Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
“Who Dies in Harry Potter? God.” Um, no.
[SPOILER ALERT - this post contains information about the final book in the Harry Potter series which some may consider spoilers. You've been warned.]
A good friend sends me links to book reviews. She knows that I don't generally read book reviews, but every so often will see one that she thinks might tempt me, and passes it along. Every once in a while I'll actually be interested enough to read one of the reviews she sends.
That was the case when I saw a link to a piece by TIME Magazine's book reviewer, Lev Grossman, a couple of weeks ago which was titled "Who Dies in Harry Potter? God." Given that this piece was published about 9 days before the last Harry Potter book was to be released, I thought it curious that the writer was making such a claim. So I read it.
It is an odd piece. I say that having read it four or five times. Here's the relevant bit:
Rowling's work is so familiar that we've forgotten how radical it really is. Look at her literary forebears. In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien fused his ardent Catholicism with a deep, nostalgic love for the unspoiled English landscape. C.S. Lewis was a devout Anglican whose Chronicles of Narnia forms an extended argument for Christian faith. Now look at Rowling's books. What's missing? If you want to know who dies in Harry Potter, the answer is easy: God.
And he ends his piece with this prediction:
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He'll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan's Land. It's unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
OK, Grossman sure got *that* wrong. But in his actual review of the book, published July 21, he once again makes the assertion that JK Rowling has eliminated God, in this passage:
Her insistence on this point is a reflection of the cosmology of the Potterverse: there are no higher powers in residence there. The attic and the basement are empty. There may be an afterlife, and ghosts, but there is certainly no God, and no devil. There are also no immortal, all-wise elves, as in Tolkien, nor are there any mysticalMaiar, which is what Gandalf was (what, you thought he was human? Genealogically speaking, he's closer to a balrog than he is to a man.) There is certainly no benevolent, paternal Aslan to turn up late in the book and fight the Big Bad. The essential problem in Rowling's books is how to love in the face of death, and her characters must arrive at the solution all on their own, hand-to-hand, at street level, with bleeding knuckles and gritted teeth, and then sweep up the rubble afterwards.
I haven't read either of the two novels that Grossman has written. And, as noted, I don't read book reviews except very rarely and don't believe I've ever read one of his. So I can't say what his thoughts are on God and whether he intends this as a slam or not. But I have to say that I am not in the least bit bothered by the fact thatJK Rowling doesn't turn to a super magic man to resolve things, and instead forces her characters to come up with their own solutions - to grow, struggle, and learn and then to live with the consequences of their choices. This is exactly the reason I have said all along that these books are not 'children's books' in the usual sense.
Perhaps it is a commentary on how our society has changed since the time of Tolkien and Lewis that these books are different in this fundamental way, and are yet so phenomenally popular. But I don't see it. Religion has a stronger hold on our culture here in America than it did some 50 years ago, and there have been concerted efforts by the far fringe faithful to ban the Harry Potter books from schools and libraries on the basis of them promoting witchcraft. No, I don't think that Rowling has tapped into some kind of anti-religious Zeitgeist. Rather, she has told her tale with amazing skill, and has left plenty of room for belief or non-belief in the background, where it belongs. While many people of faith use that belief as a crutch, that is not a fundamental aspect of religion, nor is it an excuse for not growing up and dealing with the world in mature terms. We, all of us, people of faith and no faith, have to be responsible for the here and now, have to make difficult choices and live with the consequences. That is the pre-eminent message of the entire Harry Potter series, and I was very glad to see that Rowling did not shy away from maintaining that message to the very end.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to my blog.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
One sign of a good author
is writing a story that is complex enough that it allows for multiple possible interpretations, as Rowling has done. One example is the line about how just because it was in his head doesn't mean it's not real -- that's not only a clever line, but it is bound to be taken different ways by different people.
After reading that article I feel like Jeffrey Weiss has laid out a fantastic case to demonstrate that the Harry Potter series is fundamentally secular. Then his examples of Christian themes seem reached to the point of absurdity (admittedly I may be biased). The only point he makes that is compelling is the fact that Rowling self-identifies as Christian, thus one might expect to find Christian themes in her writings about life and death. But I don't think Christian themes are obvious from the text alone.
The idea of giving one's life for others and the device of having a character learn in a "near death experience" that it's not his time yet -- these are common in literature. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to suggest that a story that contains these must necessarily be a reference to the Jesus story.
As far as the Biblical quote about conquering death is concerned, unless I was reading a different book I'd say the point was that attempting to conquer death was the problem. This whole series presents accepting the finality of death as a virtue; nowhere does it praise the quest for immortality. Lingering and continuing in spirit form after your time is up is shown as inability to acheive closure and move on. That's why I knew Dumbledore wouldn't come back like Obi Wan Kenobi the save Harry or guide him at a critical moment.
JK
I read all 7 books, some of them a couple of times. I think I'm probably hypersensitive to religious themes and background proselytizing ... yet I didn't find anything of the sort in the Potterverse. I picked up nothing.
Other than the noble traits the characters displayed, traits which Christians typically include as characteristic of their religion (rather than what they really are, broad HUMAN traits), there just wasn't anything overtly religious in the series.
I haven't read that much about Rowling, but ...
If I were a budding author facing a billion-dollar run for a series of books I was working on, and an interviewer asked me about my religion, I would automatically say I was a Christian.
Why spark the hate you'd face if you said anything else?
That's a good point, but
if she says she's Christian, I'm not going to second-guess her on it. Really, she's already rich and popular enough that she can get away with saying whatever she wants, so if she were an atheist, it seems like she'd admit it.
Rowling struggles...
My good lady wife passed along the following:
This is from an online transcript of the looooong interview of JKR by Meredith Vieira on NBC. Thought you might be interested in this exchange:
> Young voice: Harry's also referred to as the chosen one. So are there religious--
> J.K. Rowling: Well, there-- there clearly is a religious-- undertone. And-- it's always been difficult to talk about that because until we reached Book Seven, views of what happens after death and so on, it would give away a lot of what was coming. So … yes, my belief and my struggling with religious belief and so on I think is quite apparent in this book.
>
> Meredith Vieira: And what is the struggle?
> J.K. Rowling: Well my struggle really is to keep believing.
> Meredith Vieira: To keep believing?
> J.K. Rowling: Yes.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Wow, that's cool...
If she changes her story and comes out as an atheist, I won't complain. ;^) But, like I said, as long as she self-identifies as Christian, I won't second-guess her on it. Even though her magical universe seems decidedly more secular to me than some other speculative fiction that seems to bow to a god or gods...
Harry Potter and God
Christians will insist on seeing God in everything. (And pandering parasites like Grossman will egg them on like carnival barkers, so they can keep getting a paycheck.)
As a Harry Potter fan -- at least to the point that I've bought and read and enjoyed all seven of the books -- I've listened in faint disbelief each time the rare idiots brought up the supposed satanic nature of the stories.
Main characters in the Potterverse display self-sacrifice, trust, love, devotion to friends, family loyalty, perseverance in the face of adversity, resistance to evil ... and yet some religious nitwit always has to leap into the spotlight to claim the stories are somehow deeply wicked.
