Mistaken emnity between theists and atheists

[Touchstone]

I hold some very odd beliefs, TS. The foundation for those beliefs was a singular event that happened fifteen years ago with a group of people who are all dead or lost to drugs by now. I’ve never spoken of that event to anyone. Mostly, I fear the ridicule that would surely result. I am sure if I were to tell you those beliefs, you would ridicule them. And, I would expect, you would come to the same conclusion about me as you do others - that this isn’t just a matter of error, but of hostile ignorance. I would never correct you. I think what you are trying to suggest is that mocking someone’s beliefs is more intellectually genuine than challenging them. But how is creating an environment that is hostile to the truth bring about a more intellectually genuine conversation?

I think what you are describing are beyond ridicule in the sense I’ve been using it here. I have several “mystical” friends who are rational, intelligent people, but who each have a dramatic experience or two in their past that they claim is miraculous/supernatural/godful that they can’t explain, substantiate or test any more than I can. I advise a good, healthy skepticism in response to that (as in all things), but there’s no clear basis on which to refute their experience, or yours. I may not believe it, but I don’t think such claims are ridiculous, or given in bad faith, on their face. Think about my pal on the email loop whose regularly haranguing about carbon dating in a trivially falsifiable way; that’s a ridiculous line to take, as he or anyone else can, with just a little effort, establish the foolishness of his claims, and make very reasonable inferences about his motives, or at least marked irresponsibility in carrying on as he does.

His claims are ridiculous, because they are so easily shown to be bogus. In your case, that doesn’t apply. I am not privy to your subjective experiences, and what you would relate I would be unable to say much about. I don’t think those accounts are ridiculous, even if I don’t accept them as veridical. I have a couple of my own experiences that I think would qualify in the same category. I don’t accept them as “cosmic” or “supernatural”, but neither can I deny them as experiences.

Perhaps, as you suggested, I do hang out in higher quality circles than you do. But, TS, if the people you hang around with are so deserving of your derision, maybe you should hang out with different people? I’m just sayin. It’s a big world and a short life. Why spend time with people you clearly hold some ill-will towards?

I’m a free speech guy, and I take a dim view of exclusion, except as a last resort. I endorse communities policing themselves – self-governance. The way communities stay healthy is by discouraging bad behavior, and identifying intransigence and “hostile, persistent ignorance” as such. People tend to live up to or down to the expectations expressed in the community. So I don’t find a lot of value in just “avoiding” – that’s not a scalable model. I do find value in supporting community ethics and standards that uphold diversity and free exchange, but as grown-ups being responsible, teachable and accountable. Despite so many cases of unrepentant fools, I do note that these social pressures sometimes work, and work well, providing the prod that gets people behaving badly to consider behaving better, and doing it.

Most of the people in my life are nuts, by the way. My husband won’t allow any mirrors in the house because as he says, ‘Everyone knows evil spirits come through those at night and steal your soul’. Ayup. And I MARRIED that man. Like, made a conscious choice to LIVE IN A HOUSE WITHOUT MIRRORS FOREVER. (The bad news is, if HE should be ridiculed for this belief, where does that leave me? I mean, seriously, that man was BORN crazy, I picked crazy.) Should I ridicule him?

Well, I’m not prepared to defend “picking crazy” over “being crazy”, I guess. But look: we are talking about social sanctions here that get delivered so as to discourage bad behavior. If someone you live with really does have a clinical problem, I don’t think that’s a basis for ridicule at all, and social sanctions are not likely to help with any kind of clinical problem he may have. But if that’s just a matter of being unreasonable – a kind of quirky belief he entertains in the face of his reasoning and contemplative abilities — that is a position I find both hostile to you and those around him (no mirrors for you! why?) and something that very well may be resisted in a positive way by ridicule and derision: Come now, that’s just nonsense! Think about what you’re saying! It’s ridiculous, and I know you are smarter than that."

I remember carrying about “KJV only” as a high-schooler. In an argument I provoked with a Bible camp admin (who was a pastor at a non-KJV only church), I remember him upbraiding me pretty good – my arguments were ridiculous on there face, he said, and I should be ashamed to be making this a point of accusation and condemnation among fellow believers. Man I was livid at that point, but that was the point where I actually considered the idea that I was being foolish. I was being foolish, and that slap did me good.

There’s my friend Mario. I spent over an hour last week explaining to him that he is ACTUALLY 32 years old, not 31. I admit, in the end, he was quite sad, having lost a year of his life in the short span on an hour, but I can’t say that I mocked him for it. I don’t think he deserved to be mocked. He just had bad math. Very, very bad math. Should I ridicule him?

No. I hope the above has made it clear why.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

There’s Carrie. She thinks that a fairy dies every time someone says they’re not real. It makes her cry. What can I say, she’s a very sensitive soul. Should I ridicule her?
And you talked about racism. I find that interesting, seeing as one of my nearest and dearest friends is Skinhead Dave. He’s, well, a skinhead. The Jews and Blacks are destroying the world blah blah blah. He’ll tell you ALL about it. Catholics, too, if you really get him going Blatant racism. I mean, he wears a swastika for goodness sake, the man’s not playing around. Should I ridicule him?

Given what little you’ve relayed here, I can only answer tentatively, but yes. A man who blames blacks and Jews for the problems of the world because they are black or Jewish (or both!), that’s a good case of beliefs that call for a strong bit of ridicule and denigration. Social sanction is in order in those cases, and unless there’s a really unusual set of psychological circumstances behind this, he’s not just wrong, but wrong in a hostile, destructive way, and in a way he should be easily able to abandon with a little reasoning and respect for himself and other humans.

Perhaps I am just being willfully ignorant. But I wonder if someone brutal honesty is more brutal than honest.

Honesty is definitely brutal, often times. There is no God or god, so far as I can see. That’s brutal, when you think of some of the implications of that. Death is the end, the finality of you. And all the wrongs that never got set right in this life… never, ever get set right.

