Pharyngula

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 5, 2010 11:57 AM

Is that sound of your students girding their loins that I hear?

Good to hear you are back at work.

Posted by: Reality Enforcer | September 5, 2010 12:03 PM

That faith in humanity that EvolutionSkeptic restored? It's gone now.

Posted by: Stephen Stralka | September 5, 2010 12:06 PM

"I know that we will be learning about evolution."

Not if you're already made up your mind that you aren't going to learn any real biology if you can help it. I love how he seems to think he's the open-minded one. Personally I think comic sans is entirely appropriate for such an arrogant little git.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 5, 2010 12:10 PM

Reality Enforcer:

That faith in humanity that EvolutionSkeptic restored? It's gone now.

Posted by: bbreuer | September 5, 2010 12:19 PM

Are there any specific techniques that you (or the others reading this) can point to to shimmy around the awkward moment of informing the student but not making him/her feel humiliated? Perhaps any blog posts by you or others on this topic?

Also, I guess it'd be different in class or in private conversation.

Posted by: hyperdeath | September 5, 2010 12:21 PM

PZ, do you ever get creationist questions in your classes? Has anyone ever attempted the Big-Daddy act on you?

Posted by: Lyra | September 5, 2010 12:24 PM

I'm planning to become a biology teacher, and sometimes I worry about how to deal with this kind of situation. I've had discussions with "doubters" of evolution before, and it never goes well. They aren't asking honest questions (they are asking questions with an agenda) and because of this, they don't ever absorb the information I lay before them. I don't want to waste class time going in circles with a creationist. After all, the whole point of the class is to learn about biology, not watch me debate with some student. On the other hand, I don't want to tell people they can't ask questions. That would be terrible. So what does one do?

Posted by: Zeno | September 5, 2010 12:25 PM

In my experience, the reverse is true. The poor kid gets flustered and his story falls apart in a few moments' conversation, and he looks like a total dork

Ah, yes, the stumped professor and the preternaturally wise creationist student. One can see why this is one of their favorite fantasies. They have to live it out in the pages of dreary comic tracts because it doesn't overlap with reality. Martin Gardner met reality in college and dealt with its consequences:

I majored in philosophy at the University of Chicago (class of 1936), having entered the freshman class as a Protestant fundamentalist from Tulsa. I quickly lost my entire faith in Christianity. It was a painful transition that I tried to cover in my semi-autobiographical novel The Flight of Peter Fromm (now a Prometheus Books paperback). I actually doubted the theory of evolution, having been influenced by George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist creationist. A course in geology convinced me that Price was a crackpot. However, his flood theory of fossils is ingenious enough so that one has to know some elementary geology in order to see where it is wrong. Perhaps this aroused my interest in debunking pseudoscience.

Of course, Martin was handicapped in his fundamentalism by the possession of an open mind. The faith blinders weren't securely in place and he actually bothered to look at the evidence. Modern-day creationists are at pains to inoculate their young people so that they will be impervious to reason by the time they are college-age adults. Their efforts are rewarded unfortunately often.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 5, 2010 12:29 PM

My counsel is to check your attitude

I thought that's what Jesus is supposed to have taught. Why would this kid need a reminder, and why would this be good advice for this specific situation as opposed to something you'd do all the time as a matter of course?

Have any of these fuckwits read the goddamn bible?

Christians bore me like no other group. They actively suck interesting out of me. I feel like I'm that much closer to country road gravel or month-old gum on pavement just for having read this.

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 5, 2010 12:30 PM

If I got that question, I would ask "Was it your parents or your pastor who spent a lot of time helping you write this question?" The question does not fit with the way young teens look at the world. Sure, it contains a stunning amount of arrogance, but the concern for the rest of the kid's generation tells me that the child was put up to it (if there was a child involved at all).

Posted by: Zeno | September 5, 2010 12:39 PM

Lyra: They aren't asking honest questions (they are asking questions with an agenda) and because of this, they don't ever absorb the information I lay before them.

As a math teacher, I seldom have to deal directly with creationists, although it occasionally occurs during the unit on natural growth and decay -- and someone grouses about the problems I assign on carbon-14 dating. ("It's unreliable!" "How do you know decay rates are constant?")

Lyra's key point is that creationist students aren't listening to your responses. Or, rather, they're listening selectively in hopes of hearing the words, "You're right" or "I love Jesus now!" It might be possible to abort the one-sided nature of the conversation (or the entire conversation itself) by insisting that the student reiterate your response:

"No, please speak to the point I just made. Please restate it in your own words before you move on to something else."