Such claims are stupid and wrong, and, really, the only reason such people even GET into the news is because everybody sane knows it. They get into the news specifically because they're distasteful curiosities, embarrassments to normal people. The stories are part sticky-nasty voyeur pieces ("Can you BELIEVE there are people still like this?"), part "This is what you DON'T want to grow up to be" cautionary tales.
Another perspective...
...this time from the religion reporter for the Dallas Morning News can be found here: Jeffrey Weiss: Christian themes abound in Potter
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Christian themes
I notice this Jeffrey Weiss piece is on the Religion page. It's a complete no-brainer that a writer here would cast Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling in terms of godly belief.
However ...
I've said many times that one of my strong reservations about religion is that its black-hole-level gravity sucks all debate in its direction, and crushes original thought. In this case, the writer has to sell the religious idea that "Most of the themes in Harry's saga are common to many faiths: loyalty, love, friendship, courage, maturity, sacrifice, moral judgment."
He avoids like the plague -- or possibly has never even considered -- the idea that those same values predate organized religions, and exist comfortably outside religions, in people who have no faith at all, even in those who detest the very existence of such mind-bending faith in the societies around them.
And ... I continue to be faintly insulted by the thoughtless insinuations built into such a statement: You'd never find loyalty in atheists. They lack the capacity for love. Friendship, courage, sacrifice? -- nope, not here. Maturity? Moral judgment? OH, NO, not in those childish, fornicating unbelievers.
Yeah. I can imagine this same guy blithely saying we should steer all our little girls away from math, because it's much too hard for their fluffy little heads.
Quite interesting
I've not read any of the Potter works (I never read fiction at all--not my cup of tea), so I can't speak intelligently to this. I have a preconceived notion, however, that if Lewis knew that Weiss was connecting dots with the underpinnings of Potter and Narnia he might be rolling over right now.
Lewis is a good example of what I had said in my last post about evidence and prejudice. Lewis referred to himself when turning to Christ as the most "dejected and reluctant convert in all England." Nonetheless, he felt compelled by the evidence to jettison his former biases.
It would be interesting to hear what his friends Chesterton and Tolkien would have said about Weiss' assessment had they known Rowling.
-Col.
Perspective.
You know, I can't wrap my head around that. Why on earth not? No accusation there, just a complete failure to understand the perspective. Do you likewise avoid other forms of fiction (TV, movies...news)? Just curious.
Lewis was a talented writer, and loved a good turn of phrase in support of his arguments. Just because he said he was the most "dejected and reluctant convert in all England" does not make it so.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I recognize it's a flaw
I don't feel you're being accusatory at all.
In reality, I should read fiction, and I know it. When I have (had to for undergrad school), I've enjoyed it.
I honestly think part of it goes back to my childhood; I always wanted to go outside and "do" stuff, while my brother was always reading. I therefore had to play alone. Also, I had teachers that made reading a hurdle to get past, not a journey to enjoy.
I do read. Often I have 4 to 5 books going at one time. Just not fiction. I've often wanted to tell you that I'd read your book. I haven't, simply because I don't have the will-power to get started. If I did start, I'm sure I'd get enjoyment from it. Even with movies, I like the shorter ones best. And, I like to know the end before I watch them. Maybe Hank is right. I'm insane.
Gotta' agree on the fictional nature of much "news"; I've often told people I read the "wire" as the opinion page, and go to the letters to the editor to get the genuine news.
Do you think there were other converts in England that were even more dejected and reluctant? Just kidding. :-)
-Col.
And that would be a problem because... why?
So God dies? Good riddance. Belief in a god keeps people in a childlike state of dependency. God is a projection of the all-powerful parent who sees all, scolds the child when it misbehaves, but also protects it from the consequences of mistakes and poor choices. Growing up is all about leaving behind such childish ideas of a god/Santa Claus. You can still be a spiritual person but you have to realize that it's up to you how to live your life.
Another point: JK Rowling says that the series is very much about death. Voldermort ("Vol de mort", flight from death) wants to conquer death and live forever. But the point is made in the last book (I don't think this is too much of a spoiler) that the only way to be master of death is to accept its inevitability, to treat death as an equal and an old friend, as in the tale of the three brothers.
The Christian obsession with living forever strikes me as another aspect of their immaturity. They whine that a life that doesn't last forever is worthless. Is a Beethoven symphony worthless because it also doesn't last forever? Is a Rembrandt worthless because it doesn't cover an infinite area? On the contrary it is the very finiteness of our lives that make them meaningful.
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!
Very well put.
You know, that very nicely expresses something that I had been thinking for some time, but had not clarified to such a simple sentiment. Thank you.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The psychology of worldview
It's interesting to see the tack taken by various scholars on this point. "No more Mr. Nice Guy" refers to anyone without his own worldview as having immaturity. However, this can clearly go both ways. There has been some ink spilled over those atheists who don't want to have to square with an Ultimate Authority. This, too, like blind pie-in-the-sky theism is quite immature. Often, swords cut both ways.
On the main point, however, that of God's "death", the short story by Nietzsche (aptly entitled "The Madman" given how he himself died) always comes to my mind. Nietzsche pictured with his sharp pen what such would do to the world were men ever to see it realized:
"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: 'I am looking for God! I am looking for God!' As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. 'Have you lost him, then?' said one. 'Did he lose his way like a child?' said another. 'Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated?' Thus they shouted and laughed.
The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. 'Where has God gone?' he cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed....'
Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out.”
-Col.
Again and again
Col, every time I read one of your posts, it feels indefinably "off."
I imagine you might be speaking here of some subset of people who call themselves "atheists" who are unconsciously avoiding dealing with a god they actually believe in.
But what I believe is that you really don't get that atheists, the main body of them, aren't worried about "squaring with an Ultimate Authority," because they understand that nothing like that exists.
I fancy that you resist considering that such people are all around you, lucid and sane -- definitely saner than those who insist on "believing" -- and CONTENT to be so.
...
And quoting Nietzsche for three paragraphs is just grandstanding.
...
The rest of yez, this was good: The Delusion of Religions.
Defining moments
Hank, I do know there are people like yourself.
I also know that people like Paul C. Vitz, a professor of psychology at New York University, believes that some of those who believe like you do, do so for reasons that are sometimes unconscious or subconscious. Not everyone, but some. That was part of the point, if you'll actually read my post: painting with a broad brush is ludicrous and dangerous.
Vitz' book has made ripples through the academic community as well as the media. Clearly no one in a group as kaleidoscopic as atheists can be defined with sweeping terms. But this goes for those who believe in God, too, Hank. Sorry. You or I are no saner than the other because we stamp our little feet and say it's so because I say it's so. If you're questioning the sanity of the vast majority of people because they understand things differently from you, I would say that hasn't happened much since the 1970s USSR. Your personal dogma that those who believe differently from you are cerebrally inferior does smack, just a bit, of self-referentialism and even the gulag.
I've read here that this is a site for free-thinkers. I'm glad that's the case. I think you will agree with me that if anyone here believes they are so close to omniscience that they no longer have to evaluate ideas critically, it would be a shame. That is what would truly be a bit off, and definably so.