Brutal.

But on this issue, it’s precisely because confrontation and frank talk is so emotionally charged that people persist in poisoning the wells of public discourse. Many understand they can be as foolish and hostile as they like, and be at low risk from an honest assessment of their actions, because that assessment is ‘brutal’ in a way; it shines a light on that poisoning of the well by them, and that is a painful light to have shown on the perpetrator.

I hope the distinctions I’ve made between honest mistakes and ignorance and dishonest, hostile polemics are clear. Honest dealers should have nothing to fear from this approach, or from me.

-TS

 

[edwest2]

To TS -

Do you think Psychiatry is valid? If so, then how do you explain the arbitrary, non-scientific vote taken to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973? Was this reasonable? Apparently it was not based on scientific criteria but on the will of a group calling itself the GayPA. If that’s all it takes to go from disorder one day, to not a disorder the next, I see no justification.

As I think you know, the Church does not view sexual orientation as the problem, just acting on it. The Catholic Medical Association’s position is that people are not born that way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Touchstone]

To TS -

Do you think Psychiatry is valid?

I don’t think “valid” applies to a discipline. For any given proposition or hypothesis, we can assess its performance empirically, and that I would say is “index to validity”.

If so, then how do you explain the arbitrary, non-scientific vote taken to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973? Was this reasonable? Apparently it was not based on scientific criteria but on the will of a group calling itself the GayPA. If that’s all it takes to go from disorder one day, to not a disorder the next, I see no justification.

As I understand it, homosexuality was conspicuous as a disorder because it didn’t fit the criteria applied elsewhere, namely that the condition was not problematic toward the sustaining and development of healthy, normal functioning in life – building and keeping friendships and relationships, performing at one’s job, pursuit of creative and recreative interests, etc. For example, when gambling becomes a “disorder”, it is classified as such because the devotion to gambling interferes with the normal function of person towards their other goals in life; gambling that threatens and destroys relationships, jobs, and other personal goals by the consumption of that obsession is termed a “disorder”.

By that measure, and I believe if you check it out, you will see this principle is used to classify disorders across all manner of activities – alcoholism becomes a clinical problem for just the same reasons, as alcohol begins to interfere with relationships, jobs and other responsibilities the person would otherwise wish to uphold. Drugs, “internet addiction” (which I understand does have clinical diagnoses along these same lines), narcissism, or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) are clinically distinguished by their deleterious effects on the subject’s social development and stability.

Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation or a form of sexual expression, does not qualify against this test. That is, homosexuality can be, and often is, perfectly compatible with healthy social development, building and maintaining of personal relationships, performance in job duties, pursuit of creative interests, etc. Homosex, like heterosex, and so many other activities, can be abused and indulged to the point of disorder, but it’s not intrinsically problematic any more than heterosexual contact or orientation is, or a glass of wine, which has alcohol that can be a serious problem if abused.

The prejudices against homosexuality are ancient and deep, though, and even as it fails the principled tests, it has a hard time acquitting itself because of that. A complicating factor is the trauma, stress and abuse that homosexuals must contend with in society – these are the hated and scorned, the ‘social lepers’, thanks in no small part to the Catholic Church, sad to say. The social environment a homosexual must grow up in and live in is a particularly hostile, alienating one, and that fact itself exacts a heavy psychological toll on many homosexuals. This leads to the perverse conclusion in many cases that homosexuality is a problem because if you are a homosexual, you are going to suffer so much abuse and derision an scorn that you are likely to carry the scars and effects of that.

In any case, as I’ve had it explained to me by more than one friend trained in that discipline, the community finally owned up to the fact that homosexuality had no credentials as a disorder, any more than heterosexuality does.

As I think you know, the Church does not view sexual orientation as the problem, just acting on it. The Catholic Medical Association’s position is that people are not born that way.

Yes, and this is an example of the corrosive effect of dogma on the soul. This dogma positively begs otherwise good natured folk to lie, evade, misrepresent and distort. Like creationists confronted with the science of an old earth, pushed to being the very thing they claim to despise – promoters of lies and deceit, Catholics, confronted with evidence of the biological/genetic influence toward homosexual orientation and practice must prevaricate and dissemble. The dogma has become a means of institutionalizing dishonesty. People who are otherwise intent on being good and honest and fair are herded away from that toward evil behavior, their honesty and goodness set alight at the altar of the anti-homosexual dogma.

Peace,
Ed

-TS

 

[Betterave]

I haven’t taken the time to read all of the posts in this thread, but as far as TS’s defense of ridiculing the ridiculous, I’m reminded of a saying about people who live in glass houses… I think it would behoove you, TS, to focus on not saying things that are ridiculous yourself, rather than on defending what seems to me (in my perhaps too-limited experience of your dialogical practice) to be your all-too-frequent practice of dismissing as ridiculous things/people that you neither understand nor have the patience/demeanor to even try to understand.

 

[rwillenborg]

Often times, and especially in new situations, you don’t. Many people just are mistaken or ignorant in an honest or benign way. But when you track with people on forums or lists, and they are repeatedly given ample and clear information by way of correction or information, there is either a learning disability at work, or some bad will. And while I’m sure learning/attention problems do occasionally come into play, it’s quite common to watch such posters demonstrate via their posts that they are plenty capable of learning and assimilating new information when they want to. They just show they do not want to, and are willfully ignorant in a belligerent way, or worse – just plain lying about what they understand because its problematic for their views to acknowledge it.

I think this is addressed in my paragraph above. Like I said, the evidence paints the picture, and it’s not hard to discount “learning disabilities” over time when you can see these individuals showing their mental process in topics that don’t represent problems for their beliefs or political goals.

For example, one a list I co-manage, there is one particular member who has a real hang up about radiometric dating, and he brings up the SAME ridiculous points, time after time, crazy stuff about Carbon dating being falsified because it dates a just-killed elephant or other animal at 25,000 years old, which isn’t supported as a description of the case he links to in the first place, and even “fixed” does nothing more than highlight the limitations of C-14 dating – it’s not supposed to work on an animal freshly killed.

