Pharyngula

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 13, 2009 8:30 AM

Look at it this way PZ, now you won't have to travel as far to attend these creationist seminars.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 8:31 AM

Keep laughing...they might get the message one day!

Some clowns never lose the comedy do they?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 8:32 AM

Wrong answers properly lower grades, but when a student politely raises his hand and asks a single question, even a stupid question, asking him to leave the room is not what I call "appropriate".

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 8:39 AM

Wrong answers properly lower grades, but when a student politely raises his hand and asks a single question, even a stupid question, asking him to leave the room is not what I call "appropriate".

Right... cause a Reverend would never LIE about such an event actually ever occurring, nevermind the circumstances surrounding it.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 8:45 AM

Of course a reverend would never lie. Just as they would never use children as collateral in their attempt to enforce their agenda.

So you will be first in line PZ. Let us hope you get to ride a crocoduck this time. (photoshops probably imminent)

Posted by: Rixaeton | November 13, 2009 8:51 AM

I would like to see some serious creation science done - for me the biggest question that a creation scientist can answer is, "how does an incorporeal being create and manipulate matter, space/time and energy?" The simple explanation "goddidit" just isn't enough for a really serious creation scientist - exactly how did god did it? We know the physical world exists, so there must be an interface between this world and that, so how does it work?

Think of the implications; if we can understand exactly what mechanism it is that works in such a way that matter and energy can be manipulated to come into existance in an exact replica of a universe that is 13.8 billion years old (-6000), why, there is nothing we could not do. Way beyond nuclear fusion and quantum computing.

If the interface can be adequately explained, better yet reproduced, then creation institutes could have some worth. Until that time, I think I will stick to real science.

Posted by: Blondin | November 13, 2009 8:56 AM

He recalled one lecture when he said he politely raised his hand to ask a question from a creation standpoint and was asked to leave the class.

"We don't get a chance to let our point of view be heard because we're put down and we're asked to shut up," Sagissor said.

Being asked to leave as a response to an honest question is not appropriate however we only have one very sketchy description of this exchange.

If this person was asking one of those creotard, stump-the-teacher questions, based on some straw man aspect of evolution, then being told that the class is designed for people who wish to learn and those who wish to disrupt or derail proceedings may fuck off is quite appropriate.

I would word it something like: If you wish to challenge Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection then you are in the right place to learn everything you need to know to form an intelligent argument, if you are only interested in parroting questions which you believe I can not answer in order to prove some point then you are wasting your time here and might be better off following some other pursuit.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 8:56 AM

Don't give the retards the oxygen...

And certainly no respect, they really do not deserve it.

I am not referring to the kids that come with mummy and daddy and pastor fairy stories.
I mean the fuckwits that are older and supposedly more mature and still lack reality.
The ones that perpetuate the bollocks...like setting up abominations to rational thought in the 21st century.

Posted by: Dan | November 13, 2009 9:04 AM

Being laughed at in school because of not knowing the truth rather than being a bookworm? I'd say America's classrooms are evolving. When I was in gradeschool I was told repeatedly I was going to hell for not attending church. Ah, the liberal northeast!

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 13, 2009 9:08 AM

"What we're finding is, many kids are subject to ridicule, lower grades, being laughed at, just because they lay forth different arguments and different interpretations of the same information,"

"Goddidit!" Is not a different argument or different interpretation of the same information, it is a plea from ignorance, willful ignorance at that. I've had students make this argument in class (History & Political Science) and when I explain to them that they would have to have actual evidence to support their position for it to be given the same credence as the scientific explanations for the evidence I generally get a glassy-eyed stare. The amusing part is that they laugh about people who still believe the earth is flat and the center of the universe (when we talk about Copernicus, etc.), but don't see the rational disconnect and parallel argument when they try to claim that the rest of the fairy tale IS true with precisely the same silly arguments that were made in the 16th and 17th century. I'm pretty sure I could have them read comparative arguments, a 17th century monk against heliocentrism and a modern fundgelical against evolution, and it would go right over their heads. Sad thing is, these are very smart kids with great analytical skills but an unfortunately huge blind spot when it comes to their mythical sky sugar daddy.

Posted by: charley | November 13, 2009 9:09 AM

What we're finding is, many kids are subject to ridicule, lower grades, being laughed at, just because they lay forth different arguments and different interpretations of the same information

So the purpose of this facility is to prepare children for ridicule and lower grades?

Posted by: DaveX | November 13, 2009 9:10 AM

http://thesouthern.com/news/article_2d285292-8782-5e03-a411-d7cb197b3ec7.html

I never was sure if this was supposed to be a straight-up "dino park" or some sort of homegrown creationist museum... luckily, nothing seems to have happened with it!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 9:14 AM

Not necessarily. I was raised Lutheran-Missouri Synod (like the folks in this story). The contradictions and silly ideas I was taught simply collapsed of their own weight. (One might say that house had been built on a foundation of sand.) I reasoned that if I couldn't believe A, B, or C, then there wasn't much point to bothering about the rest either.

While I applaud your story, and can frankly sympathize with it as a former Irish Catholic from a heavily religious family, unfortunately this is far more the exception than the rule... and I think you know this.

Religion, and specifically christianity, works tirelessly to implant checks against reason into its dogma. The invention of Satan and the concept of hell, while lifted directly from older religions, is nothing more than a means of control through fear... while it may occur to many people to question the obvious contradictions within religious texts, by implementing a means by which one is eternally, terrifyingly (but conspicuously vaguely) punished for daring to question these things, religion maintains a hold on its members' ability to even want to question such things.

The use of terrifying retribution for opposing religious viewpoints is among the most common threads that almost all long-standing religions have... it's the easiest way to keep membership up in the absence of actual substantive, tangible fruits.

Posted by: Brock | November 13, 2009 9:21 AM

Hm, I liked that link for the Unicorn Museum the other day. Maybe they could build a Cockatrice Museum in Minnesota next?

Posted by: Bostonian | November 13, 2009 9:22 AM

... and did you know that if you're a student who questions spherical-Earth orthodoxy, that can affect your cosmology or geology grade? Some Flat Earthers have even been asked to leave the class, just for voicing their point of view and courageously refusing to back down in the face of dogmatic, brainwashed Round Earthers. It's censorship, gosh-dernit!

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | November 13, 2009 9:27 AM

"While I applaud your story, and can frankly sympathize with it as a former Irish Catholic from a heavily religious family, unfortunately this is far more the exception than the rule... and I think you know this...Religion, and specifically christianity, works tirelessly to implant checks against reason into its dogma."

You are correct; I do know these things.

My parents -- one of whom was a Luth-MS minister -- made the mistake (from their point of view) of taking us to libraries and allowing us to read whatever we wanted. Four of their five children became either athiests or agnostics. The other one became even more fundamentalist than my parents.

I do have tremendous fun at extended family gatherings when several aunts have made it their mission to return me to the fold. I always make sure that some of my younger relatives are within earshot for these discussions.

Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | November 13, 2009 9:35 AM

Martin Brock is very optimistic that Rev. Sagissor remembers correctly what happened and reports it reliably. Given that Rev. Sagissor has a personal commitment to not understanding science, I have a hard time crediting his statement as reliable.

I'll go further than that. In my experience, the local charisma whores find it really difficult to resist using the 'Christianity is under assault' trope. First of all, they really believe it, because most of them have lived more than one generation in which their views are largely privileged in the popular culture, and they have come to confuse that privilege with a 'right'. Secondly, invoking an 'us vs. them' mentality helps cement their authority with the local congregation.

On the plus side, if you have a conversation with a believer, even an evangelical, and you make this distinction between a right and a privilege, they typically do get the fact that the Constitution doesn't privilege any particular version of belief, and (more importantly) that it shouldn't, that freedom of religious expression protects everyone. At that point, one can defuse claims of persecution by asking, "Where, exactly, are the rights of Christians being eroded? Is this a 'right' or a 'privilege'?" Takes the wind out of their sails, because to insist at that moment on the primacy of their views makes it apparent they expect to be privileged, and that makes them look very small and petty, the very opposite of the grandiose self-image the leaders want to cultivate with the flock.

Posted by: PoxyHowzes | November 13, 2009 9:41 AM

The Key to the good Reverend's "remembrance" is the phrase "from a creationist point of view."

I can easily imagine a professor's rejoinder to the effect: "We do not cover the second law of thermodynamics per se in this class — You are expected to know it or accept it in order to get through the biology that is in the syllabus."

I can easily further imagine that interchange getting into "galloping gish" mode to the point where it became disruptive.

Each class must deal with its own subject matter, and can provide only limited time for off topic discussion. A class on Shakespeare's sonnets cannot be expected to deal in depth with any conspiry-theory questionings about whether Shakespeare was in fact their author.

Posted by: Islander | November 13, 2009 9:45 AM

Prepare for a shocker: We have a creation museum in Texas! Complete with ancient burial stones that prove humans and dinosaurs coexisted, unicorn fossils, and a mastadon that was found with living bacteria still in its intestines! (I especially like the photo of the mastadon; it shows off how crappy the place is. They had to remove the ceiling tiles to fit it in the place. Yeah.)

Digging up the facts of God's creation: one fossil at a time.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 9:49 AM

Sadly, the only direction I see this country going is Down. We are losing ground fast and unfortunately, many of us will realize it when the US is rock bottom in education.

that would be just below Turkey then. Since when it comes to evolution they are the only country below the US according to some surveys.

Posted by: Discombobulated | November 13, 2009 9:51 AM

What? You mean the pious faithful cannot be counted upon to remember events that happened 40 years prior with pinpoint accuracy?

Oh my, what does this revelation mean for the 4 Gospels?

Oh, right, nevermind. None of them were even there.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 9:59 AM

that would be just below Turkey then. Since when it comes to evolution they are the only country below the US according to some surveys.

Despite my statements at #39, I can't deny that this is true... however I think this will trend upwards towards acceptance of evolution over the next few generations... (yes, this is purely opinion, and no, I wouldn't be totally surprised if I were wrong).

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 13, 2009 10:02 AM

What's the opposite of education?

Congress! Ahahaha! ...Wait.

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | November 13, 2009 10:08 AM

Re: xianity's last gasp vs. resurgence.

There is a possible analog that sometimes gives me hope. I've read an argument (don't remember the source) that suggests that a dying/doomed technology often reaches it fullest flower right before the end.