The Nietzsche story was just cool, I thought. Grandstands are for football.
I enjoy my dialogue here, Hank. I've learned a lot. I'm a better person for spending time here. I've understood my own pitiful arrogance more clearly. I try hard, I think you will admit, not to be a flamethrower. But I would wish I could be treated in kind. I don't want to anger, but to be a healthy contributor. If I have failed at that, or am not welcome here, let me know, and I will leave. Sadly, but I will do so.
Best wishes~
Col.
Immaturity
Colonel-
I for one, hope you feel welcome and stick around for further discussions. I have major disagreements with your comments in this thread but that doesn't mean your views are too painful to consider. Like you, I am not a Potter fan, but this has turned into a very interesting post. Lot's to think about.
These sentences of yours bothered me a great deal:
Whoever spilled that ink doesn't understand the first thing about me or atheist's like me. They just don't get that I don't believe in a 'ultimate authority'. I am the ultimate authority. It's up to me to be a good person or not. I am my own judge. You can judge me if you want and others can judge me, but at the end of the day, what really matters is what I think. Aren't we all self-centered in that way? Is that immaturity or blunt honesty?
I really liked No More Mr. Nice Guy's analogy about the immaturity of afterlife hopes. From my point of view, life is a cycle. If we were immortal, we as humans would not be human. We would not enjoy or appreciate our acquaintances and experiences if they were unlimited. For example, my dog Samantha is 15 now. She can't hear, limps, has skin problems and sleeps 23 hours a day, but I appreciate her company now more than ever. Maybe it's because I know the end is very near? It's very sad, but I know death is part of life. It would be immature for me to comfort myself by believing Sam is going to doggy heaven. When she dies, I will bury her. Eventually her body will disintegrate and become another form of energy- worm food. Other creatures will eat the worms and create new life. In that sense Sam is immortal. She will always be part of this universe in some form or another. Sam is going to die and I am okay with that. I find comfort in understanding the cycle of life.
I think very much the way Hank does. I don't mean to insult you, but it almost seems like believers suffer from a type of mental illness. How is it that one could choose faith over reason? I just don't understand. How does wishful thinking of an afterlife override the cycle of life you see happening around you everyday? Have you ever had a dog? Do you think your deceased dog exists is in heaven and is waiting for you right now? I'm guessing the answer is no. That would be wishful thinking? If there is no heaven for dogs, why would there be heaven for humans? It's just not natural. I have to think that somewhere deep down you know it's not true. There is no god. There is no heaven. But it's too painful, too frustrating and too depressing for you to admit to yourself that when we die, that's it. The end. Now do you understand why I would think you are immature for believing in god and an afterlife?
Sorry for butting in to your conversation with Hank, but you have some very strange ideas about what atheists think. This was just weird:
It's almost like you seek out psychological explanations for my belief system. As if you can't believe that I really don't believe in god. That god exists to me, but I am just suppressing him and lying to myself. Let me be clear: you are wrong. I don't believe. Even though I was raised as a Lutheran, I don't think I ever really believed. I have asked my father about it and he says I have always been a skeptic. He says I have always asked the hard questions and was unsatisfied with the theistic answers, even as a small child.
In fairness, earlier in this post, I stated that I think you really don't believe. So I would be a hypocrite if I didn't recognize that I am psychoanalyzing you as well.
Sorry, I know this post is rambling and all over the place, but I joined the conversation late. Anyway, again I want to say even thought we mostly disagree, I do appreciate your perspective and thoughtfulness.
Dirk
Authority
I am the ultimate authority. It's up to me to be a good person or not. I am my own judge.
Hi Dirk. I feel that it is useful--we're not talking truth, but utility--that one recognizes a higher authority. 'I am the ultimate authority' frankly gives me the creeps and conjures memories of despots and such, and we've had some here in the Philippines. It begs the question, What makes you think youre right?
If I were an atheist I would recognize nature's laws as an authority higher than I. It is never wise to go against the laws of nature. You can't win. If, as I believe, and as the founders of your country believed, that our moral laws and our rights are laws of nature, then wouldnt it be useful to believe that as well? Who knows? It might even be true.
Im a theist, so I not only recognize the laws of nature, but also recognize Nature's God as the signatories of the American declaration of independence did, in their own individual ways. An atheist I think would do well to recognize the laws of nature even if they do not acknowledge an authority higher than that. What do you think?
Jeg- I hear you and I agree
Jeg-
I hear you and I agree with what you are saying. Maybe I wasn't clear. In a contest of man vs nature, nature usually wins. However, that is not really what I was talking about. When I say "I am the ultimate authority", I am talking about my morality. I know the difference between right and wrong. Nature doesn't. If I killed someone, nature wouldn't care, but my conscience would. The guilt would tear me up inside. I certainly didn't mean to sound like an evil dictator, I was just talking about myself. I am the ultimate authority over myself. I would never consider myself to be the ultimate authority over you or any other person.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. Are you refering to the part of the our Declaration of Independance where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."?
Those are beautiful words aren't they. Do you folks in the Phillippines have anything like this? I know, I know. I am aware of the "Creator" part. It really is pretty general and non specific. Also, to put it in context, here is the very next sentance: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
In terms of the United States of America as my ultimate authority, yes it is. I am bound by our laws as a citizen of this nation. And yes I believe in this document whole heartedly. I am a very patriotic American.
I am surprised you know about our Declaration. I am sorry, I know very little about the Phillippines. Did I answer your questions? I hope so, but if not please be more specific and I will try again.
Dirk
Yes you did
You did answer my question. Thanks. I suppose my comment was just a knee-jerk reaction to 'I am the ultimate authority.' We can't all be the ultimate authority over others.
As for the Philippines, our society is pretty much patterned after yours. The Philippines was, if Im not mistaken, the first American colony. The relationship was bloody at first, but it all worked out in the end, I think.
Don't be sorry at all.
Dirk, I like your posts. Don't be sorry!
I hope you understand that in the original post, I was in no way placing all atheists in the same basket. In fact, I was fighting that very thing from the side of Nice Guy. He had stated that belief in an afterlife was an aspect of Christian immaturity. That is quite a blanket statement with a very, very broad brush. To state universally that Christians need their "Daddy" makes as much sense as saying that all atheists are running from something. It cuts both ways if one is using universal language. It is true that some Christians just want there to be an afterlife to fill some emotional need they have. But it is equally true that SOME atheists don't want to believe. I know this is true because they have said so. Aldous Huxley is one famous example. Am I putting you in this category? Absolutely not. I think you hold your position because you believe it is the most reasonable one.
But here is where I'd like to see your mind stretch just a bit. Not to swallow my position, but to just grasp that there are those who believe in God who do so specifically because they think it is, by far, the most rational position they can take. It doesn't make them correct, but to paint the whole lot of theists as blind-faith-based is quite an uninformed position. There are many, many very highly erudite men that have become theists specifically because of the evidence. Many, like Lewis, Einstein and others changed views very begrudgingly. This, again, does not make them correct, but it surely seems to grant that the evidence is not such that only cerebrally inferior people believe it. A theist may well respond with the fact that the evidence is such that very few people, per capita, are atheists, and therefore the evidence for atheism is severely wanting. This would take us down another path, but I'm simply trying to show that the atheist position cannot reasonably claim to have a lock-lease on reality.