It’s not the error of this itself that’s offensive – we see this kind of nonsense regularly, as this is what the more extreme young earth creation apologists regularly put out, and this its what the faithful in so many fundamentalist churches faithfully accept as gospel. But this guy has been corrected, time and again, dozens of times now, inundated with helpful links, explanations and citations to the relevant science to help him out.

But – and it’s come up again this week – that complaint is apparently just polemical tool which he has no interesting in making sure is accurate or responsible. It’s just useful, and if it’s a lie, well so be it. He doesn’t want to know better, apparently. Good Christians just know that carbon dating is a Satanic lie.

Well, I’m a free speech guy, so people like I described above get to remain in the discussion a lot longer than they do elsewhere, but even so, as the data piles up on their modus operandus, we provide yet another correction when he lobs these crazy arguments into the conversation, and a link to a post that chronicles his intransigence, so people who care can see the pattern of his hostile, ridicule-deserving behavior for themselves.

And of course, in cases where I/we jump the gun, or are mistaken about the motives/capabilities of the person in question, that’s an injustice, and something that reflects poorly on me, when it happens.

I’m told its a gratifying experience. Just don’t be persistent in trying to BS me. Avoid that, and engaged minds and stories over a good, tall glass of Guiness is a recipe for an evening well spent!

-TS

Sorry for my late reply. Things have been busy around here.
Thank you for your honest reply. That actually does clear it up alot.
And I don’t like stories and Guiness. I like lies and scotch.

 

[rwillenborg]

I think what you are describing are beyond ridicule in the sense I’ve been using it here. I have several “mystical” friends who are rational, intelligent people, but who each have a dramatic experience or two in their past that they claim is miraculous/supernatural/godful that they can’t explain, substantiate or test any more than I can. I advise a good, healthy skepticism in response to that (as in all things), but there’s no clear basis on which to refute their experience, or yours. I may not believe it, but I don’t think such claims are ridiculous, or given in bad faith, on their face. Think about my pal on the email loop whose regularly haranguing about carbon dating in a trivially falsifiable way; that’s a ridiculous line to take, as he or anyone else can, with just a little effort, establish the foolishness of his claims, and make very reasonable inferences about his motives, or at least marked irresponsibility in carrying on as he does.

His claims are ridiculous, because they are so easily shown to be bogus. In your case, that doesn’t apply. I am not privy to your subjective experiences, and what you would relate I would be unable to say much about. I don’t think those accounts are ridiculous, even if I don’t accept them as veridical. I have a couple of my own experiences that I think would qualify in the same category. I don’t accept them as “cosmic” or “supernatural”, but neither can I deny them as experiences.

I’m a free speech guy, and I take a dim view of exclusion, except as a last resort. I endorse communities policing themselves – self-governance. The way communities stay healthy is by discouraging bad behavior, and identifying intransigence and “hostile, persistent ignorance” as such. People tend to live up to or down to the expectations expressed in the community. So I don’t find a lot of value in just “avoiding” – that’s not a scalable model. I do find value in supporting community ethics and standards that uphold diversity and free exchange, but as grown-ups being responsible, teachable and accountable. Despite so many cases of unrepentant fools, I do note that these social pressures sometimes work, and work well, providing the prod that gets people behaving badly to consider behaving better, and doing it.

Well, I’m not prepared to defend “picking crazy” over “being crazy”, I guess. But look: we are talking about social sanctions here that get delivered so as to discourage bad behavior. If someone you live with really does have a clinical problem, I don’t think that’s a basis for ridicule at all, and social sanctions are not likely to help with any kind of clinical problem he may have. But if that’s just a matter of being unreasonable – a kind of quirky belief he entertains in the face of his reasoning and contemplative abilities — that is a position I find both hostile to you and those around him (no mirrors for you! why?) and something that very well may be resisted in a positive way by ridicule and derision: Come now, that’s just nonsense! Think about what you’re saying! It’s ridiculous, and I know you are smarter than that."

I remember carrying about “KJV only” as a high-schooler. In an argument I provoked with a Bible camp admin (who was a pastor at a non-KJV only church), I remember him upbraiding me pretty good – my arguments were ridiculous on there face, he said, and I should be ashamed to be making this a point of accusation and condemnation among fellow believers. Man I was livid at that point, but that was the point where I actually considered the idea that I was being foolish. I was being foolish, and that slap did me good.

No. I hope the above has made it clear why.

-TS

I just wanted to clear something up. I left you with the impression that my experiences were mystical. Sorry about that. That was not my intent. I’ve never had a mystical experience in my life. Although, looking back, when my friends and I used to drop acid and go to the Imax that was pretty close. But still, not spiritual or mystical.
Also, when you said you mocked people (or ridiculed, I don’t remember your word specifically) I thought you meant in real life. I know this internet world is different than real life (I pretty much spend some time here and some time on craftster’s message boards. Otherwise, I find this whole cyber world fairly hostile). I think that clears it up alot actually. People on the internet can act very differently than they do in real life. It’s very strange, but I can see how as a forum moderator a heavy hand is sometimes called for. Again, I thought you were talking about talking with friends and family and neighbors that way.
And you asked why no mirrors. I think the answer is obvious. It’s because I ALWAYS look fabulous and don’t need them. Duh.
Although, I think it’s interesting that you would find hubby’s no mirror position to possibly be hostile. Huh. The thought honestly had never entered my mind. And truly, it’s a quirky thing on his end. Strange, really. He’s an atheist really through and through, except that he thinks evil spirits can come through mirrors. Maybe he saw too many scary movies as a kid? Who knows. That boy’s always coming up with crazy ideas…

 

[rwillenborg]

Given what little you’ve relayed here, I can only answer tentatively, but yes. A man who blames blacks and Jews for the problems of the world because they are black or Jewish (or both!), that’s a good case of beliefs that call for a strong bit of ridicule and denigration. Social sanction is in order in those cases, and unless there’s a really unusual set of psychological circumstances behind this, he’s not just wrong, but wrong in a hostile, destructive way, and in a way he should be easily able to abandon with a little reasoning and respect for himself and other humans.

