Schlechte Argumente

Perusing one of the country's bigger newspapers, the Saudi Gazette, I encountered the following:

"Q- What is the wisdom behind the prohibition of consuming the flesh of swine?
A- Since the pig relishes filth and offal, its meat is repugnant to all pople of decent taste. Moreover, recent medical research has shown that eating swine-flesh is injurious to health in all climates, especially hot ones. Scientific research has also shown that pork carries a deadly parasite. Perhaps science may discover in the future things that will shed more light on the wisdom behind this prohibition. In addition to this, there are some scholars who say that eating pork frequently diminishes the man's sense of shame in relation to what is indecent behavior. And Allah knows best."

Stuff like this makes it difficult for the people that live here to make informed decisions about the substance of their beliefs. Certainly, Islam states that eating pork isn't such a hot idea, but why not cite the original reasons listed in the Qu'ran rather than this obviously bogus "research"? It's a rhetorical question, of course. The more ostensible evidence a position has, the more one will likely subscribe to its accuracy. Sort of like the way some hard line Christian bloggers like to provide obviously inaccurate or just plain fabricated statistics regarding the effects of homosexuality and its accompanying lifestyle to support their biblical position, which should be more than enough justification on its own, on the matter.

Einige Probleme

I began a little debate with Bob a number of months back on the merits of current scientific practice, particularly in terms of how they are now and how he would like them to be. Sadly, the conversation ended prematurely, but I'm still curious as to whether or not answers exist for the following points:

1) Are there any cases where falsifiability is insufficient on its own as an indicator of whether or not something is scientific?

2) According to Bob, we possess the faculties of reason that we use to form rational arguments because a god instilled them in us. Thus, presumably, all of our arguments that are critical in regards to the existence of a god are a little ironic in nature because this god is responsible for our being able to rationally form such arguments in the first place. My thoughts on the matter are, of course, that this claim is unfalsifiable, and so quite useless as an argument. When we are born, we have no innate knowledge of a god's existence (unless that knowledge exists during the period when we are unable to articulate it and vanishes before that ability develops, which is an ultimately useless supposition); we must be told of this god before we can believe in it. To understand the concept of said god and form a belief in it, we employ our reason. Now, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that a god is responsible for the aforementioned faculties, but it is impossible to tell unless one is able to spot or deduce this god while it is in the act of endowing someone with said faculties. Is there anything the matter with my line of thinking on this matter?

3) Is there a special definition of the word "hate" that Christian bloggers are using when they indicate that non-believers hate their god? It's really not possible to hate something that you believe doesn't exist in the traditional sense as far as I understand it (Hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury), but that particular accusation gets bandied about a lot and I'm curious as to whether I'm missing something there.

Those are some of my curiosities for now.

Umleitung

I liked this:

"Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?"

- Karen Owens

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?

Paul Cameron Gets Appropriate Treatment

die Wurzel alles übels?

Just finished with Richard Dawkins' interesting little documentary, The Root of All Evil?, and its follow-up, The Virus of Faith, which lay out his belief that religion is an intolerable and wholly destructive institution in modern society. Some strong points and interesting interviews. He occasionally comes across as a little undiplomatic, but I didn't detect any fault in his arguments. The first section of the documentary is a little under 20 minutes long. If you find it interesting, there's plenty more where it came from further down. Both halves are each around 45 minutes long.

The Root of All Evil?
Part 1-1:


Part 1-2
Part 1-3

The Virus of Faith
Part 2-1
Part 2-2
Part 2-3
Part 2-4
Part 2-5
Part 2-6

I appreciate, in the final segment, that Dawkins provides a far more reasonable alternative to the Christian moral system that is so often touted as the only possible answer. Content-wise, Dawkin's conclusion is nearly identical to many explanations made in arguments made with fundamentalists that have tended to go completely unanswered: That there are very thorough biological, psychological and sociological explanations for human morality.

A few quotes that I enjoyed:

"The child brain will automatically believe what it’s told even if what it’s told is nonsense." - Richard Dawkins

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg, as quoted by Dawkins in 2-5.

Der Kampf um richtig zu sein

Not only do we see what we want to see, we glaze over what we don't want to accept. Such is the nature of the "debate" in the online community. I hesitate to call it "debate", because so much of it is bogged down with fallacy and a bias so strong that it is fatal to the accompanying argument.

Objectivity easily becomes a distant memory here in this electronic sphere that is devoid of any tangible repercussions. It is a false world where the rules of conduct change drastically. We may discuss our views on "reality" while being, perhaps, as far distanced from it as possible. Thus, we may heatedly contest the views of an individual as though they held the masses in sway with their particular opinions when, in reality, they are nobody. They are the voiceless given the illusion of a voice through their fingertips. They are the powerless given the illusion of power through a box, plugged into the wall, and finally plugged into us. It is easy to lose sight of this, to get swept up in the self-importance of it all; to see one's own words published for the priviledged world to see, as though a digital representation of one's opinion gave it more weight.