I run the risk of sounding like I know your life's experiences here, and I don't mean that. But it does seem as though your path has crossed quite a bit with Christians who hadn't given any thought to their worldview. I'll be the first to admit these kinds of people can sour someone on the Christian position simply by association. If you have seen this quite a bit, it grieves me, because I no more want them representing all theists than you want me to think of all atheists with the caricatures with which they have often been painted.
Dirk, I have been studying my worldview on a daily basis for well over 2 decades. I have also qualified in a pre-exam for Mensa--a fact that I mention ONLY trying to make a point, not to be some kind of grandstander. The point is that, though I have all kinds of blindspots, I am not just a complete and utter imbecile. Yet those two plus decades have driven me relentlessly to belief in God. For me, it is rationally inescapable. It doesn't make me right, and there are atheists that are more intelligent than I, but please note that I am what I am because of reason, not blind faith.
Yeah, I'm a dog lover. Have a great Yellow Lab right now named Misti. It's where my email name comes from. She's one of my best friends! We had a German Shorthair (more than one, actually) that was blind toward the end of her life. Even with that, she still loved pheasant hunting with us. As long as she could hear us speaking to her, she could flush fine. The old schnozzle still worked as good as ever. She couldn't retrieve, of course, because she couldn't see where the bird went down. But she sure loved it anyway!
I'm a bit long here, too. Sorry. It does pain me, however, to hear such blanket accusations thrown over theists, just like it pains you in the other direction. I believe atheism is an intellectually inferior position. You believe mine is. Courteous dialogue as you have taken part in is the way to understand each other better. Some may not want to understand, and that is really sad. You, however, seem to be more open minded, and I hope I strike you that way as well.
All the best~
Col.
Curious...
Col., I'm curious...at several junctures you've raised the question of intelligence vis-a-vis belief & non-belief, and cited your own intelligence as well as invoking intellectuals/scientists/philosophers. It may not be intended this way, but it comes off somewhat like you're defensive about this. Do you feel this way? If so, why?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Personally? No.
Thanks, Jim. No, I don't feel that way, however one must consider whose stadium we're playing in at UTI. I'm the only one here from the visiting team, whereas there are many of you. Further, time and again posters here incendiarily refer to the idiocy of theists, how they have immaturity, how they're borderline mental patients, etc. I can't throw it back at them for multiple reasons, among which are: it wouldn't advance anything, it would be counter to my own worldview (hypocrisy), and I would be giving Vox Day and those like him aid and comfort. Thus, since I can't toss back the grenades thrown in my direction, what can I do? How can I dialogue with a group among whom are those that actually think of themselves as mentally superior? Since I refrain from responding in kind, I'm left with simply showing that their position (in at least this one regard) is fallacious.
This does, however, place me at the crossfire of "You're all imbeciles."
"No, we're not, and here's the evidence."
"Okay, you're arrogant instead. Or paranoid."
:-)
One could ask if there are some posters at this site that seem to protest too much. Do they feel threatened? I hope not. I hope they feel part of a thinking community.
-Col.
I'm not talking about them.
Col.,
Thanks, but I guess I didn't make myself clear. (And, contrary to the earlier conversation, I *much* prefer written communication to verbal - easier to compose my thoughts, refer back and see what people said, et cetera). In this regard, I don't really care about others here - I'm not talking about them. I'm just curious why you have initiated discussion of the matter of 'intelligence' at several different junctures with regards to belief or non-belief.
I thought I had made it clear previously, but to sum up for the sake of argument: some of the smartest people I know are believers. That is to say, believers of something akin to what I gather are your theistic beliefs, not the simplistic "Big Magic Sky Daddy will make it rain if we pray enough" (to reference my later post). I do not make any assumptions about intelligence and the ability to believe.
I do note that you have raised the matter in ways which seem somewhat defensive. And, to reiterate, I'm curious about that. Do you feel that all believers are perceived to be less intelligent (and this *does* touch on what others have said here)? I've seen that happen, and if it is the mechanism here then that explains things. But if it isn't, I'd just like to know where the seeming defensiveness comes from. That's all.
Perhaps it would help if you more concretely outlined what your beliefs are, so we could get a handle on where you are coming from. I think I have a fair idea, but that includes a number of assumptions that I am not entirely comfortable with.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Partial understanding, I think.
I think I did misunderstand a bit. In fact, I'm not 100% sure what you're asking now, but let me take a crack at it. Also, I had forgotten that you had once mentioned you had some theist friends that were healthy minded. I'm glad there are some.
In some ways, I'm a bit embarrassed to even talk about some of this, because I certainly do not place myself in a class of "luminaries" or what have you. I would much rather speak of others' giftedness that is broader and deeper than my own. Yours, frankly, strikes me as potentially superior.
But reference to intelligence in the naturalist/theist debate is largely call forth by the medium or forum itself. My last post and Dirk's came in simultaneous enough that I hadn't seen his until I actually posted mine. He was right; the very situation here puts me at a disadvantage; at least I perceive it that way. This is your stadium, and you have your "pennants" and "photos" up in the sense that you speak openly of your position. Along with this comes a certain arrogance regarding that position. This isn't unique; it sadly happens the other way to. I'm assuming Vox Day does the same thing in reverse, though I never check his site to know for sure. There are other "theist" sites that do if his doesn't. My point is that we all talk a good game with our teammates. The other team is full of morons. They're all idiots. Etc., etc.
When someone from another teams comes along and doesn't want to fight (in the sense of just throwing back names and jabs) he must resort to appealing to the mind not the emotions. This inevitably leads to the appeal to luminaries--usually from both sides. I think it often goes beyond just the fallacy of appeal to authority into mindsets within fields of study. What I mean here is, if I appealed to a single Dr. Smith, and you to a single Dr. Jones, we would be potentially guilty of the fallacy. But if there many Smiths or Jones in their respective fields, one is hard pressed to say, "The evidence is such if you're not a Jones follower you are a complete zero and airhead." Many posters here make that quite arrogant assumption.
I given it a bit more thought this afternoon, and I think there may be another component to this. Many scientists head toward their respective disciplines because they are intrigued by the cosmos or the flora/fauna of earth, or what have you. Makes perfect sense. But the accepted rules of 20th and 21st century science state that anything that can't be treated by the scientific method is outside the pale. Being trained in this, it is not surprising if a large number of them would deny a God. But is there a potential fallacy here? I can see, at least potentially, something like the old Kinsey Report numbers now known to be somewhat skewed. Kinsey did much of his sex research on prison inmates. The very pool he worked from was not an accurate sampling of all Americans/Mid-Americans. Similarly, the very rules of engagement for scientists tends to skew their worldview. In such a situation, it remarkable if there are a significant number that go against the grain and posit Something beyond their telescope's ability to see.