Gas lights are an example. Prior to electricity, gas lamps tended to be inefficient and ugly little things. The big, beautiful efficient gas chandeliers that one sees in the history books and in mansions of the late 19th century were developed only after the threat of a rival technology had become clear.

If we think of religion/myth as one technology for understanding the world and reason/evidence as a competitive and better technology, then nonsense such as creation "museums" can be understood as the equivalent of beautiful gas chandeliers.

Some of this may have come from: Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World by Jill Jonnes

Posted by: rob | November 13, 2009 10:09 AM

pointing
laughing

Posted by: JBlilie | November 13, 2009 10:21 AM

Disturbingly Openminded @15:

I was raised Lutheran-Missouri Synod

Ouch, that hurts even at a distance in place and time.

A friend attended a MS-Lutheran church for a while. A group they were in at church was told "don't read a lot of books and act like you know more than other people." [They immediately closed the book they were reading ...]

Doesn't that capture the whole attitude of these people? Be ignorant!

Posted by: Nicole | November 13, 2009 10:22 AM

we might a well allow someone on a math test to write they don't believe in numbers because his or her religion doesn't, it's the same thing as giving someone who uses creation as an excuse to not learn evolution and then expects the same grades on papers.

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | November 13, 2009 10:29 AM

Free Lunch ~

1. I wish I had an answer to your "what is it with German Lutherans" question. Both sides of my family are G-L as far back as teh Martin himself, I think. Don't know if this is coincidence or not but I've read that depression is disproportionately high in small town, upper midwestern, fundie xians. Maybe it was just my relatives skewing the data.

2. RE: Religion-talk with relatives. Just to be clear, I engage in these chats for the sole purpose of being overheard by children who live in fundie castles surrounded by moats against the onslaught of reason. I don't think the aunts have caught on yet. I'm also the relative who remembers kids' birthdays with subscriptions to National Geographic. Multi-year subscriptions. I don't think these kids get taken to the library. Sometimes ya just gotta toss stuff over the castle walls and hope the right person finds it.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 13, 2009 10:44 AM

He recalled one lecture when he said he politely raised his hand to ask a question from a creation standpoint and was asked to leave the class.

It's not fair to the other students to let a creationist idiot waste even just one minute of class time, so of course the "it-was-magic" moron should be told to leave.

Posted by: Free Lunch | November 13, 2009 11:03 AM

Disturbingly Openminded -

I understand the approach to teaching children indirectly. It can work well, even if not intended. My WELS high school inadvertently taught me to think critically about life, the universe and everything, so I credit them for teaching me to understand that they teach religious doctrines that cannot pass muster.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 13, 2009 11:17 AM

Evolution is barely taught at the public school I work for. To do so is to risk the ire of the local community.

This is easy for me to say, but aren't biology teachers being worthless cowards if they let Christian thugs intimidate them?

And can't biology teachers demand that the school administration support them when they do the job they were paid to do?

Christian assholes always lose in court, so it bugs me that they are successfully dumbing down science education by threatening and yelling at biology teachers.

This is a serious matter because young lives are being wasted. I'm angry about this because my biology teacher never mentioned the word "evolution", and I managed to graduate from high school in 1967 without ever knowing what evolution is. Now, four decades later, thousands of students continue to be cheated like I was.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 13, 2009 11:27 AM

I do not for one moment believe Sagissor's claim that he was expelled for asking one question.

That being said, I can think of only one scenario where it might possibly be accurate:

Consider that there have been several other students who have been asking creotard questions. The first one is answered by the prof as being annoying, but perhaps serious. The second one is clearly not serious, and quite irritating. A third one appears to be part of a coordinated effort to disrupt the class.

So the prof says something like "If there are any further disruptions in the form of questions about the bible during this biology class, the person asking the question will be expelled from class."

Then, after having been clearly warned of the consequences, Sagissor raises his hand, and quiely asks "but doesn't the biblical perspective work together with biological research?"

Expelled.

That's the only possible way I could see that Sagissor could be right. But, of course (and this is really important), if that were true, Sagissor is lying by omission by not telling the whole story. It isn't an accident, but a deliberate lie.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 11:34 AM

Right... cause a Reverend would never LIE about such an event actually ever occurring, nevermind the circumstances surrounding it.

I don't assume that people are lying because I'd like not to believe them. I need some evidence of deception.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 11:40 AM

-I don't assume that people are lying because I'd like not to believe them. I need some evidence of deception.-

How about when they speak of a VERY unlikely scenario which would probably have ended up with the professor getting into trouble if it was true?

Reverend. Meet Occams razor.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 11:42 AM

@Martin Brock #6: You're correct, but as we no reason to believe the incident in question ever happened, much less happened as described, it's a moot point.

We do have a reason to believe it happened. We have one person's testimony.

Regardless of the truth of the story, Myers assumes its truth when he writes, "... my university has a long tradition of dealing with nonsense appropriately." "Long tradition" doesn't seem to describe anything else in the story. He goes on to speculate about other circumstances, but we have no evidence at all for the speculation.

Posted by: Free Lunch | November 13, 2009 11:52 AM

We do have a reason to believe it happened. We have one person's testimony.

We also have an understanding of what professionalism is in the classroom. Simplistic stories with no detail tend to be unreliable, particularly when they claim that a professor behaved in a way that is considered unprofessional when there is no other information available.

Why are you so credulous? Do you really think that someone who benefits from telling a story of 'oppression' would not make it up? Do you really think there are professors who are so uncomfortable with their understanding of evolution that they kick someone out of class rather than answer questions about it?

I have no reason to believe that pastor's story. Neither do you.

Posted by: ChrisH | November 13, 2009 11:58 AM

*cough*

Creationists don't lie?

Have you READ the Dover trial judgement. And that was in a fucking court of law!

*sigh*

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 13, 2009 12:00 PM

Have you READ the Dover trial judgement. And that was in a fucking court of law!

And the ones that didn't lie were made to look complete idiots. Like Behe when he had to admit that astrology would qualify as a science using his definition of what science is.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 12:02 PM

It's not fair to the other students to let a creationist idiot waste even just one minute of class time, so of course the "it-was-magic" moron should be told to leave.

I disagree, but you're admirably frank and don't rationalize your position with unsubstantiated assertions.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 12:06 PM

And just what evidence do you have that the situation that the Reverend described happened as he said?

Again (and again), the Reverend's own testimony is evidence, and it's the only evidence we have. If assert that he's lying, you need to present some evidence.

Needless to say (or is it), "evidence" does not imply "proof".

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 12:08 PM

And what reason do you have to suppose Sagissor's recollection is correct ?

I have his recollection and no other evidence. You have the same evidence and your wish to disbelieve him.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 13, 2009 12:10 PM

Again (and again), the Reverend's own testimony is evidence, and it's the only evidence we have. If assert that he's lying, you need to present some evidence.

Needless to say (or is it), "evidence" does not imply "proof".

You have the concept of the burden of proof arse about tit. Absent any supporting evidence we should assume things did not happen as Sagissor says. What we should say to him is provide the evidence or shut up.

Posted by: Free Lunch | November 13, 2009 12:12 PM

Martin, you still keep ignoring how classrooms work. You dismiss commonly available evidence but accept as evidence a story from the past.

I would never want you on a jury.

Posted by: Anri | November 13, 2009 12:21 PM

Ok, Martin, let's try this:

What weight do you give the Rev's assertions vs. the general level of professionalism in typical classrooms?

For myself, I have no idea, one way or ther other, if the Rev. is relating a complete, correct story. If you have something by which we can make this determination, please present it. Otherwise, it seems to me that this story goes on the 'Not Proved' pile, along with many other things that are very poor evidence.

I imagine that most folks here believe that a chriatian mis-stating their experiance in a science classroom is far more common, and therefore more likely, than a christian being summarily drummed out of a science class.
Once again, if you feel the opposite, feel free to do so.

Posted by: Kyle | November 13, 2009 12:30 PM

Holy hell, have you folks read some of the comments on that page? They are extreme. One guy claims that louis pasteur settled the issue of abiogenesis.

Yet another quote mines Gould to suggest that there are no transitional fossils. Yet another quote mines Darwin to suggest that he didn't really think his own theory was correct.

Intellectual ignorance and dishonesty of the highest caliber.

I think the problem here is the failed US educational system. These people were raised to believe insane things and now they are insane adults. The problem must be fixed by generation.

Posted by: kermit | November 13, 2009 12:33 PM

Martin: Is it said that one should not give an idiot an important message to transmit, because you can't pass on a message you do not understand.

Disbelieving a Creationist's story is the default position. I was raised by them, and they *always filter events through their own misunderstanding of reality. When I was taking a Comparative Religions class some 35 years back, the first topic was the Roman Catholic church, a quick overview. A couple of days into class, two students who sat up front were literally squirming in their seats. They were going to be missionaries, that had explained before, and wanted to understand other religions.

"That's not what the bible says!" burst out one. The professor stopped, clearly astonished.

"I'm not teaching what it says," he answered. "I'm teaching what a couple of hundred million Christians of a major denomination *thinks it says."

"That's wrong! It's heresy!" And they stormed out, leaving most of us jaws agape. They dropped the class.

Such people cannot be trusted to recount events accurately, even if they are motivated to be honest - and that is not their top priority.

Their top priority is to "bring souls to the Lord", by whatever means. When you hear a Fundamentalist speak, you should assume *that is his motive, not accurate witnessing of events.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 13, 2009 12:45 PM

Casey Luskin want to restore civility to the debate over evolution and ID. Gee, do you think that means he'll quit lying about us, the vile swine?

Course not. He says this:

We commonly see one side depicting the other as not only wrong, but as unreasonable, irrational, or immoral.

There you go, you'd think he was talking about DI rhetoric and Expelled, that is, if you didn't know he was a paid liar for the former. He continues:

As a result, two terms are presently in vogue to describe those who question scientific ideas: “Skeptic” and “Denier.”

"Skeptic"? Fuck you, liar, a skeptic is an honest person, not a weaseling dishonest bastard like you are. "Denier" and "liar" are what you are.

As one signatory, Stephen C. Meyer, argues in his new book, “Signature in the Cell,” the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA.

Yes, and he lied about both science and philosophy to do so. His "predictions" coming from ID are the most laughably stupid and non-entailed garbage anyone could ever imagine.