Then we are struck by the pack mentality, when such heavy narcissism clumps together to reinforce itself. Not only are we struck by it, we can be victims and practitioners of it as well. In the fight to be right, we overlook the method and focus on the message, forgetting that the method was initially how the message was attained... or so it should have been, ideally. This is the main point of this affair: Do we sufficiently question our own peers? Are we critical not only of our opponents, but of our allies?

To provide two examples, at Dani Kekoa's "TRUTH"-proclaiming page, Generation X-Pose, a scholar from the U.K. passed himself off, for a time, as Richard Dawkins, adopting his moniker, likely to lend weight to his arguments. He did, after some skepticism concerning the likelihood of his actually being Richard Dawkins, admit to being someone else. Those that agreed with his message and who opposed Dani's said nothing of the matter. I, myself, only voiced passing skepticism of his identity before the fact, and said nothing afterwards.

Of more grave academic concern, Dani herself has been called out for grossly unscholarly behaviour that has taken the form of plagiarism and quote-mining. The ramifications of such practices, in support of her own quaint system of belief, are a topic for another discussion. What is important is the treatment of this behaviour. Even when confronted about it, not a single person that holds, to any degree, with her belief system has admitted that Dani has done anything wrong. It is to be expected, since she was willing to implement such reprehensible tactics in the first place, that Dani would attempt to deny/dodge the accusations. It is much more interesting that those in support of Dani's views continue support of Dani, herself, in spite of her markedly dishonest tendencies. Would it not be in a group's best interest to denounce such behaviour, rather than avoiding/justifying it and thereby sanctioning it too? Wouldn't a particular camp enhance their reputation and the intellectual validity of their argument by eliminating poor research, poor research tactics, and overall poor morals?

Further, wouldn't it be in Dani's interest to hear, from her own supporters, that such practices are not acceptable? After all, if she receives nothing but praise for her unscholarly tricks, isn't she likely to continue using them? And doesn't that get one further away from the "TRUTH" she is so keen on telling us she's preaching?

Such is the flexibility of "truth", as a result of the kinds of practices undertaken in such circles, that it can be readily bandied around in place of "opinion". This is one reason for why I will not discuss "truth" with such as them.

Ihre Zukunft

Some days I am frightened for my future children.

I am frightened that a very charismatic homeschooled fundamentalist Christian will find his or her way into their lives and fill their minds with the wrong questions. These will be questions that masquerade as the right questions, the right ones being the questions that lead to more and better questions. Instead, their questions will have neat little answers to them. Tidy, closed answers that rule out any further inquiry. They will think that they have the universe figured out, that the Christian God is the final word on things. This bible, this book, this collection of short stories that has spread like a plague across the face of the earth, worked its way to be the #1 Bestseller of all time because no self-respecting churchgoer or road-side motel room can be without one, will hold all of these supposed answers between its very finite covers. In a very important way, however, these covers will contain something even more terrifying: The fear of not having an answer. The fear of being wrong.

It is a system of trial or error, and not one of investigation that I fear. If one holds an absolute belief so strongly, and so much of one's life has been spent stagnating in it, there will be immense fear of being wrong, of having wasted this time. Thus, to change one's mind would be to fail. The only way to succeed would be to hold firm to these beliefs, despite one's doubts. Rationalizations of such acts, such as "I'm being tested", "God works in mysterious ways", and other cop-outs will be used to maintain this illusion of success and failure in the maintenance of such a belief system. But why not investigate? Why is it that, to find the answers we seek from Christianity, we must already believe that what they tell us is true? If we only investigate
our existence, to question anything and everything in relation to everything else, there is no fear left. If we are constantly learning about the universe instead of finding different ways to rationalize what we already pretend to know about it, we will be better off. There is comfort there, and surety. We do not need an absolute knowledge of any god or of any religion to live a strong, safe and ultimately good life. This is what I want for my children.

Lügen

How did you get to where you are now? Our history is the most important factor in determining the merits of our beliefs. As a result, the best question to ask is not "Why do you believe what you do?" but "How do you believe what you do?" That is to say, what life factors led you to this belief? Something about forest, trees and visibility applies here. Focus too much on the big cojone and you forget about the smaller cojones that actually got you where you are. Your father, your mother, your husband, your minister... how much of a role did these people have play in determining your beliefs? How much value do one's beliefs contain if they were not independently acquired?