Am I making any sense at all? I think that group can then talk to themselves to the point that they are, indeed, somewhat inbred. This gets to the point that they think they are the only ones with a brain in their head, and some here are willing fly that flag without compunction. Thus, since there is a perception of there being more light here at First and Oak, those of us who think we should look at First and Willow are illogical, irrational, counter-evidential crackpots.
I think I feel on a dialogue level like you do when some "theist" drops in, throws a few characterizations around and does little more than resort to a bit of name-calling. It's maddening, as you rightly showed me early on here. But because were in your stadium, some posters here think nothing of their own vitriol, arrogance, and hypocrisy. I'm not reacting or being "testy", just attempting to show why I've taken the approach I have.
It wouldn't be nearly as fulfilling to just go to some other site and do what is done here in reverse. There are groups that think you have to be a lunatic to be an atheist. They believe it as much as some here believe they have a superior position. No, humans are too valuable to just sit around a bar sipping suds and telling each other that those other guys are all losers. Those losers (from either side) could learn something from each other if they'd just grow up.
Wow. Long, rambling post, but I'm in a hurry since I have a meeting to get to and I want to post this before I leave. (You might have to guess what I should have typed in some places—I haven’t proofread!) I guess the Cliff Notes are this: no, I don't feel that theists as a group are in any way mentally inferior to non-theists. I think my being in your stadium may influence me to come across as defensive. I'll try to work on this and present myself clearer and better. I'll also have to deal with more of my own worldview details in the days to come.
Thanks for your time--I guess it's a good thing you like to read novels!
I covet your thoughts.
-Col.
As noted previously...
As noted previously, I'm not 'into' sports. So, at risk of minor offense, let me restate this into another metaphor: "Echo Chamber".
That term is commonly used in political forums, usually to disparage the other side's own forums. It means what I think you're saying, but has a slightly different dynamic: rather than just intending to support your team, it also explains how perspective gets skewed, as otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people get shoved off into groupthink, since all they are hearing is information and opinions which tend to reinforce their own.
This is a real danger of any forum primarily dedicated to one topic. It is very easy to fall into the mindset that everyone agrees with you, if all you read is stuff which supports your position.
This, actually, is why I am glad that you're here, "playing" with us. For me, UTI does serve as something of an island of sanity - a place where people who tend to share my skepticism hang out, where we can escape some of the idiotic blatherings of the larger culture. Now, when some twit fundie pops in here and starts lobbing bombs, it does piss me off and I'll jump in their shit. But honestly, that just reinforces our biases.
Your participation here (after the initial round) has a different effect, and elicits a different response: good discussion. It helps to have the perspective of a thinking believer - it sharpens the mind, challenges the assumptions. In short, it is evolution at work. ;)
Now, I don't always want that. Sometimes I'll stay away from a discussion you're having with others, because I just want to relax and have a beer, chuckle over the stupidity of some of the more egregious insanity demonstrated by believers. That's why, if you pay attention, you'll see that there are two different kinds of posts I make - serious ones, into which I have put a little thought, and just wry/snide comments on human nature.
OK, all of that is well and good. I am still curious what your actual beliefs are, Col., since as I stated previously, I think that would help to know where you're coming from. But I'll understand if you don't wish to get that specific.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Echo chambers
Hey, Jim. Took me awhile to get back to you; been on the road and out of the office all day.
I think your echo chamber analogy is likely a better one than mine. Groups do begin to believe their own press. They become inbred.
I don't mind at all telling you what my worldview is, I just couldn't get to it late last evening. I've simply used my baseline of "theist" for the most part, because it somewhat narrowed and widened the field at the same time. It widened it in the sense that we could debate "God" in the most general terms, but narrowed it in that things that were secondary or even tertiary to my type of theism didn't suddenly become the "main" thing. Keeping it simply a God/no God theater seemed helpful. But I've been around for a while, and hopefully we have gained enough mutual respect to be able to dialogue about more issues—without majoring in minors.
I am a Christian, a definite old-earther, given to understanding the cosmos in much the same way the minds of the great pioneers did (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, et al.) who were all Christians. In fact, a major reason the West moved forward was the foundation of Judeo-Christian thought which taught that the cosmos was real (not illusionary), and was to be explored by man as its crowning creation. In a very real sense, like it or not, Christianity helped birth modern science. I am not a straight-ahead fideist in any sense, although these do occur in every worldview. The facts of the cosmos and human reason are part of my faith, both of which have rich Biblical foundation often not recognized by Christians or non-Christians. As a single example, proof of the resurrection of Christ among the earliest disciples was always based in empiricism.
Hank won't like this, but it is true nonetheless; I am a skeptic. But I am an equal opportunity skeptic, doubting things from multiple angles. No one, even at this site, is going to say that atheism/naturalism does not bristle with problems. Every worldview does. So the skeptic in me has analyzed my own worldview through many agonizing questions, but analyzed competing ideas as well. A reason I remain a Christian is that, in certain very key areas, I cannot muster enough faith to take an alternative viewpoint. For me, design would be just one of these. Although it is only evidence for theism/deism, etc., and not specifically Christianity, for me it is quite definitive. It is how we live everyday, making natural connections about other designed objects or systems. There is nothing in the material world of which I am aware that is information-intensive, viz. complex and not just ordered (such as a crystal), that is not designed. This coupled with many other things that, for me, place Christianity as the most logical and elegant answer (read Ockham here), drives me to my worldview.
Somehow, you have arrived at another. There is no doubt each of us have factors beyond simply our studies that affect us. We are whole organisms, and all kinds of things ramify us all. This was the point when I mentioned Paul Vitz. Had Hank read carefully, he would have noted that I was referring only to "certain" atheists just like certain "Christians" clearly have an emotional need for a Daddy figure. The sword, I wrote, cuts both ways. All of us, in my view, have had a potpourri of influences in our lives affecting our mindsets, which in turn have affects on our studies. But my own skepticism about even my own worldview has neutralized much of my preconceived ideology. Therefore, although no one is ever totally free from bias, I know that when I come to bedrock issues and can't get around them except by means of my worldview, I have at least confronted it to the extent that any mortal can. Doesn't make me right. But it makes me confident in an irreducible minimum that I cannot intellectually get around. Ergo, I am a Christian.
I believe you have examined your life and world in much the same way. You evidently have reason (in the maximum sense of that word, i.e. rational grist) for holding to the worldview you do. Just like some Christians don't think critically and clearly, there are some that post here once in awhile I fear have not. It is healthy for us all, then, not to be echo chambers.
To that end,
-Col.
Thanks.
No sweat. Not like I was sitting around here waiting for you to get back to me. That's the advantage of a forum such as this, which has enough activity to be interesting but not such a flood that you feel swamped.
Thanks for outlining your beliefs. I see Dirk has already dived into some of the content there, but I'm going to hold off. I mostly wanted just to have a handle on where you were coming from philosophically. I will second Dirk's comments about ABP, based on my few excursions there from things he has posted, and second in saying that this sort of behaviour is fairly common from a large segment of the Christian spectrum of belief - one of the reasons that many of us godless heathens feel somewhat beleagured, if not borderline paranoid. Sorry if you get painted with the same brush sometimes - but it is not unlike the way that moderate Muslims have to answer for the behaviour of the radical Wahabi nuts.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Just got here
Jim, I just found this post. You uploaded it earlier than the others today, but I found last (after my "Crosshairs") log. It is why I asked Brent about more "Recent Comments" lines; it's too easy to get lost.