Honesty is definitely brutal, often times. There is no God or god, so far as I can see. That’s brutal, when you think of some of the implications of that. Death is the end, the finality of you. And all the wrongs that never got set right in this life… never, ever get set right.

Brutal.

But on this issue, it’s precisely because confrontation and frank talk is so emotionally charged that people persist in poisoning the wells of public discourse. Many understand they can be as foolish and hostile as they like, and be at low risk from an honest assessment of their actions, because that assessment is ‘brutal’ in a way; it shines a light on that poisoning of the well by them, and that is a painful light to have shown on the perpetrator.

I hope the distinctions I’ve made between honest mistakes and ignorance and dishonest, hostile polemics are clear. Honest dealers should have nothing to fear from this approach, or from me.

-TS

I don’t know how to splice, but here’s your blurb -
Honesty is definitely brutal, often times. There is no God or god, so far as I can see. That’s brutal, when you think of some of the implications of that. Death is the end, the finality of you. And all the wrongs that never got set right in this life… never, ever get set right.

Brutal.

Life with no God is brutal? Are you kidding me? The idea that there IS a God is brutal!!! It’s more brutal than putting your hair in a toaster. It’s more brutal than me in skinny jeans. It’s more brutal than Rob Schneider trying to act. It’s more brutal than that show Cop Rock.
Oh, man, if death really were the end, if all the wrongs that I did never had to get set right, I kid you not, TS, that would be THE BEST THING EVER.
But the idea that I’m going to have to PAY for all the trouble I’ve caused? The idea that my actions will have a consequence? THAT’S brutal.
Listen, TS, for people who are at their hearts good people the idea that God exists and he is just and merciful is probably of great comfort. I wouldn’t know. I’m not what you’d call ‘good people’. I’m not trying to play that game of, what’s it called, false pride, where you put yourself down unnecessarily. I’d cut an old lady for a bag of Doritos. Bet.
For someone like me, the idea that there is a God, it’s hell on earth.
I’m just sayin.

Another blurb -
I hope the distinctions I’ve made between honest mistakes and ignorance and dishonest, hostile polemics are clear. Honest dealers should have nothing to fear from this approach, or from me.

Actually, they have been. Thanks!

 

[Touchstone]

I just wanted to clear something up. I left you with the impression that my experiences were mystical. Sorry about that. That was not my intent. I’ve never had a mystical experience in my life. Although, looking back, when my friends and I used to drop acid and go to the Imax that was pretty close. But still, not spiritual or mystical.

My mistake, then. Sorry. I appreciate your clearing that up.

Also, when you said you mocked people (or ridiculed, I don’t remember your word specifically) I thought you meant in real life.

I did, actually. That is where it’s much more effective – it’s not nearly as useful online, I’ve found. As I said, it takes some context and diligence to qualify – sometimes people are just mistaken or ignorant in an honest way, and that needs to treated with caution. But it’s very effective when it is applied in real life. This last spring I was at a presentation by a local young earth creationist who had presented for our homeschool group the previous fall. There, I and another dad – who is a scientist had gotten into a polite but focused debate after the presentation not about interpretation, but basic, glaring errors in the citation of facts by this guy.

The other dad and the YEC apologists carried on for a couple days by email, and in just being copied on the exchange, it was clear that the YEC understood his basic errors and pledged to change his subsequent presentations.

So in this spring presentation, of course the same deceptions and misrepresentations get brought up again, and another (different) dad objects this time, and I jumped into the fray. Not only were the claims of this guy wrong, misleading, bogus, but these very claims had been refuted and corrected – I had seen it. Yet here again, he’s presenting this **** to teenagers, trusting teenagers.

That is an occasion for ridicule, for being called out as a dishonest fraud, publicly and loudly (I wish we hadn’t waited for the Q&A – half the crowd had left by the time that started).

I understand, despite the man’s feigned failure to remember being corrected just a few months before, that he has now dropped that part of the presentation. Not corrected it, but has stopped promoting his lies. It was a ridiculous argument that part, even by his own standards, as he knew what he was pushing was bogus, made up, dishonest.

If we had a little more sensible expectations of integrity and good behavior from people in those positions, we’d get better behavior.

I know this internet world is different than real life (I pretty much spend some time here and some time on craftster’s message boards. Otherwise, I find this whole cyber world fairly hostile).

It’s a two edged-sword that. It’s easy to be obnoxious because of the relative anonymity and insulation from recourse. But by the same measure, criticism on line lends itself to uncritical dismissal – it’s just some stranger on the Net, right? What can that person know. On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog, etc…

In real life the accountability is much more tangible, and that’s a good thing.

I think that clears it up alot actually. People on the internet can act very differently than they do in real life. It’s very strange, but I can see how as a forum moderator a heavy hand is sometimes called for. Again, I thought you were talking about talking with friends and family and neighbors that way.

I was, although if I’m to the point of ridicule, those are strong measures indeed, and so that would be a strain on any friendship, as that would be a response to really seriously obnoxious behavior.

And you asked why no mirrors. I think the answer is obvious. It’s because I ALWAYS look fabulous and don’t need them. Duh.

I thought of that. It seemed pretty obvious from your beautiful prose. I thought I might give people scandalous impressions if I said anything, though…

It was pretty obvious, looking back.