So yes, Luskin, try for civility. If you can ever do anything except lie and attempt to defame, then you'll be out of your entire arsenal of weapons against honest science, and will have to admit that ID and the DI are only about lying.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 13, 2009 1:08 PM

Funny, why would a “Skeptic” defend revealed knowledge?

See, he's the ultimate skeptic. He's skeptical of skepticism, and he utilizes dogma for that.

I think that's about how he sees himself (aside from the "dogma" part, which is all just truth/ego for him), in fact. The dishonesty of it all is just part of his life, so isn't even a consideration for him.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: gr8hands | November 13, 2009 1:15 PM

Martin Brock, since the man is a "Reverend", that is prima facia evidence that he is a liar, either purposely (since he knows his so-called theology beliefs are false) or out of willful ignorance.

All reverends give incomplete accounts of what happens in terms of creation, evolution, history, etc. None of them tell their congregations that there is no eye-witness historical evidence that jesus existed. None of them tell their congregations that there is no evidence that they have a soul, or an afterlife. None of them tell their congregations that there is no evidence that god exists. None of them tell their congregations that there is no evidence that prayer works, and that all evidence shows that it does not work. Quite the contrary, which makes them all liars.

Martin Brock, therefore the simple fact that someone claims to be a reverend is evidence that they cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth about any subject. You may have an opinion about that statement, but it won't change the facts.

I also note that the reverend doesn't state that he complained to his advisor, his dean, or anyone else at the University -- which seems unlikely if the event truly took place. Again, we're clearly not getting the whole relevant story, which is lying by omission.

Posted by: Jamie | November 13, 2009 1:30 PM

It seems the math analogy has already been made, but I also add one quote from the Colbert Report that went something like: why teach math when Jesus says 5 fish (or was it loaves of bread?) plus 2 fish equals whatever he wants.
The sad thing is that those silly apologists could make the same argument justifying that statement (it's supported by the bible!). I mean, they're starting with the same data, 5 and 2, but they just arrive at different conclusions.
No, some things have obvious right and wrong answers that we can EASILY observe in reality. And to echo k-dub #63, "The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not."

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 13, 2009 1:46 PM

There's a lot of gray area between a deliberate, knowing lie, and accurate, honest truth-telling. Self-deception, faulty recollection, misinterpretation, misdirection, ambiguous circumstances -- or any combination of these -- could result in someone misrepresenting a situation, and yet they sincerely believe that they're telling the honest truth.

Maybe there are different types of liars, to match the different degrees of deliberation and culpability.

Sure, this kind of circularity and tribal "truth" that Luskin spouts constantly is probably as close to a kind of "integrity" (integrated thinking is what I mean primarily here) that Luskin can achieve. His "truth" is simply defined as what is right and proper, and he does, of course, place everyone else in the categories of wicked, evil, dishonest, etc.

The fact is that the kind of honesty needed for science, or at least for understanding science in its entirety, or for proper judicial decisions, is hardly the default. It's often enough said that science is about learning the mindset and methods for not fooling ourselves, which is the easiest thing to do. This kind of gets back to the question of how Casey can consider himself to be a "skeptic" of any kind, which is that he really doesn't believe in the science that he never had the mental skepticism and forthright open-mindedness to effect, and doesn't see why he shouldn't be "skeptical" of what he takes to be a mere prejudice, like his own prejudices (in one sense it could presumably be seen as a prejudice, however it's really quite unlike what we really call "prejudice" in a psychological sense).

It's hard to fathom what's actually going on with the IDiots at the DI, partly because they keep their real aims and goals hidden as much as possible. But Luskin et al. really have to understand to some extent that their claims are less than honest (consider the Wedge Document), and have to be "justifying" them by the great evils of the "Darwinists" that they project, and by understanding the Greater Truth to be more important than "lesser truths". This may amount to some kind of "honesty" in their minds, but it's not what is generally understood to be as honesty in our society, and especially not in science.

And yes, no more than they get to define science or their theological offensive of ID, they do not get to define honesty to fit their lack of it in this "debate" (another bit of dishonesty from Luskin, btw). I rather suspect that most of the "DI fellows" are careful not to ask too much about their state of honesty, any more than they will honestly ask about their "science."

Both their conscious and their subconscious defend them from the fact that they are dishonest, I would judge. It has to be done, because otherwise their livelihoods, egos, and sense of integrity (religion, etc.), are in severe jeopardy. As long as they can fend off the potentially harmful questions about what they are doing, they can continue.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Peter G | November 13, 2009 1:47 PM

Close to Morris you say? This could generate the very first case of LMAOIMBY. I wonder if is infectious.

Posted by: tomh | November 13, 2009 2:02 PM

@ #39 Celtic Evolution wrote:
Statistics don't bear this out, alopiasmag... christian congregations are losing memberships more and more every year... religion is on the decline even in the US.

Well, if one takes an over-arching, long-term view this could be true. But if one takes a more pragmatic, short-term (say, in our lifetimes) view, the outlook is not so rosy. US law is riddled with exemptions, protections, or special arrangements for religious groups. While some of these have existed for much of the nation's history, a NYT study shows more than 200 special privileges for religion have been tucked into federal legislation since 1989, usually with no debate (they're like earmarks). New breaks have also been provided by pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch. Just a sampling include laws and regulations covering social services, land use laws, civil rights laws that protect religious employers from legal complaints about faith-based preferences in hiring, exemptions from federal laws meant to protect pensions and to provide unemployment benefits, the list goes on and on. That's not even getting into the disgraceful exemptions for vaccines and medical care that exist in most states.

A dozen states exempt religious day-care centers from expensive and burdensome licensing regulations, and these centers compete directly with secular day-care centers. When a lawsuit was brought in Alabama about this, religion won the day. After all, as the leader of the Christian Coalition there said, state oversight would be intrusive and was unnecessary “because the pastors and congregations are your quality control.” This is after almost a dozen children died in day care facilities in the two years before the state began upgrading its licensing requirements in 2000. And, lest we forget, religious organizations are now eligible for a stream of federal grants and contracts from state and federal governments under the "faith-based initiative."

While the publicity surrounding things like Ten Commandment cases, or crosses on public lands occupy us, the privileges that are written into laws and regulations, things that make a difference in people's lives, businesses, and taxes, fly mostly under the radar.

I think that Professor John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University law school, nailed it when he said the special breaks amount to “a sort of religious affirmative action program ...separation of church and state was certainly part of American law when many of today’s public opinion makers were in school. But separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land.”

Posted by: Kraid | November 13, 2009 2:17 PM

What's the opposite of education?

Kind of a fun question to think about. Etymologically, "educate" comes from the roots "out" and "lead" (ex and ducere). So the educator leads the student's intelligence to new places. You draw them out from whatever preconceptions they held and present new ideas for them to consider.

So for an opposite, you could go with "indoctrinate," or "in-teach." Instead of leading the student's curiosity to new pastures to play in, the indoctrinator forcibly rams ideas into their heads. I think the "ex" vs. "in" contrast is telling... PZ mentioned echo chambers in the original post, which are forms of intellectual inbreeding (as opposed to reaching out and considering all the other ideas out there).

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | November 13, 2009 2:30 PM

lower grades

Sweet!

So when the kids say that the circumference of a circular vessel (without a pestle), ten cubit in diameter is exactly thirty cubit, they should be awarded top marks.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 2:47 PM

You quoted me you dishonest piece of shit.

You're right. I did quote your first. My mistake.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 2:54 PM

WTF? Interesting point of view... therefor everything in the bible is accurate, ...

I've never suggested or implied that everything in the Bible is accurate or that anything in the Bible is accurate for that matter.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 3:04 PM

Ah, I knew the name Martin Brock sounded familiar, there was a rumour that he killed a young girl in 1990.

You're confusing me with someone else. There was never a rumor that I killed a young girl in 1990 or anyone else at any other time.

That zooooooming sound. Thats my comment flying over your head. I am using an internet meme to point out that saying something is incredibly easy. Especially when you have an agenda.

You are quite free to believe the reverend. The question is whether, given the lack of information, you would act on it. Or think bad of evolutionists because you believe his words. By believing him you have added a tiny thing to your memory that says "evolution teachers are ebil..eeeeebil". Not much in the scheme of things, but a few years from now you might have a tale to tell of a reverend you once heard about.

Hey it worked for Jesus, no-ones ever met the guy, but everyone thinks he's wonderful.

Posted by: sikiş | November 13, 2009 3:08 PM

Hey it worked for Jesus, no-ones ever met the guy, but everyone thinks he's wonderful. hehe

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 3:20 PM

Martin Brock, please reread what PZ said. He did not say that was the proper way to deal with a creationist in a biology class.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 13, 2009 3:25 PM

That's hilarious - in a really scary sort of way.

Told to shut up? I don't think so.

Laughed at and ridiculed? Absolutely! The funny thing is that most kids would try to find out why they're being laughed at and grow up. Some just cling to the beliefs that have people laughing at them.

"Different interpretation of the same information"? Of course not - the creationists do not make any meaningful analysis of any information; instead they talk as if numerous discoveries actually prove that their ridiculous beliefs (you know, the ones that get them laughed at and ridiculed) are true, despite all evidence against them.

Posted by: Stephen P | November 13, 2009 3:41 PM

If we think of religion/myth as one technology for understanding the world and reason/evidence as a competitive and better technology, then nonsense such as creation "museums" can be understood as the equivalent of beautiful gas chandeliers.

Only without the beauty.

An interesting idea. It would be nice to think it was correct.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 3:47 PM

I've never suggested or implied that everything in the Bible is accurate or that anything in the Bible is accurate for that matter.

It's implicit given your stated logic: "The assertion itself is evidence of the events asserted." You made the statement... you live with the consequences...

Correction to my correction. You did reply to me first.

Which is correct, but I never made the claim that I wasn't addressing you... you made that claim after quoting me!

nd now you're feigning harassment and accusing me of dishonesty disingenuously.

Eh? You claimed that you weren't addressing me, despite quoting me... which means you were addressing me... my accusation of dishonesty is accurate.

Why don't you just insinuate that I murder young girls? I think I see the source of that now. I just don't watch anymore, and Glenn Beck is before my time.

And now I guess it's too much to ask of you to address your concerns to the commentors that actually made the statements... you are mis-attributing this to me.