Hey, check this out. My first block quote. Actually, I appreciated your candor here. Can I be candid with you as well? Sometimes I feel like I can't win. Barbs are slung at me all the time. When I answer with the same directness with which I am come after, I can be treated even more caustically. Not trying to whine. This is your site, and I am an intruder. But truly, I am trying to be the standup guy you mentioned. Please don't treat me the way Christian hypocrites come here and treat you. I'm doing my best. I do feel damned if I do, and damned if I don't, however.
Am I being too honest? Sound snivelly? I hope not.
Thanks~
-Col.
Which reality?
Col.,
The various and sundry threads here throughout had me thinking, and I just posted a somewhat lengthy general meditation on the matter over on my blog. I initially was going to post it here as either a comment or blog entry, but decided that the conversation had mostly passed the matter by. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for that, and to say no, you're not being too honest.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Just got back
Should've just gone and read it first, and only posted once.
Very, very well-worded. The illustration of your mom-in-law is quite picturesque and helpful. You have zeroed in on the dynamics in a way that clarifies them.
I think one of the things that makes it even a bit more difficult for me to clearly articulate what I'm trying to get across (much like trying to orient your MIL when she doesn't understand perhaps the house layout or the angle you're coming to her from) is that I do believe in natural processes. Things do evolve (to what degree is a question), and generally things are left up to the various laws of physics. Thus to attempt to describe where (for me) the line is crossed over into design can be fraught with the kinds of difficulties that you have raised. Some of it is due to time/space/poor typing/poor selection of terms, etc. on my part. The termite thing was intended to be fun, not definitive by any stretch. Perhaps an extended string on Termite farts could get us a place on the Comedy Channel....
Natural processes combined with human free-will can, in themselves, be comical. An arrogant entrepreneur once told Winston Churchill that he was a "self-made" man. Churchill responded with, "Well that certainly relieves the Deity of an terrible responsibility." :-)
I guess it's an odd thing, perhaps keying on my own thought patterns (neuroses?). As we interact with each other, we come to "know" each other to a degree. My natural inclination is to think of you as my friend. I therefore don't want to offend you, and am hurt and taken aback when I feel you've jumped on me. Like Brent said in his post, I want to be opponents only in the thinking sense, not in the enemies sense. In fact, I prefer to think of us not as opponents, but just as iron sharpening iron. Anyway, thanks. Your words are very encouraging.
-Col.
I'll head over now
...and check out your blog. Thanks, Jim.
-Col.
Recent Comments
By the way, I have also increased the number of Recent Comments displayed in the sidebar block from 10 to 20. That may help a bit too.
Enabler.
Brent - thanks for the recent tweaks. Though it does feed my addiction... ;)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Winning and losing
Correct me if I am wrong here, but if there is a deity and if you are doing all the right things according to that deity to be rewarded with the everlasting life of your choice (you mentioned elsewhere that you are a Christian I believe) then wouldn't that mean that you have 'won' already? Getting digs here would seem rather trivial by comparison. If you are wrong though, if there is no designer, no creator, no afterlife then any time you have spent serving that cause has been potentially wasted and you will get no more.
Group Think
Jim/Col,
Good points about the 'echo chamber' and the 'group think' aspects of being a regular participant of any certain blog. That thought made me realize why I comment on anklebitingpundits and do not comment on Kos, even though I am a lib. I read Kos, DU, Huffington, Salon and many other lib blogs but never comment. I just don't get anything out of discussing politics with people who see the world just like I do. I go to ABP because it helps me to have my views challenged. ABP keeps me honest. I also like to make sure the wingnuts get information other than from Fox, Rush, Sean and Ann. They like to be isolated and when I bring up news that Fox doesn't give them they are outraged. They banned me and other libs from their forums years ago. I am still allowed to comment on the main page.
My participation here is still pretty new and I am learning a lot. I also like Pharyngula and Gods4Suckers. I never really looked at atheist blogs before. I'm not sure why. I was just more into politics, I suppose. Anyway, right now, I can't get enough info and perspective on atheism. I am sure that will change soon. I am already starting to hear some of the same arguments repeated and that is a recipe for boredom.
And Colonel, as far as your reception here on UTI, there have been a few mildly rude comments, but overall I think people have been mostly polite. If you could see some of the incredibly vile things that have been said about me on ABP, you would understand what I mean. I have been called homosexual (with much harsher language if you know what I mean) many times. They have wished and prayed several times for me to get AIDs and die. I am regularly condemned to Hell. They call me a female. They call me un American, un patriotic, a traitor etc. They question the motives for my military service or say they don't believe I was in the Navy. The funny part is these people consider themselves conservative Xians and that they are the only TRUE Americans. They really are some of the most vulgar people I have ever encountered. In fairness, I would say about 10% of the ABPers are actually decent people, but the overwhelming majority are not. So, just to keep perspective, the UTI commenters could be much much worse.
Dirk
Pathetic
I've never read ABP (just the name irks me), but it's pathetic to treat anyone the way they've treated you.
You say it's a political site; have those that have been so vitriolic told you they were Christians, or are they just people that are merely aligned in political terms with the so-called religious right?
It's pathetic if it's the latter. It's unspeakable if it's the former.
-Col.
Disappointment
Colonel-
Okay, let's see if I can avoid any more boneheaded accidental deletion situations and actually post my response this time. And since my comments from yesterday were lost, I am responding to several of your posts at the same time.
Let me start by saying thanks for the lengthy detailed responses, however I am disappointed. I am disappointed because I have come to know you and expect clever insightful observations that challenge my preconceived notions about Xian's. The reasons you gave for your worldview are anything but original. These are the same old creationist arguments that are repeated ad nauseam. Ockhams razor, holes in evolution, Big Bang (ex nihilo), improbability of life, and Intelligent Design are the same junk scientific misconceptions that I see theists cling to as if they were life preservers on the Titanic. I was expecting something profound, and you give me this? You are slightly more well thought out than Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, but not much. Sorry if that came out harsh, but I am not exactly sure how to sugar coat the truth and still get my point across (and that video is just plain funny).
I don't think it would do much good for me to try to explain the problems of the bad science you embrace because I am not a scientist myself. I can only encourage you to take another look. You claim that there are problems with evolution, but no better explanation has come along since Darwin first dropped the 'E' bomb 150 years ago. Modern biology IS evolutionary biology. You cannot deny that fact. I don't think you would be very happy with modern medicine if evolution had been ignored. Big Bang theory by itself is from thirty years ago. Check out 'M' theory some time. As for the improbability of life and the idea of design by a creator check out this video called "Stupid Design". The video is of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History explaining the lack of design in our universe. I love this guy. He is actually pretty funny for scientist. He does Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" once in a while.