Although, I think it’s interesting that you would find hubby’s no mirror position to possibly be hostile. Huh. The thought honestly had never entered my mind. And truly, it’s a quirky thing on his end. Strange, really. He’s an atheist really through and through, except that he thinks evil spirits can come through mirrors. Maybe he saw too many scary movies as a kid? Who knows. That boy’s always coming up with crazy ideas…

Could be. There are many atheists who don’t believe in gods but do believe in ghosts, faeries and other supernatural entities.

I have no idea what the dynamics are for your husband’s mirror thing. It’s not my place to say. But in a general sense – and this is a persistent problem with evangelistic religion – it’s obnoxious to just proclaim things about the world that totally contradict the evidence and models people have come up with as a collective, objective effort. Maybe mirrors are possessed, or Ouija boards are “demon portals”, as apparently many Catholics believe. It’s disingenuous to hold that out as something other, reasonable, evidence-based people should just accept however, and is fundamentally hostile in that it demands a kind of confrontation for the sake of rationality, or else a kind of capitulation to their credulity.

-TS

 

[rwillenborg]

My mistake, then. Sorry. I appreciate your clearing that up.

I did, actually. That is where it’s much more effective – it’s not nearly as useful online, I’ve found. As I said, it takes some context and diligence to qualify – sometimes people are just mistaken or ignorant in an honest way, and that needs to treated with caution. But it’s very effective when it is applied in real life. This last spring I was at a presentation by a local young earth creationist who had presented for our homeschool group the previous fall. There, I and another dad – who is a scientist had gotten into a polite but focused debate after the presentation not about interpretation, but basic, glaring errors in the citation of facts by this guy.

The other dad and the YEC apologists carried on for a couple days by email, and in just being copied on the exchange, it was clear that the YEC understood his basic errors and pledged to change his subsequent presentations.

So in this spring presentation, of course the same deceptions and misrepresentations get brought up again, and another (different) dad objects this time, and I jumped into the fray. Not only were the claims of this guy wrong, misleading, bogus, but these very claims had been refuted and corrected – I had seen it. Yet here again, he’s presenting this **** to teenagers, trusting teenagers.

That is an occasion for ridicule, for being called out as a dishonest fraud, publicly and loudly (I wish we hadn’t waited for the Q&A – half the crowd had left by the time that started).

I understand, despite the man’s feigned failure to remember being corrected just a few months before, that he has now dropped that part of the presentation. Not corrected it, but has stopped promoting his lies. It was a ridiculous argument that part, even by his own standards, as he knew what he was pushing was bogus, made up, dishonest.

If we had a little more sensible expectations of integrity and good behavior from people in those positions, we’d get better behavior.

It’s a two edged-sword that. It’s easy to be obnoxious because of the relative anonymity and insulation from recourse. But by the same measure, criticism on line lends itself to uncritical dismissal – it’s just some stranger on the Net, right? What can that person know. On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog, etc…

In real life the accountability is much more tangible, and that’s a good thing.

I was, although if I’m to the point of ridicule, those are strong measures indeed, and so that would be a strain on any friendship, as that would be a response to really seriously obnoxious behavior.

I thought of that. It seemed pretty obvious from your beautiful prose. I thought I might give people scandalous impressions if I said anything, though…

It was pretty obvious, looking back.

Could be. There are many atheists who don’t believe in gods but do believe in ghosts, faeries and other supernatural entities.

I have no idea what the dynamics are for your husband’s mirror thing. It’s not my place to say. But in a general sense – and this is a persistent problem with evangelistic religion – it’s obnoxious to just proclaim things about the world that totally contradict the evidence and models people have come up with as a collective, objective effort. Maybe mirrors are possessed, or Ouija boards are “demon portals”, as apparently many Catholics believe. It’s disingenuous to hold that out as something other, reasonable, evidence-based people should just accept however, and is fundamentally hostile in that it demands a kind of confrontation for the sake of rationality, or else a kind of capitulation to their credulity.

-TS

Holy fast response batman!! Is this catholic.com thing on your iphone or something? Seriously…maybe this is one of the skills you get from moderating boards? Quick responses and all…
Anyway, I get what you’re saying now, I do. I think when you ridicule people, it’s not what I thought it was at first. You did a good job of clearing that up. And you’re right, people should get called out on error. I have to wonder - how did a YEC end up at your homeschool group? In my life, real life, I’ve know a grand total of ONE yec. He’s a funny kid.
I find that whole connection between atheists and a belief in supernatural things to be very odd. I know many who fall into that category, husband included of course. They will tell you up and down how they had encounters with some ‘troubled spirit’ of some sort or another and they just talked to the spirit and it went away. And then they say the soul is not immortal and there’s no such thing as heaven or hell and I just think then what was that troubled soul and where did it go?
Funny you bring up ouija boards. I have trouble believing that anything mass produced in china by parker brothers could contact the supernatural realm. It’s like going to a parallel universe by playing chutes and ladders. I’m just not buying it. Still, I have to be honest, they give me the creeps, always have.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I find that whole connection between atheists and a belief in supernatural things to be very odd.

The problem is the multiplicity of often contrary concepts of atheism! Here are the 2 main models, as far as I can tell:

a) the rejection of any method of interpreting reality outside of scientific empiricism (specifically, any that involve reliance on experience which cannot be scientifically verified - much of theistic experience falls into this category)

b) the disbelief in God

and, to catch the Dawkinsian vote-catcher:

c) the lack of belief in God (which personally I think could easily include anyone who really sits on the fence, and hasn’t really made their mind up on the question)

The problem is, a) ultimately means that deists and (especially neo-) pantheists, 2 groups who believe in God (of differing types), are atheists! I’ve seen both groups being both recruited, and tying their flag to, atheism whereas b) includes various forms of mysticisms, particularly some forms of Buddhism, which are obviously religious in nature, but do not involve belief in God.

Ho-hum! Maybe we should just invent new words to explain different positions properly!