Are you quite finished yet?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 3:51 PM

-My statement specifies "a single question" because we have no evidence of more than one question.-

Well, we don't really have evidence. We have old, biased, poor quality testimony. I certainly wouldn't accept that either.

There is nothing wrong with speculation. It is merely an amusing aside to the main issue. Something which I don't think you have yet addressed.

-Your stratospheric intellect is very apparent-

It circles the earth. It has laser attachments.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 3:56 PM

If we think of religion/myth as one technology for understanding the world and reason/evidence as a competitive and better technology, then nonsense such as creation "museums" can be understood as the equivalent of beautiful gas chandeliers.

I do think of religion/myth as one technology for understanding the world and reason/evidence as a complementary technology, but Genesis is not a literal, historical or scientific account. It is plainly allegorical. Good and Evil are not fruits and do not grow on trees. Whoever originated the Eden story a few thousand years ago obviously didn't believe he was describing literal events.

So what is the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? What does this symbol represent in the story, and what does the loss of Eden after eating this Fruit represent? These questions are beautiful, glass chandeliers, but they aren't hanging in the Creation Museum.

Posted by: LexAequitas | November 13, 2009 4:05 PM

We have evidence that you choose to reject because you prefer to believe something else, despite the fact that you have no other evidence.

Balogna. We have other evidence. The common practice of professors is evidence.

The evidence you prefer to believe is the same as when the police question a suspect, who claims they were home watching tv alone during a murder. Worthless and self-serving.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 4:10 PM

ugh... typos...

Brock, not Brick...

and 2000 years... not 200...

dammit.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 4:14 PM

"Brick"'s not bad, though...

Heh... it's often the accidental discoveries that have the most lasting impact...

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 4:27 PM

You're full of it, Brick... this is apologetics 101...

No. It's not. I'm not a believer. I have no faith in the supernatural, no expectation of life after death, no particular respect for the laws of Moses or even the platitudes of Jesus, nothing of conventional "religion". What am I supposed to be apologizing for?

You'd think if that were true the authors would have found SOME way of clearly indicating what was to be taken literally and what was not.

Hardly. Ancient literature is full of allegories of this kind. So is modern literature for that matter. There is no official guidebook to the allusions. That would spoil all the fun.

And speaking of evidence to back up claims... you make that statement as a bold statement of fact, but have ZERO evidence to back the claim up...

Like I said, the evidence for the allegorical nature of Genesis 1-3 is prima facie. Good and Evil does not grow on trees as a matter of fact. Someone at some point constructed this story. We have no evidence that he was mentally incompetent, that he literally believed that Good and Evil grow on trees, and Occam's razor leaves little room for this extraordinary claim.

On the contrary, the story reads like an allegory, and we have plentiful evidence of similar allegories in this tradition. The Hebrew theological tradition is often explicitly allegorical. Biblical authors themselves refer to their own earlier traditions as allegories and are undeniably allegorical and metaphorical themselves.

For example, Ezekiel 16:4 reads, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These words refer to an earlier story, and "Sodom" does not describe a women with daughters in the earlier story. We still use similarly metaphorical language, like "sister city", today.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 4:28 PM

-We have evidence that you choose to reject because you prefer to believe something else, despite the fact that you have no other evidence.-

Implying that you accept it...and you accept it because?

or are we just playing silly armchair philosopher still?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 4:40 PM

I state that I saw Brick murder a young girl. That's then evidence that he did so (note I don't even have to give times or identity of the victim!). Brick states that he did not. However, we have ample character evidence to show that Brick dissembles (Brick will dispute this, but it's not up to him, but to the jury). Brick therefore gets convicted. Bye bye, Brick.

Dont forget, the reverend saw him too!!!! Wow, this "evidence" is really starting to pile up. Perhaps we should ask if anyone else on the thread knew about this.

Posted by: scarab | November 13, 2009 4:43 PM

Is there anything else to talk about or is Brock all that's left to discuss?

I'm sure that this thread didn't start out about him.

Don't make him "Queen of the thread".

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 13, 2009 4:43 PM

What am I supposed to be apologizing for?

You don't have to be a believer to espouse apologetics... and making the claim that the account of Adam and Eve in Eden is obviously not meant to be taken literally is one of the most commonly used apologetics for the inaccuracies in the bible's genesis account. Again, Martin... you make the statements, you live with the consequences.

Hardly. Ancient literature is full of allegories of this kind. So is modern literature for that matter.

Uh-huh... except that no-one has attempted to build a multi-billion dollar enterprise off of the literal teachings of "Lord of the Rings"... let's not make any more silly comparisons. Only a fool would try to make the argument that it's obvious to most people that the bible is allegorical fiction... there are a couple billion christians that would like to have a word with you on that one, I'm afraid.

Dude... really... stop digging... you just continue to sound silly...

Like I said, the evidence for the allegorical nature of Genesis 1-3 is prima facie.

Again... it is glaringly stupid to assert that this is asobvious as you make it, or that it is intended to be taken as allegory by the authors, you can not back this statement up... simply calling it prima facie is an argument from personal conviction... on what do evidence do you base this claim? How can billions of christians not have seen the intent as obviously as you claim over the last 2000 years?

Posted by: LexAequitas | November 13, 2009 4:49 PM

Did you see me murder a young girl?

Ooooh, you do know your failure to deny such a provocative charge is further truth that it's true, right?*

* don't even bother bringing up Miranda, it doesn't work in this situation.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 13, 2009 6:50 PM

I have his recollection and no other evidence. You have the same evidence and your wish to disbelieve him.

Actually Martin, your argument here is quite false. You have no evidence beyond his recollection, we have evidence based upon our collective experience in countless hours of university classrooms and lecture halls. PZ bases his speculation, as you put it, upon his own ethical stance as a professor and his own recollections as a student and graduate student. My own personal experience, as an undergrad, completing two graduate programs, and a graduate level certificate program supports PZ's argument, as a number of follow posts support here as well. Then you have our collective experience in classroom after classroom.

The reverend's recollection doesn't quite ring true. We aren't willing to say, flat out, that it's a lie, misrepresentation, or false recollection, but we do have a rather high level of skepticism based upon our experiences. I personally have never seen a professor kick a student out. To be honest there are a couple of them, the KKKristian in an Islamic history class, a holocaust denier in a European history class, etc., but even in those cases the professor rather handily deconstructed their unfounded arguments, in both cases made them look like the total asses they were, and moved on.

Personally, my experience in the classroom as both a student and an educator, leaves me leaning with those who doubt that the reverend's recollection of a meekly asked honest question resulting in an expulsion from the class to be quite unlikely.

THAT is why our willingness to disbelieve his version of the story has significantly more evidence than your willing to take his personal, unfounded and unsupported, description of events.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 7:04 PM

You don't have to be a believer to espouse apologetics...

Again, what am I supposed to be apologizing for?

... and making the claim that the account of Adam and Eve in Eden is obviously not meant to be taken literally is one of the most commonly used apologetics for the inaccuracies in the bible's genesis account.

Not from young Earth Creationists. They'd be outraged to hear me say that the story is not literally true. They'd be even more outraged to hear me interpret the allegory.

I say the story is obviously allegorical, because "Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" passes every prima facie test of an allegorical symbol and passes no test for a literal description of anything.

The "inaccuracies" are a product of your literal reading of the story. Any accuracy it might have depends on the interpretation of its symbols. Obviously, if you share the nonsensical interpretation of the people you accuse of nonsense, then you'll reach the same nonsensical conclusions that they reach, only you reject the conclusions while they accept it. You're as much a literalists as they are.

Only a fool would try to make the argument that it's obvious to most people that the bible is allegorical fiction...

I never say that's it's obvious to most people. That's you. I only say that it's obvious to me. Obviousness is a product of experience. I may say that the length of the sides of similar triangles are obviously proportional only because I already understand "similar triangle" and "proportional" and because "obvious" is meaningful only within my local, Euclidean context.

Again... it is glaringly stupid to assert that this is as obvious as you make it, or that it is intended to be taken as allegory by the authors, you can not back this statement up...

I have backed it up, and I'll continue defending the assertion.

... simply calling it prima facie is an argument from personal conviction...

No. Good and Evil are not fruits. Knowledge does not grow on trees. These assertions are factual, not matters of personal conviction. The phrase does not withstand a literal interpretation. To interpret these words literally, we must suppose the author to be a hopeless schizophrenic hardly able to put two words together meaningfully. The problem with this theory is that the rest of the story is not similarly unintelligible. It has other plainly allegorical elements, but it is not gibberish with words strung together arbitrarily.

How can billions of christians not have seen the intent as obviously as you claim over the last 2000 years?

First, the story is not particularly Christian. It is Hebrew and plays a role in all of the Abrahamic traditions. Second, many Christians do read it allegorically, including various Popes and countless priests and academic theologians. Many Jews also read it allegorically. What the mass of believers think of it, particularly the Answers in Genesis crowd, doesn't interest me at all. I'm not interested in their take on Cosmology or Biology either. If you want spend your time obsessing over them, that's up to you.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 13, 2009 7:49 PM

Shorter Martin Brock:

Assertion: Genesis is an allegory.
Reason 1: The literal meaning is ridiculous.
Reason 2: Only crazy people believe ridiculous things.
Q.E.D.

Posted by: Felix | November 13, 2009 8:07 PM

Shorter Martin Brock:

Assertion: Genesis is an allegory.
Reason 1: The literal meaning is ridiculous.
Reason 2: Only crazy people believe ridiculous things.

Assertion: The writers of the Bible were not crazy, ergo they wrote Genesis with allegorical intent.
Reason 1: There were no crazy people around back then.
Reason 2: And if there were, they still couldn't have produced something as coherent as the Bible.

oh, wait, that's not right...
ok, I got it:
God doesn't appear to crazy people. Real God I mean. Gods that appear to crazy people aren't real. Because they're crazy.
And even if he did, he wouldn't let crazy people write down his message. So there.

Posted by: Adrian | November 13, 2009 8:37 PM

I'm guessing he was asked to leave the class after politely asking his 150th question from a creationist standpoint. Perhaps the professor politely asked him to join a theology class instead.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 13, 2009 10:24 PM

Assertion: Genesis is an allegory.

Right.

The rest is you. You can defend your own assertions.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 13, 2009 11:36 PM

@160

Oh, cool. I guess I imagined

Obviously, if you share the nonsensical interpretation of the people you accuse of nonsense, then you'll reach the same nonsensical conclusions that they reach, only you reject the conclusions while they accept it.