I think its best if we leave the scientific side out of the debate. I get nothing out of creation science. Creation science is ridiculed and you don't have to look very hard to find that mainstream science finds it incredulous and worthy of mockery. Let's stick with the philosophy side of the debate. Unlike Hank, I actually like it when you quote Neitchze. It makes me think. I also enjoyed our conversation about Immanuel Kant. For example, here is a good quote of yours that sparks introspection and debate:
My answer to this is simple: brainwashing. Schools do their best to teach science, but people like you consistently undermine the teaching of science by conflating it and/or subverting it with your religion. In this case, I get really mad a theists for creating controversy where there is no controversy. President Bush even says "why shouldn't we teach the controversy". No one, besides religious people think Intelligent Design is science. The definition of science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. ID suggests a supernatural creator (without naming him specifically, very sneaky) and therefore cannot be considered science.
I will. I will say that atheism/naturalism does not bristle with problems. I will admit that science cannot explain everything yet. Notice, I said yet. What exactly do you mean by problems? Just because we don't have the technology to answer every gap in knowledge right this minute, doesn't mean we never will. Look at the amazing technological leaps we have made over the past hundred years. To think that the first flight was in 1903 and sixty six years later we put a man on the moon is simply amazing, almost god-like, if you will. And have you seen the iPhone? I bet god wants one but he is waiting for the price to come down. Just imagine what the next hundred years will bring. How about a thousand years?
Oh, and about the ABPers, yes they are are Christians (mostly). In fact the owner of the site Patrick Hynes is a Catholic who wrote a book called "In Defense of the Religious Right". You can see right here on his website. And don't worry about how they treat me, I can take it. Those kind of vile insults and derogatory statements say more about the author. My point was that you seem to be the exception not the rule. You seem surprised to hear that Xians act this way. I am not. It's pretty much all I see from Xians. However, I have met a few nice Xians here on UTI like you, Jeg, The Pastors Husband, and even Bisch (even though he is more of a crazy fundie, but polite). I am glad to have met you. I am glad my stereotype of all Xians being nasty jerks is not always true.
That's enough for now. I look forward to your response.
Dirk
God's iPhone
That's too funny! :-) I wonder what color He wants? (Actually, after putting all the stars in place, I have to think God is an IBM/PC thinker. The math comes in too handy!)
Hank, I appreciate your posts. It's clear to me that you are applying your mind. But first, going back to our earlier posts, I don't type expertly, try to keep my posts from being complete tomes, and never intended anyway to write all of my rationale. Just clipped some tops. But in point of fact, design still does grip the minds of men, including scientists. I just watched an incredibly well-done documentary a couple nights ago, hosted a guy from JPL (Jet Propulsion), a couple guys from NASA (one of them Robert Jastrow), and an astronomer from the UW (Washington) with some others. The entire premise was on earth's situational proximity for exploration, etc., etc. Jastrow is an agnostic—or at least I know he used to be, and I haven’t heard otherwise. I didn't recognize any of the scientists as "Christian", though they may be. The idea of design over the past 15 years is picking up, not ebbing. Further, though I prefer the dead sciences (I like mechanical things), Behe's work completely stirred the pot. It's been about 8 years or so since his initial one, and much remains the same. After 150 years of Darwin, Behe (a molecular biologist) was able to write, "The impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis of life is evident not only from the analyses in this book, but also from the complete absence in the professional scientific literature of any detailed models by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced…. In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed.... The search can be extended, but the results are the same. There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on the details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems... (emph. mine). In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish.”
This doesn’t mean Behe has the corner on truth, but it clearly points up that Darwinism does have problems. Some have actually said that if science had known of DNA info and many other things prior to Darwin’s theory, it would have been laughed out of court and never picked up support. Works in recent decades/years include Theories of Evolution Nearing Extinction, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis and others. S.J. Gould’s punctuated equilibrium support is a hard-liner atheist's (and socialist’s—to use the guilt by associate fallacy) admission that gradual Darwinism is impossible. Transpermia and other exotic theories are secular responses to Darwinian impotence. Not trying to argue for any of these, or say that they are inerrant, but just to show that there are very well-known and acknowledged difficulties even in biology, let alone physics—which is worse. And these difficulties are often highlighted or even brought to light by secularists themselves.
You speak of “old” or “tired” theistic explanations. Is it at least possible that they’re old because they have the ring of truth? Truth, by its definition, is narrow (2 + 2 is always and ONLY 4). If it was true in Paley’s time, it would still be true now, though refined. Billions of human minds have embraced the design in the cosmos. The laptop in the cave parable is overwhelming to the overwhelming number of minds. Doesn’t make it correct, but being in a minority doesn’t automatically mean one is elite; smarter, more educated, or more perceptive. It may only mean that the evidence is such that most reject the position. On the other side of design and cosmology there is one potential theory after another being spun, some of them having the appearance of desperation by those trying to find a “non-God-of the gaps” solution. Maybe if one uses make-believe numbers (Hawking) and maybe if one posits a quantum fluctuation where there is no evidence for one, and maybe, maybe, maybe…. In this arena, a theory that doesn’t have to be reworked every next discovery seems to be advantaged to me, not disadvantaged. M-Theory is quite esoteric and simply hasn't taken the field. Big Bang cosmology has buried all comers to date.
My log is getting too long. We can respond more as time goes on, since I guess Hank isn’t going to tell me to leave.
Hope you have a great day. Go get your Mossberg and blowup some clays. Devolution is often more fun than evolution—especially when there are explosions involved!
-Col.
God uses a Mac
And you are wrong about the PC. I have no doubt God uses a Mac. I happen to know this because Windows is pure evil.
Yeah, I think you may be right
about PCs. A lot of the MS stuff has become more evil with time. (Or is this a good case for the 2nd Law and devolution?)
Watched the YouTube vid. Gotta' tell you, I came away with an entirely different take than you. Most of the stuff on the first several slides supports design rather than the lottery when fully understood. (He didn't expain the depth of these issues, so it came across very straw-man to anyone in the know.) As for diseases, etc., there are multiple reasons for them, no theist thinks this is Eden, and no theist argues for prefect design, but necessary design. Dirk, if this is the best you can do, you need to get outside of your own curbing. The documentary I was speaking about (was it with you or Jim?), was far more dispassionate, professional, and in-depth. I did get out of this one, though, that he fully acknowledged the universe is headed toward equilibrium. If it has been doing that for infinite time why aren't we there yet!?
Just a quickie anecdote about what "appears" stupid. How about earthquakes? Good or bad? Well, in fact, they are absolutely necessary for life on this planet. It is the only mechanism that gets nutrients back from the sea. Flora and fauna would have perished from the hydrological impasse millennia ago without them. Or just a fun second one: termites outweigh humans by several times on this planet. But if the termite population were only a small percentage either way of what obtains now and is kept in balance, the earth would burn in an uncontrolled conflagration. Why? They emit a massive percentage of our methane that keeps the oxygen in check. I'm not here arguing for design, though one could make that point. I'm arguing that a speech by someone that comes across as fanatical and with an agenda may look appealing to some, until things are really examined and other factors are brought in. Prooftexting does not advance knowledge. Earthquakes can look like bad design, but at least the speaker was alive to attempt his point! :-)
-Col.