 

[rwillenborg]

The problem is the multiplicity of often contrary concepts of atheism! Here are the 2 main models, as far as I can tell:

a) the rejection of any method of interpreting reality outside of scientific empiricism (specifically, any that involve reliance on experience which cannot be scientifically verified - much of theistic experience falls into this category)

b) the disbelief in God

and, to catch the Dawkinsian vote-catcher:

c) the lack of belief in God (which personally I think could easily include anyone who really sits on the fence, and hasn’t really made their mind up on the question)

The problem is, a) ultimately means that deists and (especially neo-) pantheists, 2 groups who believe in God (of differing types), are atheists! I’ve seen both groups being both recruited, and tying their flag to, atheism whereas b) includes various forms of mysticisms, particularly some forms of Buddhism, which are obviously religious in nature, but do not involve belief in God.

Ho-hum! Maybe we should just invent new words to explain different positions properly!

I think you’re on to something mystic. We invent new words like ‘sexting’ and ‘Brangelina’. Maybe the people who spend time making up THOSE new words would be kind enough to work on something, well, else, too.

 

[Dameedna]

I would suggest, however, that the most significant “language barrier” here is the barrier between naturalist and rationalist understandings of the world. The rationalist will have a harder time defining things, of course, because the rationalist realizes he is dealing with metaphysics, and metaphysical definition is a minefield (to put it mildly).

I’m not sure why you are talking about naturalist and rationalists as though they are two sides of the same coin. They really aren’t. A point of view is already being nudged here, which creates an either or situation which isn’t always the case.

Having said that…

One thing I’ve noticed about “rational” thinking, is that it really does depend on a position that you already hold. I know there is a lot of “technical” speak that goes into determining what is classified as rational and what is classified as logical, but it’s extremely difficult for the average person to comprehend it, without very specific education in this area.

But I’ve alway’s found that no matter how complex the issue, if it is a foundational part of human life, it can be explained in terms that all can understand(I know, there are probably exceptions but there won’t be as many as we think). Mythology answers this call toward common human understanding which is why it’s so powerful.

So…rational thinking. It depends on the place you hold while thinking “rationally” about the topic.

Here’s an example:

Believer: You don’t believe in God, because you reject God. (I believe in God, because he exists)

This is rational to some believers, because the “default” position they hold is that there IS a God. SINCE God exists, then to not accept this God, you reject him. Perfectly rational state of mind.

The premise being… God exists.

Non-Believer: You believe in God, simply because you want to. (God does not exist, so the reason you believe has to be an issue with you)

This is also rational, because the default position is “god does not exist”. This is the position an athiest holds. So when a believer tells us we worship a devil, reject a God, or haven’t prayed hard enough it comes across as highly irrational. You cannot worship something that doesn’t exist, you cannot reject something that doesn’t exist and you can’t pray to something that doesn’t exist. And yet the believer will continue to say these things, never really understanding how irrational it is, to the person who holds the default position, there is no God.

What I’m describing above, is to me the biggest problem. We simply do not come from the same place, the same world view the same map. Hence the strong need for definitions, and debate around those definitions and the quagmire that is philisophical thinking.

We just can’t all think that way or have that kind of education. We pick a side(for whatever reason) and call the other irrational.

It is interesting as an athiest, challenging the “irrational” notions of religion. It’s difficult to put myself into a new mindset and it’s taught me a lot, which is why I still come here. I find myself embarrassed by some athiest mindsets and comments and I find myself more welcoming of the ideas of people with faith. (and the reverse of course)

Not sure it’s a mistaken emnity, because the emnity exists. The mistake we make is in thinking we understand the mindset of the other person. We don’t so most arguments go nowhere other than to “create” the emnity that you are talking about.

Perhaps we can remove the emnity by firstly admiting we really do not understand the other’s map of the world?

 

[Fran65]

We pick a side(for whatever reason) and call the other irrational…
Perhaps we can remove the emnity by firstly admiting we really do not understand the other’s map of the world?

I am Catholic, but I understand the position of someone who holds to materialism and does not have a belief in God/gods or who does not believe that God or gods exist. That is to me a completely rational position and one that can be supported within the materialist framework. I also understand that elements of my faith* are *irrational and that is not a problem for me as I am human and not a machine.

What I would like from some agnostics/atheists/anti-theists is the respect that I accord others. I do understand their map of the world - I’ve been there and followed all sorts of twisting routes. Whilst I cannot expect these people to have been where I am, I do expect them to not be dismissive and downright rude. I deplore that behaviour in anyone who engages in it.

Touchstone,

Two grown men, ridiculing a young man in public is appalling to my mind - what sort of values does that teach to the students present? If you don’t like someone or spot they’ve made a mistake then make a fool of them and humuliate them in front of others? Not especially edifying to my mind!

Rather than using ridicule. why not politely point out the errors/problems that you see and engage in a civil discussion up to the point where you could politely excuse yourself? That is far more effective in my experience as others present get to see the corrections, the process of discussion and how to handle disagreements and errors. I know someone who always asks what a third party would think of your behaviour if they saw it without the context. Asking what this looks like to someone else is a good corrective for me - especially when I become irritated with other drivers!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Dameedna,

Good points. I think there is one common ground we could find: a commitment to the truth. For the sake of argument, we discard our assumptions and our worldview. Then we see what we get. When another person makes an argument we have no answer to, we should admit that. But the fact that a person wins an argument does not mean that their words are objectively true.

 

[bridgeforsale]

y enemies are these: 1) Anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ and yet has bought into modern materialism. 2) Anyone who argues intellectually purely for fun, and doesn’t care about the truth, 3) Anyone who ridicules another person for their beliefs (or lacks of beliefs).

I personally reserve the term “enemy” for those who threaten my country, my family, or myself. Those whom might amuse themselves by arguing a position (without regard for intellectual honesty) are certainly annoying, but enemy?

I also note the apparent inconsistency (perhaps you could clarify) of saying your list of “enemies” includes Christians who buy into “modern materialism” (which, potentially includes virtually every Christian in the United States), yet those enemies do not include non-theists (without regard for their personal approach to “modern materialism”).