With "nonsensical" obviously referring to the literal interpretation (I hope "nonsensical" and "ridiculous" mean something similar in your mind - though even if it read "Reason 1: The literal meaning is nonsensical", there would be no change in essential meaning).

And I guess this gem is completely a product of my mind too

To interpret these words literally, we must suppose the author to be a hopeless schizophrenic hardly able to put two words together meaningfully.

States that the author (should be "authors" really) of Genesis must be insane to think what they're writing is literally true. From reality, though, we (should) know one doesn't have to be insane to think something like that is literally true in a mythical past, like the Christian fundamentalists do today, unless you wish to extend the meaning of "insanity" so that the word is almost meaningless.

That last quote is pathetic, though. I would like to think you have a bit more imagination than "schizophrenia" or mental illness in general as the only possible answer for the author believing literally in what he wrote. Just because something is nonsense to you does not mean that a person is insane for holding the nonsensical point of view, unless your point of view is the arbiter of sanity or insanity.

Anyway, I've quoted you verbatim. Those were the justifications you gave for your assertion that Genesis is meant to be read allegorically.

Posted by: psanity | November 14, 2009 1:09 AM

Um? I emerge from lurkage because I hate to see anyone cast aspersions on the faculty of UMM in the 60's. I wasn't on the faculty, or a student, as such, but I was there -- from 1963-66. (UMM became a four-year, full-fledged University branch in '62, and graduated its first class in spring '66.) At that time, the campus was very small and intimate, and the faculty basically all knew each other, socialized together, and cheerfully argued for hours on end. Many of the faculty were foreign -- there was an Egyptian family, a scattering of Chinese families, and a guy who had excitingly escaped the Nazis, then the Communists, in Eastern Europe. Lots of hot prospects for bringing a guest to geography or history class!

My dad was a history professor, and I was at Morris Junior-Senior High, then nearby. To avoid the long walk home (yes, definitely in the snow, uphill both ways), I would hang out on the college campus until I could catch a ride with Dad. Profs all over the campus, who were perfectly free to tell me to get lost, usually welcomed me to their offices and labs, showed me neat stuff in microscopes, lent me equipment for science projects, answered endless 12-yr-old stupid questions, even about astrology and religion and so forth, with patience, kind forbearance and much useful information.

I really don't see those guys tossing out a paying student unless the student's behavior was truly egregious. I don't know when Sagissor was there, but I flatly disbelieve him.

Do they still do the snow sculptures?

Posted by: Mack | November 14, 2009 4:54 AM

I would take any assertion made by a man who can, with a straight face, refer to creation "science" with a grain of salt. Actually a pitcher.
Ah, poor man, asked to leave a science class for refusing to believe in science. How very, very sad.
The first day of my Evolution class in college, my prof stood up in front of the class, welcomed us all, and then said (and I'm paraphrasing, because I don't claim to remember the wording exactly) "This is a science class. We will be discussing science. This is the one and only time I will address intelligent design or creationism. Because these are not science. Evolution is science, testable, verifiable. If you want to debate intelligent design, religion classes are in Sturges Hall, leave now. I will not devote any more class time to disproving this nonsense" Then he ran through a list of bullet points on why intelligent design was nonsense.
And that was it. I'm just sorry it's become necessary to issue these disclaimers, or devote even ten minutes of class time to this pseudo religious bullshit.

Posted by: homework helper | November 14, 2009 5:55 AM

It is must to answer the questions of the students. I say that students must be encourages to ask what they don’t know without any shy. Sometimes, I ask the students to contact me after the class to understand the answer because I don’t want to waste the time of other students. Teachers should be approachable online also.

Posted by: Arv Edgeworth | November 14, 2009 10:26 AM

I agree with the majority of you. Believing that "nothing" exploded and created everything, makes much more sense than to believe a supernatural God could speak things into existence from "nothing." "Nothing" doesn't need any help, what are they thinking?

So what if the Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from other life. It just makes more sense that it came from non-life. Forget the laws of science. Like the law of cause and effect. Why does the beginning of the universe and of life have to have a cause greater than the effect itself? Ridiculous.

So what if almost all mutations are harmful and cause a net loss of useful genetic information over time, and not a net gain as evolution requires. My professor said we could still get enough beneficial mutations for it to work, and that's good enough for me. Why, the guy has a Ph.D, do the creationists think he is biased and doesn't know what he is talking about?

And if someday scientists are finally able to create life in the laboratory, that will be absolute proof that no intelligence was necessary.

By the way, real science doesn't take a position regarding religion, it is neutral, not anti. Science can't disprove the supernatural, remember. You really need to disguise your ant-God bias a little better guys, come on. Our philosophical worldview is at stake here.

The question was asked at the beginning: "What's the opposite of education?" The answer is obvious, indoctrination. Like Hitler said: "If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it."

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 10:48 AM

Arv Edgeworth,
You are an ignorant idiot.

1) The Big Bang was not an "explosion". While it remains unexplained by current science, "Goddidit" is not an explanation, just a shrugging of the shoulders.
2) The "Law of Biogenesis" states that modern, complex organisms (and that covers modern bacteria) do not come into existence from non-life. It does not state that the initial, much simpler form of life did not develop from non-life.
3) Most mutations are neutral, not harmful. Mathematical modelling, as well as actual examples from laboratory experiments, show conclusively that mutations beneficial in the current environment can and do happen with far greater frequency than is required to explain the fossil record of increasing diversity and (in some evolutionary lines) complexity.
4) "And if someday scientists are finally able to create life in the laboratory, that will be absolute proof that no intelligence was necessary." Right. So you morons have your back-up line ready for when you are proved wrong and life is produced from non-life.
5) "Science can't disprove the supernatural, remember." It can't disprove that the universe was created last Thursday, or that there's an invisible, intangible unicorn in the room. So, fucking, what? I'm quite happy to see religion placed on an epistemological par with those bits of nonsense: something that can never in principle be disproved, but which there is absolutely no reason whatever to believe in, so we consider anyone who does a lunatic. OK with you?
6) "Like Hitler said: "If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it.""
You are clearly an apt pupil of his.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 10:51 AM

My words were only meant to show the foolishness of the line of argumentation.

Except that they ignore the line of argumentation.

Genesis may or may not have been believed to be allegory by the original author(s).

Again, my "author" does not denote the person who recorded the story in the form we have today. I'm discussing the inventor of the story.

I never suggested he just pulled the story out of his ass (though it's possible).

It's possible, but it's not plausible, because it begs all of the questions above.

I'm suggesting the original author of Genesis wasn't the progenitor of the story itself.

I use the word "author" as you use "progenitor". I say "whoever invented the story". That's clear enough above. You're only constructing a strawman here.

In fact, I don't think any single person invented the story at all.

A single person did not write the King James version of Genesis 2-3. I don't deny it. I've never denied it. It's irrelevant to my point.

It is much more likely it was based on some event in the history of the Jewish people that became distorted retelling after retelling until it became mythologized.

But it was never a literal account of anything witnessed first-hand by anyone, because it couldn't possibly be, because Good and Evil are not fruits, and knowledge does not grow on trees. We agree on this point, right? Getting a simple acknowledgement of fact is like pulling teeth.

And since it wasn't a literal account of anything witnessed first-hand, then anyone inventing the story, or only the fragment "Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", would have to be insane to believe himself recounting literal events. Right? Are you disputing this assertion?

Finally, though, I actually see what you're trying to say.

I know you do.

... it's not what I think happened ...

I see what you're trying to say too. I have never denied what you think happened. I have repeatedly emphasized this point by narrowing my focus to only a small fragment of Genesis, by agreeing that we don't have the story in its earliest form and by substituting "inventor" for "author".

In fact, the only fragment I've discussed at all is the isolated notion of a "Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". I'd like to move beyond this narrow context, but I've had no luck so far. You think it was a mushroom of knowledge in an earlier version? Maybe so, but that's irrelevant to my point. You think it was transmitted orally before it was written? Maybe so, but that's irrelevant too.

Anyone willfully changing a mushroom to the fruit of a tree doesn't think himself recounting literal events either, unless he's also insane.

Multiple authors support this conclusion, rather than contradicting it; otherwise, we need multiple lunatics confusing their own imaginative language with literal events while coincidentally constructing a story that looks just like the work of a perfectly sane poet. Occam's razor leaves little room for this theory of the story's origin, because the sane poet theory is much less problematic and accounts well for the observation.

But all of this stuff isn't even my central premise. My point is that "Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" looks like an allegory on its face in isolation, and it looks even more like an allegory in the context of Genesis 2-3, and it looks still more like an allegory within an ancient Hebrew tradition indisputably filled with similar metaphors. I'm not stretching one bit here.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 11:15 AM

First they came for the climate change deniers, ...

"Climate Change Denier" denotes a mythical creature, like Big Foot or a Tree of Knowledge. No one actually denies that climate changes, not a single person anywhere at any time.

On the other hand, proponents of particular theories of future climate change predict that a rise in global average temperature observed in the 20th century will accelerate to 4-5 times its 20th century rate and have a long list of catastrophic effects, as opposed to remaining at its current, sustainable rate or decelerating, unless politicians immediately spend a few percent of global wealth on a variety of remedies.

The people dubiously labeled "Climate Change Deniers" are skeptical of this catastrophic forecast, because observations of global average temperature haven't supported it and because models predicting it are incredibly simple, compared with the vastly chaotic system they presume to describe, and require positive feedbacks of dubious scientific merit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 14, 2009 11:43 AM

Ah, so the Brick is a liberturd and AGW denier. That explains his arrogant foolishness, and why is invariably on the wrong end of things...

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 14, 2009 12:21 PM

Arv Edgeworth (#179)

Genesis is not an allegory, it can be taken literally.

I don't suppose you have any evidence to support this. Didn't think so.

The majority of you have started with the assumption that the Bible is false.

Wrong.

Assumptions are fine if they are correct.

Also wrong.

Starting with the wrong assumptions will always result in your coming to the wrong conclusions.

Wrong again.

There is a lot of good scientific evidence that the earth is not millions of years old, and the fossil record was formed by a worldwide flood.

Oh, really? Show us this evidence.

You will never accept that because of your philosophical worldview, and it has nothing to do with real science.

Well, it's hard to accept when the evidence doesn't exist.