We have seen that creationists have a litany they intend to recite come hell or high water, but we need to give them just a little mild-mannered hell:

"Sorry. I said [repeat point]. Please speak to that before offering something else. Reiterate it so that I know you understand it."

Teachers have authority to insist on certain things in the classroom and we should try to use it to cut off rote recitations of talking points. I'm not likely to have to put this into practice in classroom discussions with creationists, but I'm curious to hear from biology teachers who have tried holding their ground against students who want to flit rapid-fire from item to item.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 5, 2010 12:39 PM

Did you know that Darwinists use fossils to date rocks, and use rocks to date fossils? That's circular logic!

What?! Why...I'd never even bothered to question the dogma of evolution before this. I wonder what else I've been lied to about by the Liberal media and its partners in academia?

My mind has been blown.

Posted by: Zeno | September 5, 2010 12:42 PM

Brownian: My mind has been blown.

Ha ha! /Nelson

Posted by: hyperdeath | September 5, 2010 12:49 PM

What?! Why...I'd never even bothered to question the dogma of evolution before this. I wonder what else I've been lied to about by the Liberal media and its partners in academia?

They once had me in their grip as well. Until I realised that the Ungodly Alliance of Feminazi Pervert Democrat Atheist Marriage-wrecking Family-destroying Homosexualist Liberal Elitists can't even answer one simple question: If man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

Posted by: raven | September 5, 2010 12:49 PM

Sadly, they can often "win" in class, either because the teacher never learned about evolution properly her/himself, or because the teacher refuses to waste class time on it and dismissing it looks like a win to the student.

Worse than that. About 1 in 5 or 6 secondary school biology teachers are...creationists.

They either don't teach evolution, teach it as wrong, or outright teach creationism. The latter is illegal but it doesn't stop them very often. Usually they have to be blatant about it for years and someone has to sue the school. The administration isn't always very helpful either, especially if they are also creationists.

Posted by: harold | September 5, 2010 12:57 PM

I would be astounded if this letter were actually the original work of a student entering ninth grade. In addition to the language and grammar, the tone reeks of the obsessive fear of an authoritarian adult panicking over the thought of losing control as a child grows up. An entering ninth grader may have been involved to do something like click a radio button so that it is "officially" from them. Or not even.

Therefore, by definition, I suspect that it is being falsely presented as from a ninth grader. Therefore, unless I see strong evidence to the contrary, I suspect that a gross violation of the commandment against false witness has occurred.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 5, 2010 1:02 PM

It's not the worst advice, given their untenable position.

Of course what you'll never get from those purveyors of prejudicial nonsense is the advice the kid (yes, I have my doubts too, but the audience is not really the letter writer) needs, to try for once to have an open mind.

Gee, kid, how is it that you're the open-minded one, when you've never once questioned your beliefs? I'll agree that most of your fellow students haven't really, either, but since they're just learning, that doesn't really count.

In other words, how come creationism is the holdout almost exclusively of those who have never honestly and thoroughly questioned their beliefs?

Glen Davidson

Posted by: blf | September 5, 2010 1:05 PM

Is that sound of your students girding their loins that I hear?

Sounds to me like cretinists sharpening their crackers so they can condemn more students for crimes inside their own craniums.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | September 5, 2010 1:19 PM

"If Christianity came from other religions, why are there still other religions?"

WIN!

Posted by: Katharine | September 5, 2010 1:29 PM

Worse than that. About 1 in 5 or 6 secondary school biology teachers are...creationists.

Probably because except for the few who somehow get more enjoyment out of teaching the little rotters instead of doing research or other stuff that both contributes to the biological enterprise and does not involve children (teaching secondary school kids does the former, certainly, but not the latter), and I'd guess the commenter on our thread is one of those few, I'd guess that a lot of secondary school teachers are in fact relatively idiotic - remember that education majors, bizarrely, have one of the lowest average IQs at colleges among all the majors there.

Posted by: cnocspeireag | September 5, 2010 1:40 PM

Harold, doncha know it aint false witnuss when youse lyin for Jeebus?

Many of the 'responses' to this site look distinctly suspect. Like the letter pages of soft porn mags of the 70s, they are probably fabricated in house.

It's noticeable that some of the newest responses do seem genuine (and negative). The older ones seem uniformly on message. Might this suggest some slowly responding and furtive censorship?