What is modern materialism anyway? Isn’t it really just another way of saying we have more things available today than we did in the past? Were preceding generations really less materialistic? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if our 18th and 19th century predecessors had abundant electricity, supermarkets and department stores, etc. they would have made full use of them? Would it make us more “godly” if we reverted back to let’s say an agrarian society, or even the so called golden era immediately following WWII?

I’m not so sure. I tend to think American society is a dynamic place, constantly in flux, and people tend to be innately resistant to change (and the more dramatic the change, the more resistant we are to it). Therefore I imagine it must be tempting to find comfort in nostalgia. However, I think reality is much more complex, and much less predictable than most imagine. There’s a variety of reasons, in many cases rarely factored into our reasoning process, why what worked yesterday will not and perhaps cannot work tomorrow. I don’t put much stock in things like game theory. I think predicting behavior, bright line assumptions concerning cause and effect relationships, etc. is very difficult (and sometimes simply not possible).

As inefficient as randomness is (and I concede it’s highly inefficient, just look at how inefficient natural selection in evolution is) so far its the best we got. I think history has proven a centralized economy lacks the flexibility to adapt to real conditions. Thus Adam Smith vindicated and Karl Marx debunked (at least IMHO). Moreover, it lacks the flexibility to efficiently deal with waste (usually the result of self-interested freeloaders who cheat at the expense of moral participants). Thus it seems wishing society was as it was in the past, imagining we can steer it backwards in time, is an exercise in futility (which would suggest it’s an unproductive desire, notwithstanding it’s a very natural desire).

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone,

Two grown men, ridiculing a young man in public is appalling to my mind - what sort of values does that teach to the students present?

The creationist teacher was in his 50s at least, not that that matters, though. Maybe it’s worse in your view, giving the business to someone older then myself, then. In any case, the reason I stand and object is precisely for the value it projects – honesty, courage, fairness, and the will to resist malicious foolishness. These are all in short supply around me, and I want my kids, and anyone else in the room to see an example of taking honesty and integrity seriously, and having the guts to stand up to a fool who would promotes lies and foolishness on impressionable, young, trusting minds to mitigate the cognitive dissonance that afflicts him due to his cowardly choices in his mind.

Would that more parents had the brains and guts to make sure that guy never was given a “teacher’s podium” for their kids! I regret being one to “follow” in the second case, instead of leading the charge.

If you don’t like someone or spot they’ve made a mistake then make a fool of them and humuliate them in front of others? Not especially edifying to my mind!

It has nothing to do with “liking” or “not liking” someone. The objective to meet the determined deception and foolishness with some objections and demands for accountability for the hostile behavior this crank was showing toward kids – trusting, innocent kids! Here’s a man who should ridiculed into the shadows, kept away from influence on kids, once he’s proven he’s determined, in the face of robust correction of his factual errors, to persist in his lying and corruption of the eager minds of those kids.

As I said above, I’m inclined to be generous. You can bend and distort and deny reality six ways from Sunday in your interpretations of the facts, and I’ll abide by that, objecting on the merits and not with ridicule. But that guy is no more entitled to his own made up facts to work from and present to his students than I am. This was a blindspot for me as a Christian, this kind of behavior toward kids (or anyone). What worked a little bit was the comparison to an incorrigible Holocaust denier or white supremacist being given the microphone to promote their made up “facts” to our kids.

Rather than using ridicule. why not politely point out the errors/problems that you see and engage in a civil discussion up to the point where you could politely excuse yourself?

That had been done, and had been going on for months. I was just cc’ed on the email exchanges but this guy had MORE THAN ample polite, well prepared, properly cited materials showing his errors.

I don’t profess to know the internals for why this guy has dropped the claims we were objecting to in his current presentations. But I do suspect that a series of increasingly strong objections may have played a role. For too long, smart, honest people just politely listened to his BS pushed at the kids, clapped at the end, and went home. The kids regress, and it’s just another success for the fool. How that comes across as preferable to an honest person’s conscience, I do not know.

That is far more effective in my experience as others present get to see the corrections, the process of discussion and how to handle disagreements and errors. I know someone who always asks what a third party would think of your behaviour if they saw it without the context. Asking what this looks like to someone else is a good corrective for me - especially when I become irritated with other drivers!

You’d be surprised how many people will come forward, privately (unfortunately), and thank you for saying something, afterwards. It’s good to know others understand, but I’m always left to wonder why they don’t act on their own, and stand up for the truth.

Maybe part of the disconnect here is that you are imagining ‘ridicule’ from me to be “thumbing my nose” or shooting spitballs at the guy, or some other form of childish haranguing. I think it definitely qualifies as ridicule – I’m literally ridiculing his statements as foolish, purposely and willfully foolish – but it’s not spitballing; it’s a very serious, sober and pointed confrontation. He was literally put to shame, as he should have been, especially when my cohort offered to come up to the front and not only show the real facts to the crowd, but also the emails and materials from this guy that showed he knew better. We didn’t have to “schoolyard” or anything like that (maybe that is what you are imagining), but it was a very heavy confrontation, and a situation I can say if I were to be in (his role), I’d seriously rethink taking risks with my foolishness when adults were around, too.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I personally reserve the term “enemy” for those who threaten my country, my family, or myself. Those whom might amuse themselves by arguing a position (without regard for intellectual honesty) are certainly annoying, but enemy?

I also note the apparent inconsistency (perhaps you could clarify) of saying your list of “enemies” includes Christians who buy into “modern materialism” (which, potentially includes virtually every Christian in the United States), yet those enemies do not include non-theists (without regard for their personal approach to “modern materialism”).

What is modern materialism anyway? Isn’t it really just another way of saying we have more things available today than we did in the past? Were preceding generations really less materialistic? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if our 18th and 19th century predecessors had abundant electricity, supermarkets and department stores, etc. they would have made full use of them? Would it make us more “godly” if we reverted back to let’s say an agrarian society, or even the so called golden era immediately following WWII?