You are what the Bible describes in 2 Peter 3:3-7 as "willingly ignorant." That's kind of like dumb on purpose.

Sorry, no. Every creationist I've ever come across cannot tell me what the evidence is for creation and is equally clueless about what scientists say the evidence for evolution is. Hell, none of them know what evolution is to begin with. Your lot always assumes the evidence for creation is there or the evidence for evolution is lacking and expects me to be wowed into belief by the power of your overconfidence.

The Bible states in the last days these willingly ignorant scoffers will scoff at the original creation, a great flood, and the coming judgment of God.

That's nice. Did you know that the end of the world has been coming for 2000 years now? Did you know morons like yourself have been screaming their apocalyptic quotes for just as long? Did you know that when the world doesn't end after 2000 years of imminent apocalypse, it tends to diminish the drama?

Did you folks realize God said you were coming?

Gosh, a holy text predicts unbelievers? That's like so amazing only a god could have predicted that!

Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

Yeah, so you better make it up to Allah really quickly so he doesn't throw you into hell when you die, you wretched infidel.

Posted by: druidbros | November 14, 2009 2:22 PM

Did you folks realize God said you were coming?

I just hope he/she/it didnt make a video of it.

Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

You are the one who should know since you have been wrong forever.

And the answer to the question..What is the opposite of education?

Willful ignorance.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 2:54 PM

Genesis is not an allegory, it can be taken literally.

I'm glad you showed up, Arv. Maybe if I'm sufficient rude to you, the Myersis will stop putting your words in my mouth.

You're a lying, stupid, fuckwit. Go back to your cave, troll.

It's nothing personal though. I'm just trying to fit in. You know how it is.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 14, 2009 3:59 PM

Genesis is not an allegory, it can be taken literally. The majority of you have started with the assumption that the Bible is false. Assumptions are fine if they are correct. Starting with the wrong assumptions will always result in your coming to the wrong conclusions. There is a lot of good scientific evidence that the earth is not millions of years old, and the fossil record was formed by a worldwide flood.

Major flaws with your argument from the very beginning.

First, given that the Bible contradicts itself numerous times in Genesis alone, to argue that it is literally true is quite impossible. Carefully read the passages, you have inconsistencies in the order of creation, whether woman was created with man, or from man, etc. Sorry, can't be literal if you don't have a single story.

Second, by a huge margin, most atheists, skeptics, and agnostics in the United States and Western Europe started out as Christians. Therefore, by definition, we did not start out with the assumption that the Bible is false, we started out with the assumption that it was true and, through actual experience with reality, evidence, and reason, came to the conclusion that it is false. Just like the ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Norse stories about their "Gods" it is a collection of fairy tales.

Assumptions are irrelevant if you actually conduct legitimate research and experiments. It is when you start with an assumption, say that the Bible is the true word of God and that it is proof positive of a young earth, flood, etc. Then, let's pretend you ignore all evidence to the contrary and insist that the Bible, despite the mountains of evidence to that this isn't the case, is still a legitimate source of knowledge about the inner workings of the world and universe. You know the kind, the silly religious person who, while staring at a fossil of a transitional form insists that transitional forms don't exist.

You're going to have to provide some of this "good scientific evidence" to prove your claims regarding the age of the universe, the mythical flood, etc.

You will never accept that because of your philosophical worldview, and it has nothing to do with real science. You are what the Bible describes in 2 Peter 3:3-7 as "willingly ignorant." That's kind of like dumb on purpose. The Bible states in the last days these willingly ignorant scoffers will scoff at the original creation, a great flood, and the coming judgment of God. Did you folks realize God said you were coming? Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

The truly sad thing is that you don't see the irony in the first part of your statement. You, and fundamentalists like you, are the ones who are being willfully ignorant. You ignore the mountains of evidence from dozens of independent fields of science that all provide interlocking evidence of an old earth, an old universe, evolution, inherited traits, natural selection, common ancestors, etc. You stick your fingers firmly in your ears, cry "LALALALALA" and then try to claim that those of us who do accept the reasonable evidence are the deluded ones. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

As for those who didn't believe in Christianity, you do realize that the group who don't believe in Christianity have been a majority of the population of the earth since the beginning of the church(es). Most people aren't Christian, don't believe in your little book, don't agree that yours is the story of the earth, of mankind, of morality, of really anything other than a revised set of fairy tales told by a small tribal group of bronze and then iron age nomads.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 14, 2009 4:29 PM

"Climate Change Denier" denotes a mythical creature, like Big Foot or a Tree of Knowledge. No one actually denies that climate changes, not a single person anywhere at any time.

Quite a false statement. In fact, the official stance of the Republican party not that long ago was a complete denial of climate change. Now, that such a position is untenable, they have adopted the "climate changes naturally, we're not the cause" position, which is just as indefensible. The ironic thing is that they will continue to deny right up until the evidence becomes to great to deny it, say NYC is inundated, and then will figure out some way to blame the Democrats. [note: Non US residents should feel free to replace "Republicans" with the name of whatever moronic conservative party fills the role in their political system and "Democrats" with whatever nominally correct but spineless middle of the road party that fulfills the same role]

Also you have people who flat out deny climate change now. Members of Congress and state legislatures have made statements (lumped and paraphrased) that "God created the earth 6000 years ago and nothing we can do will destroy it."

I love how, in that last bit of your post (not quoted here) you paint your opponents as a bunch of extremist lunatics and yourself as the rational one despite the fact that the only evidence that even remotely supports your claims is from studies commissioned by major industries that are largely responsible for the impact on the environment in the first place. Yours is roughly equivalent of someone quoting Answers in Genesis in an evolution debate.

The truth is, the logical position and approach would be to reduce our emissions and impact on the environment now, when we can control the process and do so in a manner that has the least negative impact on our global economy. In fact, if implemented carefully and properly we would be creating numerous new industries that could spark economic growth and the potential for another industrial "revolution" in the post industrial world. Instead you, and those of your "ideology" advocate a denial and "heads in the sand" approach. You buy into the arguments made by the industries that stand to lose the most and, not surprisingly, do the most harm in the mean time.

And no, before you try to make the argument, I am not an hysterical climate change chicken little. Point in fact I doubt I'll live long enough to see the most dramatic impacts and, if the worst case scenario led to the collapse of modern human society, don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I simply believe that it is utterly stupid to deny the writing on the wall and take steps to correct a situation while it is still reasonable to do so. Your stance is, effectively, letting a kitchen fire burn the house down because you're certain that it's about to go out on its own (with no actual evidence), mine is, put the damn fire out while we can instead of waiting for half the house to burn down.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 14, 2009 5:27 PM

I never had a problem as long as I could back up what I said with some evidence.... So what was this reverend's problem?

I think you answered your own question.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 14, 2009 6:08 PM

In fact, the official stance of the Republican party not that long ago was a complete denial of climate change.

Well, I don't give a flip about the official stance of the Republican Party, but I doubt that you can back up this statement with a platform plank.

Members of Congress and state legislatures have made statements (lumped and paraphrased) that "God created the earth 6000 years ago and nothing we can do will destroy it."

O.K. So I overreached. "Denying change" is not the position of skeptics of Global Warming, the people routinely called Deniers by the True Believers, people like Seitz, Christy, Lindzen and Lomborg.

I started following skeptics over a decade ago through Seitz' petition project, and where learned that 1) CO2 concentration is increasing, 2) the increase is anthropogenic, largely from fossil fuel burning, 3) global average temperature is increasing and 4) 3 probably has something to do with 2. I learned all of these facts from the skeptics themselves, because the skeptics don't deny any of it.

None of the Deniers I follow, none of whom are politicians or talk radio hosts, deny this "consensus", because it's not particularly alarming. To be alarmed, you must believe theoretical models forecasting extreme changes in a highly chaotic and poorly understood system over a century.

Posted by: Mack | November 14, 2009 7:27 PM

Oh, and for the Brick, on climate change denial and partisan politics:
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/dunlap-full.html

"Indeed, a significant part of the U.S. conservative movement—made up of conservative foundations, think tanks, media, and public intellectuals—mobilized in the 1990s to challenge both climate science and climate policy.10 Conservative activists wrote hundreds of documents (including policy briefs, books, press releases, and op-eds), held numerous policy forums and press conferences, appeared regularly on television and radio programs, and testified at congressional hearings on global warming.11 It would appear that the vigorous conservative campaign against climate science (particularly the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) and climate change advocates (especially Al Gore) has contributed to leaders of the Republican Party adopting a highly skeptical view of global warming."

"Despite the growing consensus over climate change in the scientific community, as reflected in IPCC reports, Republican spokespersons and conservative commentators continue to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming by highlighting the views of a modest number of skeptic or “contrarian” scientists who question the IPCC’s conclusions.18 One result is that in their efforts to provide “balanced coverage,” U.S. media have given disproportionate attention to these skeptics, creating the impression of less scientific consensus on global warming than exists within the mainstreamscientific community.19 As a consequence, American newspapers’ portrayal of global warming as a scientifically controversial issue differs significantly from the image presented by newspapers in other nations, where climate change is widely reported as scientifically established."

I picked out some of the good parts for you.

Posted by: raven | November 14, 2009 7:59 PM

arv lying xian troll:

The Bible states in the last days these willingly ignorant scoffers will scoff at the original creation, a great flood, and the coming judgment of God.

The bible doesn't say that. It says there will be scoffers but there is no mention of scoffers of creation or the flood. You just made that up. YOU LIED!!!

The bible also says the scoffers will be wrong because god was going to show up while the original disciples were alive. How'd that work out? It ended up being a failed prediction from the 1st century and 2,000 years on.

The bible also says false prophets are to be killed and not to lie. Everything you posted was a lie. But don't worry, it's sick in the head morons like you that drive 1-2 million people out of xianity every year.

Another few decades bleeding members and the idiot fundies will be babbling to each other and no one will care anymore.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 14, 2009 8:16 PM

Addendum: As for the passages from Genesis, it seems plausible that the trees were developed from explanatory mechanisms for the events in the story in later retellings, though it is likely that the core of the story (people in a good place [later idealized into "perfection" likely], forced out of good place by some event, forced into a new world that is worse than the other place) is based on something real, as stated before. That is likely what the basic story looked like (likely with the explanatory mechanism of the divine tacked on soon after by the storytellers, with the more specific reasons for the anger of the divine [eating fruit] tacked on later than that). Admittedly, after as many retellings as the story has almost certainly gone through, it's difficult to ascertain the original motive for telling the story, though.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 10:28 AM

I didn't mean for "progenitor" to mean just a person. The "progenitor" of the story was likely an event and the people who retold it, and as it was retold, it got distorted through countless retellings (and mostly accidental "mutations" to the original tale). No author truly "made" the story.