Posted by: pinkboi | September 5, 2010 1:45 PM

Somehow, the questions the "kids" ask really remind me of the questions Pepper the Moth asks Professor Giraffenstein:

OBJECTIVE: 4 Kids with Lambuel! (scroll down for the hilarity)

Posted by: heddle | September 5, 2010 1:56 PM

Stonyground

or the fact that the Bible writers thought that the world was flat and has foundations, edges, corners and pillars holding it up.

Then you would be making the same category error as the creationists. You would, from an attitude of undeserved smugness, be lying and distorting in order to score some cheap rhetorical points and declare victory.

No, it is always better, in a science class, simply to stick with the science.

Posted by: mel.unique | September 5, 2010 2:11 PM

If man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

If man came from God, then why would there still be a God?

Posted by: melissa.b.elliott | September 5, 2010 2:19 PM

@6 @10 et al.

I *totally* could have written that going into 9th grade. Maybe his/her parents helped but at that age, my thought processes were almost identical, and I'm proud to say I'm in the minority of people who had the opportunity to learn to write coherently in elementary school.

My only exposure to evolution theory in school was in 7th grade, and I distinctly remember hiding in the corner glowering- and thinking "Traitor!" when the girl in front of me agreed with the teacher. Of course what was presented was so watered down that I had no reason to believe it anyway.

In tenth grade I had a very thorough creationism biology course... at the time, I was desperate to agree with it, to justify my love of the sciences.

For the curious, it was college-level astronomy that finally did me in.

Posted by: csreid | September 5, 2010 2:20 PM

I hear about bad biology teachers here, and it makes me realize that I must have been lucky. At my small high school in rural Indiana, we spent several weeks discussing evolution. The teacher had a master's in zoology, and was an avid reader. He kept up with the latest biology news. Most importantly, he took no prisoners when it came to creation mythology. Occasionally he'd say things like "Look at this joint here, between the femur and the pelvis. When that gets weak, it can just break. Old people often break their hips and fall because of that... it doesn't seem to be too INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, does it? In fact, it looks like we took the body of a 4 legged animal and stood it up!"

I think he probably got less trouble for that than many folks would have, because he was a big player in church (huge fan of Ken Miller, this guy). Every time someone would mention something stupid about god, he'd say "Go read Finding Darwin's God and get back to me."

/rambling

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4 | September 5, 2010 2:24 PM

Not having learned anything of evolution in high school myself, I didn't know about creationism until college...I learned about it in the "creations myths" section of my intro to anthropology course.

Years later, I went to a certain university very close to the mega church run by Pat Robertson. There I actually had a conversation with a retired high school biology teacher whose students--a huge majority of them she said--memorized the answers from the textbook's chapter on evolution, regurgitated them on the exams and put a little asterick with a note at the bottom that read something like:
"But my pastor said...." and the creationist response to the question.

They did that for every single question on evolution. I'm pretty sure I remember her saying she only gave partial credit for those responses. She was awesome.
Squigit

Posted by: Iain Walker | September 5, 2010 2:37 PM

heddle (#45):

Then you would be making the same category error as the creationists.

As far as I'm aware, there are plenty of mainstream biblical scholars who take the cosmological model of the universe implied by the OT at more or less face value, on the grounds that it is consistent with the cosmologies of most Middle Eastern cultures of the time. Are they making a category error too? Or are they simply making an inference to the best explanation?

In other words, not all biblical scholars have a problem with the authors of the OT sometimes being wrong. Do you have any particular reason to suppose that the Hebrews envisaged the physical universe in some other, more accurate way? Or are you simply yelling "Category error!" on the basis of an a prior assumption of inerrantism?

Posted by: hyperdeath | September 5, 2010 2:50 PM

Heddle:

or the fact that the Bible writers thought that the world was flat and has foundations, edges, corners and pillars holding it up.

Then you would be making the same category error as the creationists. You would, from an attitude of undeserved smugness, be lying and distorting in order to score some cheap rhetorical points and declare victory.

Let me guess... the "pillars of the earth" bit is just a metaphor. Unfortunately, the "metaphor" excuse wears a bit thin when arguing against people who think that the universe began a thousand years after the domestication of the dog, that global biodiversity is limited to the contents of a wooden boat, and that the velociraptor will lie down with the lamb.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | September 5, 2010 3:14 PM

cmflyer@42 wrote:

There's Katherine again, this time hating children and teachers. Did you get gang-banged by the football team and the science department in high school?

Posted by: Draken | September 5, 2010 3:18 PM

Many seem to doubt if the poster (grade 9 is 14-15 years old I've just figured out) is up to asking this question, at least the way it's formulated.