I’m not so sure. I tend to think American society is a dynamic place, constantly in flux, and people tend to be innately resistant to change (and the more dramatic the change, the more resistant we are to it). Therefore I imagine it must be tempting to find comfort in nostalgia. However, I think reality is much more complex, and much less predictable than most imagine. There’s a variety of reasons, in many cases rarely factored into our reasoning process, why what worked yesterday will not and perhaps cannot work tomorrow. I don’t put much stock in things like game theory. I think predicting behavior, bright line assumptions concerning cause and effect relationships, etc. is very difficult (and sometimes simply not possible).

As inefficient as randomness is (and I concede it’s highly inefficient, just look at how inefficient natural selection in evolution is) so far its the best we got. I think history has proven a centralized economy lacks the flexibility to adapt to real conditions. Thus Adam Smith vindicated and Karl Marx debunked (at least IMHO). Moreover, it lacks the flexibility to efficiently deal with waste (usually the result of self-interested freeloaders who cheat at the expense of moral participants). Thus it seems wishing society was as it was in the past, imagining we can steer it backwards in time, is an exercise in futility (which would suggest it’s an unproductive desire, notwithstanding it’s a very natural desire).

Good comments, but let me suggest there’s likely a disconnect in the use of “materialism” here, between you and the others you are talking to. Both apply, and are relevant in a cultural analysis, but here, “materialism” from the theists usually refers a worldview that understands reality as fundamentally material, that is, physical or natural as opposed to supernatural or spiritual. This is distinct from ‘materialism’ in the Madonna-singing-Material-Girl sense, where we are consumed and obsessed with consumerism and “stuff”. The paragraph about department stores and previous generations has me convinced your (cogent) points are based on a different sense of ‘materialism’ than Prodigal_Son was employing, there.

On randomness, I think it’s quite uncontroversial to affirm that randomness is “blind and stupid” in contrast to an intelligent mind that apprehends a given task and controls resources that applicable to it. But in the absence of mind is pretty darn efficient as a solution engine, and I think may be the only game in town in that case, or at least the crucial dynamic for creative output.

Even with intelligent minds available, randomness prevails even then, in some cases. One technology I work with in my job is evolutionary algorithms, and I’m continually amazed to find that the “blind, dumb” work of random search and variation beating the best available human minds through sheer brute force. If you need something ginned up by next Tuesday, random search over a landscape isn’t gonna help you very much, but if the context is impersonal, and stretches of over eons, randomness trounces the mind-that-isn’t-there any way you slice it.

-TS

 

[bridgeforsale]

Good comments, but let me suggest there’s likely a disconnect in the use of “materialism” here, between you and the others you are talking to. Both apply, and are relevant in a cultural analysis, but here, “materialism” from the theists usually refers a worldview that understands reality as fundamentally material, that is, physical or natural as opposed to supernatural or spiritual. This is distinct from ‘materialism’ in the Madonna-singing-Material-Girl sense, where we are consumed and obsessed with consumerism and “stuff”. The paragraph about department stores and previous generations has me convinced your (cogent) points are based on a different sense of ‘materialism’ than Prodigal_Son was employing, there.

You’re assumption concerning my interpretation of the OP is spot on. I did interpret “materialism” to mean, for instance (a common complain among Christians) “Christmas has become overly-commercialized” (rather than materialism in a transcendental and metaphysical sense).

On randomness, I think it’s quite uncontroversial to affirm that randomness is “blind and stupid” in contrast to an intelligent mind that apprehends a given task and controls resources that applicable to it. But in the absence of mind is pretty darn efficient as a solution engine, and I think may be the only game in town in that case, or at least the crucial dynamic for creative output.

Even with intelligent minds available, randomness prevails even then, in some cases. One technology I work with in my job is evolutionary algorithms, and I’m continually amazed to find that the “blind, dumb” work of random search and variation beating the best available human minds through sheer brute force. If you need something ginned up by next Tuesday, random search over a landscape isn’t gonna help you very much, but if the context is impersonal, and stretches of over eons, randomness trounces the mind-that-isn’t-there any way you slice it.

-TS

I completely agree (and I’ve read a bit into evolutionary algorithms, sounds like you have a pretty awesome job). Randomness can be more efficient than intelligence (particularly when applied to large problems with an endless number of subjective and unpredictable variables, or over long periods of time). From everything I’ve read it seems randomness is the only way we could have evolved, at least reasonably speaking (keep in mind this isn’t my cup of tea, I’m a lawyer by profession not a scientist, so I’d defer to you on the technicalities here). Additionally, my previous point highlights the superiority of randomness as it applies to observable phenomena (in my earlier example I used economics, which is probably an example most people can wrap their minds around).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hello, Bridge.

I personally reserve the term “enemy” for those who threaten my country, my family, or myself. Those whom might amuse themselves by arguing a position (without regard for intellectual honesty) are certainly annoying, but enemy?

They waste the time and energy of thoughtful and sincere people.

I also note the apparent inconsistency (perhaps you could clarify) of saying your list of “enemies” includes Christians who buy into “modern materialism” (which, potentially includes virtually every Christian in the United States), yet those enemies do not include non-theists (without regard for their personal approach to “modern materialism”).

It’s not inconsistent. I understand atheists being materialistic, because they haven’t been told otherwise. But Christians take our name from a man who had harsh words for the worship of money. Any Christian who ignores the needs of the poor, or donates a pittance to them, is, as far as I’m concerned, a heretic.

What is modern materialism anyway? Isn’t it really just another way of saying we have more things available today than we did in the past? Were preceding generations really less materialistic?

Oh, I don’t really have a particular problem with the modern world, nor do I think past eras were, all in all, much better. Materialism (or, shall I said, “Materialanity”) has been around for a long time, and all the while wise men and prophets have been condemning it.