Not a competing religion
Colonel-
I think in the interest of friendship, I had better back off at this point. From the tone of your last two replies, I must have crossed a line somewhere without realizing it, or perhaps your beliefs are being called into question from too many sides at once. Whatever the cause, I assure you my intentions were not to condescend. Apparently, I have a habit of being insulting without realizing it, or so I have been told. That being said, you are not coming off very well right now either.
I must say, this "anyone in the know" comment comes off as rather arrogant. No offense, but I think I will take the astrophysicist's opinions over yours the same as I wouldn't argue with Behe (but I would let more qualified others). You consider your background and credential superior to Dr. Tyson's? May I ask what those credentials are?
It's almost as if you perceive my views as a competing religion. Atheism is not a religion. As James Randi says "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby".
Like I said above, the tone is getting ugly. Best I can do, no. I didn't do anything. I just posted a video as an example of what cutting edge scientists believe about the universe. Clearly, scientists like Dr. Tyson and Dr. Myers are not appealing to your worldview. I understand completely and openly admit that the creation scientists you favor are not appealing to me. And yes, that is arrogant (or realistic depending on your POV) on my part. Some day, it may turn out that the creation scientists were right? I highly doubt it, but it is possible I suppose.
This is my last post on this topic because I don't want the bad feelings to escalate any further. I realize you have thought a certain way your whole life, and now you are just beginning to check out other points of views. I applaud your courage for stepping outside of your comfort zone and allowing yourself to be vulnerable here on UTI. I also want to be careful I don't turn you off before you even get started.
Best wishes on your journey,
Dirk
Thanks, Dirk
I do consider you a friend. And, no, I hadn't really given a significant amount of thought to whether you had been offensive. I actually hadn't really put you in that category.
I can see from reading back through my quotes that you blocked that I looked arrogant. Sorry. Sure wasn't my intention. Nor was it my intention to be referring specifically to anyone here. Tyson had a group in front of him that was very obviously a lay group (judging from their laughter/responses, and his entry-level verbiage). I don't have to be a JPL Ph.D myself to be able to read critics who are. The curbing statement was not worded well, I guess, but please realize that those (large and growing) number of scientists that accept some form of ID are not a bunch of hillbillies, as the documentary video that I was talking about proves quite definitively. Also, as I told Jim, I've spent over 20 years questioning my own worldview. These are not new things to me at all. I've tested them and, personally, found them wanting.
I'm not offended by you, Dirk, and am sorry if I have you. As I said, I think of you as a friend.
-Col.
Ditto on Choy Lee Mu's comment
Colonel-
No problem and no offense taken. Like I said, I will happily back off if I go too far or cross a line that shouldn't be crossed. Just make sure you tell me. I hate that when girlfriends say "you know what you did" as if I am supposed to know what the hell they are offended by without telling me. I think you said you are married and had kids. Do wives do that too?
If you haven't read Choy Lee Mu's Macro/Micro comment yet, I highly recommend them. He said it much better than I could have and I echo his sentiments regarding your participation on UTI.
I don't think you linked to the video you keep mentioning. Any chance you could point me in right direction so I can see for myself? I have never been one to just take someone's word for it, I always have to experience things myself. Some say I am a stubborn-hardheaded-learn things the hard way-kind of person.
Maybe someday, Brent will tell us what on earth made an American choose a Chinese alias on a Brittish blog? That would be an interesting and complex story I am sure.
Dirk
Estrogen-free zone
I know what you're talking about with the girlfriend and "you know what you did" deal. Knew a girl in High School I thought I couldn't live without. Actually, had I married her I likely would have had to live without her 'cause one of us would have killed the other. Yes, I'm married to a lady that is far from that, and honestly makes my everyday life a complete joy. I married way out of my league. She is what every wife should be.
I didn't link to the vid because it's a full length (well, one hour) presentation I have on DVD, not a clip. However, after your post, I looked and there is a site here.
You will see that one of the editors has studied some theology along with his philosophy (something I didn't know), however others haven't and it is introduced/narrated by Jastrow, the famed Goddard Institute/NASA agnostic.
Yeah, British and Oriental. Maybe it was that Shanghai Knights thing???
-Col.
Understatement of the year: Discovery Institute
Colonel-
This might be the understatement of the year:
I think you are referring to Jay Richards. "Jay W. Richards is Vice President and Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He received his Ph.D. with honors in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was formerly a Teaching Fellow." Uh-oh. Did that just say Discovery Institute? Red alert! ID fundies pushing creationism on public schools. The Discovery Institute is to me like Satan is to a Xian. I am a HUGE believer in the separation of church and state. I treasure my freedom from religion dearly. I think I would die if not for the Establishment Clause in our Constitution. The founders are my heroes.
From Wikipedia:
And I did some checking on the other editor Guillermo Gonzales. It turns out he is a Discovery Institute fellow as well even though the Privileged Planet bio does not reveal this fact. Why is it these guys are always trying to be sneaky about hiding their religious agenda? I think I know the answer, but do you?
Oh man. It gets worse. I just googled Jastrow and creationism and found out this guy has been at it since 1978. Colonel, you are sadly misinformed. I don't think you are trying to deceive me on purpose, but if you are, shame on you.
Now do you see why I never take people's words for it and just blindly trust? I am a skeptic. I have no faith. This video might be very convincing to you, given your predisposition to such things, but I am not interested in creation science. I prefer science science.
Dirk
Not familiar
with the Discovery Institute, other than that it exists. I think I knew Gonzales was a fellow there, but I was unaware there was strong "religious" ties, and don't know even now that there is.
Jastrow himself says in The Intellectuals Speak Out About God that he is a reductionist, a materialist, and that he remains "an agnostic in religious matters at the present time", p.20. If he has changed views, I am unaware of it. Wikipedia is often not an accepted "authority" due to its open format.
But, if someone becomes convinced of design, does that mean ipso facto they can't be scientists anymore? Are you saying that one has to be an atheist to be a physicist? Isn't this the First and Oak/First and Willow debacle? What IF there is some design in the cosmos? For me, this appears more open-minded than, "I simply won't accept science from an atheist"--which would be the opposite of what you're wrestling with. If a religious person did that, I think they'd be labeled "fundy". So are they "fundys" when it goes the other way too? If not, why not?
I still think you would enjoy the piece. Fantastic videography and photography. Much like the NASA pic of the day thing. They speak about design, but certainly not in a narrow or odious way; it is very professionally done. Professional in the sense I don't think you will find it at all parochial.
I very much agree with the separation clause as well. But we do have a history that gives us an idea as to what that meant. First of all, it says, "Congress shall...no law...respecting religion...or the free exercise...." The reason that it specifically said, "Congress" was because this was left to the states, since at least 6 of the original states had it in their state constitutions that you had to be a Christian, a Trinitarian, etc. (Don't worry, I'm not in any way endorsing that; it was just a fact.) So the Federal boys had to say "Congress will not..." because they accepted the states' positions. Secondly, the Constitutional Convention was opened by prayer every day, by vote of the members themselves. This means that God was not exiled from everything having to do with government. Third, note that Jefferson (not a Christian, a deist) used the Bible and Watts Hymnal to teach reading in the schoo