Der Kampf um richtig zu sein - Teil zwei
I am considerably puzzled. Or maybe I'm not puzzled, and am simply very disappointed. Or maybe I'm not disappointed, and am just really fucking frustrated. Whatever the feeling, I know exactly who its directed at: Religion Bloggers. I'm not referring to Religious bloggers here, exclusively, either, I should draw that distinction. I'm referring to fundamentalist Christian bloggers, atheist bloggers, agnostic bloggers, and even more; they're all part of the problem. They're sometimes part of the problem for slightly different reasons, but the one overarching reason that playing in this electronic landscape is driving me mad is because so many are so preoccupied with being "right" that they entirely miss the point. That sounds like a juvenile assessment of the situation, that everyone just wants to be "right", but bear with me here. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to discuss the fundamentalist Christians and non-believers separately. There will be different amounts to say about the different categories, but they're all offending in different ways.
Let's start with the issues I feel are surrounding the non-believers, as in the agnostics and the atheists. I'll preface this with some personal experience to put this into context.
The other day, I was rudely reminded of Answers in Genesis' latest project, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. I had been made vaguely aware of plans to build this rude slap in the face for the fields of archaeology, paleontology, biology, geology, astronomy, and education. The reminder I just mentioned came in the form of a news article informing me that this museum, a 27 million dollar facility (funded almost entirely by donations) loaded with animatronics depicting various scenes and objects from the book of Genesis and dinosaurs living alongside to boot, will be opening on May 28th. That's this Monday.
Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have the right to build this museum, and I would not take that right away from them. That would be decidedly hypocritical of me, given that I oppose his attempts, and the attempts of people like him, to take away the rights of students to learn about what science actually says about garbage like this.
Instead, I'm here to bemoan the behaviour of atheists and agnostics out there in Blog-And-Forum-Land that have not bothered to learn why and how these arguments are as intellectually irresponsible as they are. The blogging world is a wonderful place to learn about the intricacies of the ongoing struggle between science education and Creationism. Individuals who pop up on fundamentalist Christian blogs with the sole purpose of telling said Christians that they don't like the ideas being put forth here are decidedly problematic for this process. These individuals ignore, just as many Christians do, that what we like or don't like has no bearing on what actually is. For example, telling a fundamentalist Christian that you support a woman's right to choose, because not letting her choose would be barbaric, or will lead to back-alley abortions anyway, is patently useless. Such a Christian clearly already believes that life starts from the moment of conception, or something similar, and so believes that any abortion is murder. And if the issue turns out to be so clear cut that life does, in fact, start at conception, they're probably right (although ultimately not for the right reasons). By merely stating an opinion sans rational (as opposed to emotional) justification or support, opponents of the fundamentalist Christian agenda only give such Christians an opportunity to reiterate their own beliefs as well as give them the impression that our side is devoid of evidence. That is where part of the notion of "wilfull ignorance" comes in. I'm sure many of us have seen it directed towards the religious and non-religious alike. If we disagree with a point, it needs to have all the scientific and/or logical support that is available, unless we want to be branded this way. To simply state the conclusion we've come to without anything resembling support, no matter how confident we are that we're "right", is to descend to the level of those we oppose. Mockery can be appropriate in some cases, but more often than not only fuels the opposition rather than deflates it. If we want to have some kind of lasting effect on the overall "debate", we need to ensure that fundamentalist Christianity understands that their current positions are not tenable when placed in the scientific forum. When this does not occur, we begin to see organizations like Answers in Genesis successfully establishing entire museums and places of "learning" where anyone confused about the debate can drop twenty bucks on admission (financially supporting the Creationist agenda) and be readily bamboozled by a slick Disney Land-esque facade posing as the truth.
The next category are the fundamentalist Christian bloggers. They present a problem that I am unable to conceive of a solution for. The problem is this: No matter how flawed the evidence, no matter how poor the argument, no matter how disreputable the source, those Christians that I have argued with regarding the weaknesses of the arguments are completely unwilling to admit as much. Case and point, over at one blog entitled "Talkwisdom" (named perhaps as a reaction/jab to talk.origins), I addressed the weaknesses of the arguments provided by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, of The Way of the Master banana fame, concerning their debate with two members of the Rational Response Squad on ABC Nightline. Cameron and Comfort's stated purpose was to prove the existence of their god without the use of their bible or faith. This was stated very clearly at the beginning of the debate. They went on from there to use both their bible and faith to support a number of dated and well-refuted arguments for the existence of their god and, further, for the alleged inaccuracy of evolutionary theory. Google "crockaduck" to see what I mean. Cameron and Comfort would have lost the debate if only for bringing the Ten Commandments into it, let alone for any of the other atrocities of science and reason that they foisted on the audience. My main complaint is that, when these very simple and straightforward criticisms were made clear on Christine's (the owner and operator of Talkwisdom) post, which staunchly declared Cameron and Comfort the victors, she vigorously defended them. Even though such an admission would only prove that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron had failed to make their case, not that her god or non-biblical and non-faith-based arguments for its existence didn't exist, she came back with reason after wobbly reason that either red herring'd the issue or simply didn't make any sense. She further went on to cite some of Michael Behe's work as evidence against evolution, despite his "research" having been quite firmly rejected from the scientific community at large for a while now.
I suppose the ultimate question in all of this is: Why are those individuals who support the fundamentalist Christian cause not permitted to be criticized? Does eliminating weak and illogical arguments not ultimately strengthen one's argument? Is it a question of being deliberately dishonest? Or just plugging one's ears and singing "la la la la la" until the criticism goes away? This is how slick centres of unlearning like the Creation Museum get most of their $27,000,000 price tag paid for.
