates who were far more devout than I.
So did you.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
DV8 – Thanks. I concur with your last sentence for sure, though I would deny making a demand on how you present your arguments – it was a request. I appreciate your honoring the request in this last posting. I need to ponder your points. To end on a humorous note for now: I know it was a misstatement on your part, but at my age I appreciate being told I have a venerable physiology, though I am not so delusional as to believe it.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
leg said:
It wasn’t a misstatement it was a typo that the damned auto-correct spellcheck to upon itself to change – of course the word was supposed to be ‘vulnerable’, nor I might add did I make any effort to change my tone, although my remark was in response to what you wrote to Anon as well.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
DV82XL said:
…just a name. Names tend to stick to things long after the fundamental nature of that thing has changed (I should say “evolved”) or our understanding of it profoundly has become profoundly smarter. The Theory of Special Relativity is just plain fact these days, although back in Einstein’s time the whole subject was open for debate to be settled by experiment.
At any point in time, subject areas like Nuclear Theory have a mix of well-established ideas, tentative ideas, and even a few wrong ideas. The latter fade out while good ideas become more solid. Physicists in real life don’t bother too much with if an idea or subject area is called “theory” or otherwise. If we were strict about terminology, at exactly what point in time do we official call some Theory now a Principle or Law or something else? It’s not well-defined.
As a physicist not a biologist, I can only assume the same is true there.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Daren Scot Wilson said:
Demagogues flogging creationist ideas on the other hand have often tried to confound the matter by implying that Evolutionary Theory is still somehow conjectural by leveraging the term and that needs to be corrected whenever someone tries to do it.
Apologists for science hate to assert ideas as stridently as they should because as scientists we are trained to always leave some room for doubt. However this is often used against us and we need to be on guard in areas such as this so that real gains in understanding are not pushed back by those who are wrong, but utterly sure of themselves in their error.
Quote Comment