This theory of linguistic evolution also accounts for the words I'm reading now? How do I distinguish "evolved literal" stories from allegorical stories? Does your theory permit this distinction, or do you just pick the stories you wish to interpret this way?

What was this event?

Obviously, you're free to speculate about pre-historic events all you like, because we have no history against which to test your speculation.

When people retell stories, they tend to add, subtract, and exaggerate different aspects of it, sometimes intentionally but rarely.

That's is all true, but it's not relevant to an interpretation of the Eden story. You aren't defending a literal interpretation here. You aren't suggesting that whoever constructed "Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" believed himself to be describing a literal tree with literal fruit literally bearing knowledge of Good and Evil.

I'm arguing that the story itself was developed around some actual event that is or was likely lost to time ...

You argue so without a hint of what this event might have been. Does this theory also account for Socrates' Cave? How about Socrates himself? Is he a mythical figure based on some earlier but less embellished figure, or is he entirely fictitious? How do you know?

If you ignore the oral tradition by calling it irrelevant, then my argument falls apart.

I don't ignore oral tradition by calling it irrelevant. I say that someone describing men appearing out of dust and knowledge growing on trees and believing himself to recount literal events is as daft as man scratching the same story on parchment.

One need not be insane to accidentally add, subtract, or exaggerate something in a story.

So you're suggesting that a once ordinary, prosaic story of literal events somehow evolved, through gradual changes by sane people retelling the same story and modifying it slightly with each retelling without intending to change its literal interpretation, into a story in which men appear from dust and knowledge grows on trees, and this evolved story just happens coincidentally to read like an allegory, so all the people interpreting it as allegory are confused, while the literalists are spot on, except for their belief that the hopelessly mangled story is true? That's your theory?

Your explanation is plausible, but in light of human psychology (the constant search for explanatory mechanisms, the want to make sense of seemingly random events, etc.), I view it as more unlikely.

Your explanation does not seem plausible to me. You're stretching like a contortionist here.

... they wanted to record "history" (mythologized history and conquests of the past) as experienced by the Jews rather than just a bunch of quaint little stories to teach a moral lesson.

How about Judges 9, in which olive trees converse with fig trees about who ought to be king of the trees? Does this story evolve from accounts of literal events too?

How about Ezekiel 17, which has an eagle creating vineyards from a branch of a cedar tree? The same author describes Sodom as a woman with daughters. Must I assume that he was literally discussing a woman with daughters and not a city discussed in Genesis, as interpretation of this literature throughout history mistakenly suggests?

Maybe Ezekiel hadn't read Genesis, and by the time the story reached his ears orally, Sodom had become a woman with daughters instead of a city. Or maybe there was a city named Sodom and also a woman named Sodom with daughters who neglected the poor and did other detestable things, and this woman just happened to have a sister named Samaria. Maybe ancient Ancient Hebrews named their women after cities.

How about the parable of the vineyard in Mark 12, from a later tradition? I won't bother with its details, because this story is actually called a "parable" explicitly in the text itself. Am I supposed to believe that a story is allegorical only if it explicitly says that it's allegorical? Is that the test?

Do we interpret all literature this way or only ancient Hebrew literature in a theological tradition?

You're right when you say that fundamentalists have the same basic assumption, but that assumption is that religious texts are meant to be (mostly) nonfiction by the author rather than some sort of allegorical fiction.

I know. I also know that literalism is common, because people often have difficulty with complex analogies, but this fact does not imply that a story that looks just like the work of a perfectly sane allegorist in a tradition riddled with indisputably allegorical language is not an allegory.

I'd love to discuss the Eden story as allegory, but I'll probably never get the chance around here, because both the theists and the atheists here will not understand the story as allegory. They're too busy bickering with each other within their shared, literalist box.

Posted by: raven | November 15, 2009 10:59 AM

The Bible states in the last days these willingly ignorant scoffers will scoff at the original creation, a great flood, and the coming judgment of God.

2peter3: 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

This arv clown just made up some bible verses, outright lied. Low even for death cultist. They would call that blashemy and if no one was looking toss a few hundred stones his way.

The scoffers of the End Times were right then and they are right now. It was a failed 1st century prediction.

I could play the made up holy book game too. It says in 2Galileo:

Mighty humans will learn natures secrets and raise up magical civilizations. Dumb followers of perverted poisonous religions will grow afraid and try to tear them down, wanting to live in darkness and squalor. God in his mercy will set them apart in wheeled house parks and give them a maintenance income from the state so they don't starve. Eventually intelligent computers and uplifted dogs will make fun of them for being stupid.

They will go to hell but be deported as not educated or smart enough to hold down complicated jobs.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 15, 2009 11:09 AM

Slightly shorter Martin Brock:
"OK, I admit I know fuck-all about climate science and have been taken in by a load of kooks and shills."

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 11:27 AM

"OK, I admit I know fuck-all about climate science and have been taken in by a load of kooks and shills."

You're already an authority on the contents of my head, so why do you need a conversation with me? Is the rest of your wisdom also gained telepathically?

If the blogger raises the subject in a post, I'll discuss it with you then. I'm too busy here with topical subjects already.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 15, 2009 11:47 AM

You're already an authority on the contents of my head, so why do you need a conversation with me? - Martin Brock

I don't, but I feel a moral obligation not to let the idiocies andor lies of AGW denialists go unanswered.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 15, 2009 12:27 PM

I'm a celebrated shocker of parochial sensibilities here after only a week. I must be doing something right.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 15, 2009 9:10 PM

@Martin Brock

This theory of linguistic evolution also accounts for the words I'm reading now? How do I distinguish "evolved literal" stories from allegorical stories? Does your theory permit this distinction, or do you just pick the stories you wish to interpret this way?

What was this event?
To the first, it's not really linguistic evolution (which is somewhat analogous, but still quite different), but really the evolution of myth, so it's not meant to account for my own words (except for the fact that we're talking about the passages, of course). To the second, there is little way to distinguish between the two without any other outside evidence, thus the argument. It is likely there are both allegorical aspects developed from literal aspects of the story, though it is unknown whether the original authors (not the originators of the story, though) thought the story allegorical or not, so it is unknown whether the story, as known to the Hebrews at the time of recording the story, thought it literal or not. It is highly likely that they thought it to be, but I will develop upon that after the last quote.

Theoretically, yes, we should be able to identify something that happened in the past that this story resulted from, and my own speculation is that it originated from a version of the flood story, combined with a number of other mythological tropes from around the Orient. Pre-literate societies seem to have a nasty habit of not leaving behind many records, though, so it's difficult to really figure out what the event was.

So you're suggesting that a once ordinary, prosaic story of literal events somehow evolved, through gradual changes by sane people retelling the same story and modifying it slightly with each retelling without intending to change its literal interpretation, into a story in which men appear from dust and knowledge grows on trees, and this evolved story just happens coincidentally to read like an allegory, so all the people interpreting it as allegory are confused, while the literalists are spot on, except for their belief that the hopelessly mangled story is true? That's your theory?

It seems that you skewered it. It was an erroneous but literal interpretation of events in some mythical past that likely had the same core aspects of the passages. Both those who interpret it literally and allegorically mistake the passages for what they're not. They both oversimplify the extremely long process of the turning of history into myth, either by trivializing the distortion of orally transmitted information over generations (literalists), or prescribing too much intent into the creation of the passages (allegoricists). Likely, some parts are or were originally allegorical in intent, but the core of the story is trying to explain the creation of reality and the human condition. Honestly, I find it more unlikely that the ancient Hebrews just felt like writing a book full of mostly non-literal allegory if they didn't truly believe that they were writing a history of the universe. Without science, they wouldn't have had any narrative with which to understand the universe save religion, and I seriously doubt a book full of religious allegory without any creation story to base it on would have lasted very long.

You argue so without a hint of what this event might have been. Does this theory also account for Socrates' Cave? How about Socrates himself? Is he a mythical figure based on some earlier but less embellished figure, or is he entirely fictitious? How do you know?

I have a guess, but I've already given it, and my argument doesn't really rely on describing an event in history so much as saying that an event existed (although the question is important to answer anyway). You've chosen a good analogy here, though. We must ask, which version of Socrates do you mean, though, since there are numerous different portrayals of him at the time? It is likely Socrates was a real person, but scholars are unsure as to whether he was the person as described by Plato, or even if he taught anything similar to what Plato writes about in his books. It is likely he taught something similar, but since Socrates wrote nothing himself, we do not know. It is likely that Socrates existed because there is reference to him outside of Plato by other people who existed at the same time he supposedly existed, such as his appearance in The Clouds by Aristophanes, but we know almost nothing about him or what he taught or what he really did. In other words, the character of Socrates in Plato (I assume that's the Socrates you were referring to) represents a semi-fictional interpretation of the actual person Socrates. It is a fiction based on a kernel of truth, so, in a way, Plato's portrayal of Socrates is mythical.

This situation is analogous to, but not the same as, the problem with the interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. I have no idea who the real person "Socrates" is, but I do have a good idea that he existed due to evidence that documents that he existed in some way through the different "interpretations" of him. I also don't know what the real event is, but I do have a pretty good idea that the event occurred due to evidence through the numerous different religious interpretations of the core event throughout the Orient.

It's Plato's Allegory of the Cave and not "Socrates' Cave" by the way.

Do we interpret all literature this way or only ancient Hebrew literature in a theological tradition?

Just mythological and religious literature really, especially if the passage must be literally true in some fashion for the religion's claims about reality to be true. It is likely they originally started with some kernel of truth in them, but were modified in such a way that the story change but the truth value assigned to it by storytellers stayed the same.

I know. I also know that literalism is common, because people often have difficulty with complex analogies, but this fact does not imply that a story that looks just like the work of a perfectly sane allegorist in a tradition riddled with indisputably allegorical language is not an allegory.
I'd love to discuss the Eden story as allegory, but I'll probably never get the chance around here, because both the theists and the atheists here will not understand the story as allegory. They're too busy bickering with each other within their shared, literalist box.