How do we combat this phenomenon such that our children aren't also taught to get those fingers in their ears and sing along?
Let's start with the issues I feel are surrounding the non-believers, as in the agnostics and the atheists. I'll preface this with some personal experience to put this into context.
The other day, I was rudely reminded of Answers in Genesis' latest project, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. I had been made vaguely aware of plans to build this rude slap in the face for the fields of archaeology, paleontology, biology, geology, astronomy, and education. The reminder I just mentioned came in the form of a news article informing me that this museum, a 27 million dollar facility (funded almost entirely by donations) loaded with animatronics depicting various scenes and objects from the book of Genesis and dinosaurs living alongside to boot, will be opening on May 28th. That's this Monday.
Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have the right to build this museum, and I would not take that right away from them. That would be decidedly hypocritical of me, given that I oppose his attempts, and the attempts of people like him, to take away the rights of students to learn about what science actually says about garbage like this.
Instead, I'm here to bemoan the behaviour of atheists and agnostics out there in Blog-And-Forum-Land that have not bothered to learn why and how these arguments are as intellectually irresponsible as they are. The blogging world is a wonderful place to learn about the intricacies of the ongoing struggle between science education and Creationism. Individuals who pop up on fundamentalist Christian blogs with the sole purpose of telling said Christians that they don't like the ideas being put forth here are decidedly problematic for this process. These individuals ignore, just as many Christians do, that what we like or don't like has no bearing on what actually is. For example, telling a fundamentalist Christian that you support a woman's right to choose, because not letting her choose would be barbaric, or will lead to back-alley abortions anyway, is patently useless. Such a Christian clearly already believes that life starts from the moment of conception, or something similar, and so believes that any abortion is murder. And if the issue turns out to be so clear cut that life does, in fact, start at conception, they're probably right (although ultimately not for the right reasons). By merely stating an opinion sans rational (as opposed to emotional) justification or support, opponents of the fundamentalist Christian agenda only give such Christians an opportunity to reiterate their own beliefs as well as give them the impression that our side is devoid of evidence. That is where part of the notion of "wilfull ignorance" comes in. I'm sure many of us have seen it directed towards the religious and non-religious alike. If we disagree with a point, it needs to have all the scientific and/or logical support that is available, unless we want to be branded this way. To simply state the conclusion we've come to without anything resembling support, no matter how confident we are that we're "right", is to descend to the level of those we oppose. Mockery can be appropriate in some cases, but more often than not only fuels the opposition rather than deflates it. If we want to have some kind of lasting effect on the overall "debate", we need to ensure that fundamentalist Christianity understands that their current positions are not tenable when placed in the scientific forum. When this does not occur, we begin to see organizations like Answers in Genesis successfully establishing entire museums and places of "learning" where anyone confused about the debate can drop twenty bucks on admission (financially supporting the Creationist agenda) and be readily bamboozled by a slick Disney Land-esque facade posing as the truth.
The next category are the fundamentalist Christian bloggers. They present a problem that I am unable to conceive of a solution for. The problem is this: No matter how flawed the evidence, no matter how poor the argument, no matter how disreputable the source, those Christians that I have argued with regarding the weaknesses of the arguments are completely unwilling to admit as much. Case and point, over at one blog entitled "Talkwisdom" (named perhaps as a reaction/jab to talk.origins), I addressed the weaknesses of the arguments provided by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, of The Way of the Master banana fame, concerning their debate with two members of the Rational Response Squad on ABC Nightline. Cameron and Comfort's stated purpose was to prove the existence of their god without the use of their bible or faith. This was stated very clearly at the beginning of the debate. They went on from there to use both their bible and faith to support a number of dated and well-refuted arguments for the existence of their god and, further, for the alleged inaccuracy of evolutionary theory. Google "crockaduck" to see what I mean. Cameron and Comfort would have lost the debate if only for bringing the Ten Commandments into it, let alone for any of the other atrocities of science and reason that they foisted on the audience. My main complaint is that, when these very simple and straightforward criticisms were made clear on Christine's (the owner and operator of Talkwisdom) post, which staunchly declared Cameron and Comfort the victors, she vigorously defended them. Even though such an admission would only prove that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron had failed to make their case, not that her god or non-biblical and non-faith-based arguments for its existence didn't exist, she came back with reason after wobbly reason that either red herring'd the issue or simply didn't make any sense. She further went on to cite some of Michael Behe's work as evidence against evolution, despite his "research" having been quite firmly rejected from the scientific community at large for a while now.
I suppose the ultimate question in all of this is: Why are those individuals who support the fundamentalist Christian cause not permitted to be criticized? Does eliminating weak and illogical arguments not ultimately strengthen one's argument? Is it a question of being deliberately dishonest? Or just plugging one's ears and singing "la la la la la" until the criticism goes away? This is how slick centres of unlearning like the Creation Museum get most of their $27,000,000 price tag paid for.
How do we combat this phenomenon such that our children aren't also taught to get those fingers in their ears and sing along?
Labels: Religion
posted by Ubersehen | 09:48
2 Comments:
I don't have much to comment on since, as usual, I agree with you.
I suppose it's just human nature to defend something one already believes in, despite lack of logic, decency, or coherence. We all do it sometimes, you and me included. It's something we can fight, but we must realize the bias is there in order to avoid it.
Perhaps many of the religious bloggers you mention are so passionate about their own belief that avoiding bias is not a priority. "Like" and "don't like" are more important than "why" or "why not", which makes any support of the latter pair only superficially different from the former.
Great post.
Post a Comment
<< Home