Yeah, yeah, you're superior to all those peons that you put in the literalist box because its obviously allegory. No real scholars argue about what the ancient Hebrews thought about it.

The question is who are we arguing about really: the progenitor(s) of the passages or the author(s) of the passages? You start talking about people making up the passages' content, then you act as if the Hebrews recording it were the same people as the progenitors of the myth and had a similar understanding of the passage. In order for your argument to work, the passage has to have been made up by someone who purposefully put the allegorical language in there and made sure to tell people that he was saying allegory, then it was passed for a number of generations by numerous different storytellers who also somehow understood that it was all allegory until it got to the Hebrews who somehow understood as well that the form of the story that they have now (whatever form that was in) was allegorical and not meant to be literal. Then they place it at the beginning of the Bible, as if it is as important as the explanation for the origin of humans and the world (but they still understood it is not meant to describe a literal creation of humans and the world or explain the conditions of humanity in general) and accord the passage great significance and use the passage to explain the world and why it is how it is. That stretches credulity, I think. It is steeped in allegory and symbolism, yes, but it is highly unlikely the ancient Hebrews took it completely as allegory and symbolism because the whole religion relies upon the literal truth, in some fashion, of the two passages.

In short, the authors of the passages as it was originally (not the progenitors of the passages) likely thought it was literal simply because a religion (and humans and the world) needs an origin. The progenitors of the story, if based on a real event, likely believed their original story to be true as well. The progenitors, if the passages were only allegory, likely thought it to be allegory obviously. The progenitors, though, were likely not the Hebrew people due to the proliferation of similar myths throughout the Orient, so it doesn't matter which one it is in that case. The Hebrew people almost certainly believed it to be literally true because it is the basis of the whole religion. One could also argue that the progenitor of the story is the same as the original author, but that would imply that there would not be any similar stories throughout the Orient which we know to be false. It would also imply that Judaism doesn't have any explanation for reality in general (the world, humanity, etc.). One could argue the latter point, but one would also have to argue that religions were not essentially trying to understand how the world works. Feel free to argue that, but from what we know of societies in general, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Let's think, though: if man did not come from God and the world did not originate with Mr. Tetragrammaton and it was all just an allegory that didn't really mean what it said, then the whole religion falls apart. It's what both literalists and most atheists understand at some level.

What is a religion without a creation story believed to be literally true in some way?

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 16, 2009 12:00 AM

It's Plato's Allegory of the Cave and not "Socrates' Cave" by the way.

Socrates speaks the allegory in The Republic. He's the source, unless he's a work of fiction in this case. Everything we know of Socrates comes through Plato.

I do want to discuss this subject further with you, but I'll be very busy tomorrow and need to limit my time here. I'll get back to it a.s.a.p.

Posted by: raven | November 16, 2009 5:00 AM

I end up wanting to clarify points endlessly, and this is not conducive to brevity, admittedly.

Religions don't require anything to be true to be religions. Nothing at all. Ah, it doesn't require anything to correlate with reality, you mean.

You're right, it doesn't.

Oh, OK, sorry.

Hard to say what the original compilers of genesis believed. The fact is, there are two genesis stories that differ. Of course they saw it, they were weaving two sources together. That suggests they didn't consider it anything more than myth.

There were many religions and many creation stories floating around the ancient world. They all differed radically. They couldn't all be right. They might all be wrong. The one the ancient Jews wrote down has them as the central characters. Surprise. Writing back then like now had a lot of purposes, propaganda and group cohesiveness was part of it. They were clearly slanting it as they went along which suggests they didn't take it that seriously.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 16, 2009 9:47 AM

Christianity SHOULD fall apart without the creation story. Because then there is no fall, therefore no need for Jesus.

The Catholic Church has already found a way around this: because we are bodily descended from mere brutes, the argument goes, we have a "sinful nature" and therefore too need a Savior.

Goalposts? What goalposts? :-)

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 10:07 AM

The Catholic Church has already found a way around this: because we are bodily descended from mere brutes, the argument goes, we have a "sinful nature" and therefore too need a Savior.

Aha...ah BUT...you still need a soul to do the Jesus saving thing and heaven etc... which isn't part of the evolution theory.

Your goal posts. I haz them.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 18, 2009 4:36 PM

Martin Brock, you are mistaken to believe that the progenitor of the genesis myth didn't believe that they could eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and thereby gain knowledge.

First, I don't say that the orignator of the story could not have believed it possible. I say that he couldn't have believed himself actually describing the first two human beings on Earth materialized from dust and then actually learning Good from Evil by eating from a knowledge tree.

A man could make this story up, believing it possible, just as I can make up a story about landing on Mars believing a Mars landing possible, but if I tell you now that my story of a Mars landing is literally true, you question my sanity, because you know that no man has ever landed on the moon. Right?

Second, if I'm mistaken to say that the orginator of the story did not believe it possible, you must know that he did believe it possible, so you know that story is not an allegory. How do you know?

Eat the heart of a slain bear and gain it's strength.

This mistake is hardly equivalent to the Eden story, to believing that knowledge grows on trees.

No, Martin Brock, the claim of allegory is only justified by a modern revision, as it appears clear that the people of the time viewed it as solid fact.

How modern?

According to by Sara Klein-Braslavy, Professor of Medieval Jewish Philosophy in the Department of Jewish Philosophy at Tel-Aviv University, the ninth century Hebrew scholar Solomon ibn Gabirol understood the story allegorically.

"The richest and most important interpretation cited by Ibn Ezra is the exegesis of the story of the Garden of Eden. From what is given of this interpretation by Ibn Ezra, it would appear tht Ibn Gabriol did not interpret it as a historical event, but as a trans-temporal philosophical allegory whose subject is 'the secret of the soul'."

Klein-Braslavy goes on to describe ibn Gabirol's interpretation in detail.

Klein-Braslavy, Sara. “The Philosophical Exegesis.” In Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, edited by Magne Saebo, 302-320. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2000.

A remarkable number of people of our time understand the story literally, and earlier people also understood it literally, but this fact does not imply that the story was intended literally. The story passes every prima facie test of an allegory, and its allegorical interpretation is ancient.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 19, 2009 9:14 AM

Since it is a commonly-known fact that people as recently as Ponce de Leon were spending their lives and fortunes looking for the fountain of youth, ...

People still look for things to eat, drink, inject and otherwise absorb into their bodies to increase their strength and vitality (or youthfulness). This pursuit is not comparable to belief in a literal tree of knowledge, because people understand (correctly) that substances absorbed into the body can and do impart vitality.

People now also understand (and people in antiquity understood) that knowledge enters the mind formally through the eyes and ears. The idea that knowledge might enter the mind by some other, supernatural route seems to follow the literal interpretation of stories rather than to lead it.

Even today, many people (even most people) have difficulty comprehending complex analogies, while some people digest allegory more easily. We have plentiful evidence of these individual differences. The same differences existed in antiquity. Some people told allegorical stories (or made up stories otherwise). Most people mistakenly understood the stories literally. Some of these stories became religious myths.

This theory accounts for the popular belief that the Eden story is literal and also accounts for the prima facie evidence that the story is allegorical.

Posted by: anonymouroboros | November 21, 2009 5:49 PM

Even today, many people (even most people) have difficulty comprehending complex analogies, while some people digest allegory more easily. We have plentiful evidence of these individual differences. The same differences existed in antiquity. Some people told allegorical stories (or made up stories otherwise). Most people mistakenly understood the stories literally. Some of these stories became religious myths.

This is a possibility for the origin of the myths, but I'm somewhat skeptical of this for a number of the myths in the Bible, though the Genesis myth has a relatively good likelihood for this origin in comparison with others due to the more allegorical aspects of the passage. It is even possible that a literal story and a fictional allegory colluded into one at some point to form the basis of the Genesis story, but all I've really tried to argue is that, at its base, it was likely formed at least in part by some story that literally happened, but was re-interpreted to include gods and magic to make the event proceed in a way with understandable cause and effect, probably given by the original storytellers (i.e. the progenitors) of the "myth" (at that point, it would be more a mythical write-up of a news report). That is the likely origin of many of the military exploits in Judges, for example (probably real battles, though interpreted with theological elements, possibly by the storytellers, possibly by the original writers). Genesis is a bit more of a mystery than those passages, though. I will concede that there is probably no way to prove what the progenitors of the myth thought about the myth until something earlier than what we have appears. From what I know of myths, the explanation of a literal truth becoming so distorted over time that it no longer resembles the original event seems likely, but I cannot find such an event for the Genesis passages as of now because I don't have the original form of the myth or even something to give me that much of a clue except for the general narrative of the story. From such little evidence, though, it is likely I am wrong about the original event, assuming there was so for the story.

If we ever get beyond the assertion that the story is allegorical, or at least that it might be allegorical, we can discuss what the story means in allegorical terms. This discussion is interesting and is worth the "leap of faith" required to stop believing that the story, in which humanity appears on the Earth when a man materializes from dust and eats knowledge from a tree, is literal and has no allegorical interpretation.

If it makes you feel any better, it may be interesting to discuss the symbols many of the myths in the Middle East have in common (such as Genesis with the Enuma Elish or whatever), but I'm just not entirely sure it would be correct talking about it like that in the context of the people who wrote the myths understanding them in the same way we're discussing them. I doubt the progenitor(s) of the myth even had a story that was similar in nature, so we couldn't talk very much about whoever that was either.

It's possible there are allegorical elements to the story, but I'm pretty sure that in the lack of significant evidence contrary to the Genesis myth, the people who wrote the Bible literally believed what it said because, no matter what form the original myth was in or what the progenitor believed about it, it is highly unlikely this interpretation information was also transmitted orally. Without explicit instructions, it is likely that the writers took it literally because, even to this day, people will believe ridiculous things so long as they're given by an existing authority. You come close to admitting as much in the third paragraph of 224 (at least that, as temporal distance with the originator of the myth increased, so did the variations in the interpretation of what the myth means). To add to your own comment, though, I think it is less likely today for people to believe the story literally than in antiquity because we have a much better idea of how the world works than the ancients did. The literal interpretation was a more plausible answer to people at the time than it is today. Discussing the symbols of Genesis could be interesting, but I'm just not sure if we'd be saying anything meaningful in relation to the original authors, if indeed we were to discuss them at all.