But then surely Rhys Morgan from Bleachgate can't have done it by himself either, after all, he's 15.

There's quite some difference between 14 and 15, this being the age where you get stuffed with information, but as a 15-year old I feel confident that my mode of expression (in Dutch at least) was up to this level.

Posted by: hznfrst | September 5, 2010 3:38 PM

Why don't you call these chumps out, PZ? Challenge them to a *written* debate, since we all know they don't play by the rules in person.

Nail them to the wall on every single point, taking your time to dissect their logical and factual errors - and predicting in advance that they will be completely dishonest about admitting when they're wrong, always falling back on their "faith."

In all likelihood they will refuse, being just smart enough to know they'll be turned into mincemeat, but the unmet challenge will be one more way to expose them for the phonies that they are.

I had the opportunity to debate some fundie radio host a while back on his live show and refused to do it that way, and told him why. I was more than willing to debate him in writing, but of course that wasn't what he was after so it never happened.

Sometimes I wonder if we have more to fear from the xian dominionists or muslim infiltration over time. Maybe they'll both be at each other's throats in a shooting war some day, and I can sell weapons to both sides ;>).

Posted by: melissa.b.elliott | September 5, 2010 3:52 PM

@62 Tabby Lavalamp seconded.

I grew up in private school, went public in 4th-8th, and went private again for high school. Guess which provided a VASTLY better education in how to read and write English? In my public-middle-school years, teachers couldn't stop raving about how far ahead of the other kids I was in anything related to constructing a sentence. I was bored to tears the entire time. Mind you, this was in some of the best public school systems in the country, in northern Virginia.

The public schools had a marginally better science education, mostly because they could afford more lab equipment and more recent editions of books. As I said already, evolution was just barely touched on. The private schools emphasized creationism, and basically ignored astronomy beyond the solar system, but everything else (chemistry, physics, ecology, health) was identical to what you'd hear in a public school.

So again: I can't say whether this *particular* 9th grader received help, but there definitely *are* rising 9th graders who can write like this. It's my opinion that most public schools are in drastic need of language arts reform. :(

Posted by: Doktor Zoom | September 5, 2010 3:55 PM

For everyone who's saying that there's no way that an actual 9th grader wrote the question, I'd like to point out that, according to Orson Scott Card in Ender's Game, it's not inconceivable that a twelve year old could write brilliantly enough to shape world politics.

Then again, according to Orson Scott Card in Ender's Game, it's also possible to commit genocide without being morally culpable, so your mileage may vary...

Posted by: gould1865 | September 5, 2010 4:09 PM

@ # 18 or thereabouts.

Re your question by analogy : Well I do know that I use gas to run the trucks, and then trucks to run the gas. This circular "reasoning" as you call it, is one of the world's great mysteries to persons who have not looked into the matter, which includes fundies who listen to their "did you know" guys and can't tell word play from foreplay. No use explaining processes to you, who like being told by persons lying their ass off to keep the job structure intact. Give them all the money you can sucker.

Posted by: Meloniesch | September 5, 2010 4:22 PM

That was easily me at that age! Ouch, it makes me wince to think of it! However I proceeded to learn all I could about 'evilution' so I would have all the answers. Um, yeah, it didn't quite work out the way I thought it would. Poor stupid Ken Ham. After turning a childish critical gaze on evolution, I swung right back around and applied the same thinking to creationism. And that, Mr Ham, is what you get for getting a kid all interested in creationism and flood fossils.

Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus | September 5, 2010 4:39 PM

Hmmm... Their forums seem open to subscriptions so you can actually post topics (unlike anything I've ever seen at AIG). At least one self-proclaimed atheist has done so and asks them rather polite questions. He doesn't look like a sockpuppet though.

Maybe we should all sign up and politely bash some knowledge in them. I lost the link but here's some fun: one of the topics had one asking why the universe was so incredibly large with only tiny us in it, and another answered the universe was that way to show just how awesomely great God was.

I'd like to ask him why God in his awesomely greatness piled our solar system with countless asteroids just waiting to crash into us at some point while he could easily have flung them, oh I don't know, several million lightyears away?

Posted by: cdh_vegas | September 5, 2010 4:51 PM

Any chance of your lectures showing up on iTunesU? I would love a chance to hear them.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | September 5, 2010 5:08 PM

Oh for Pete's sake, heddle? Really? The physicist who doesn't have enough sense to be embarrassed at the childish fairy stories he believes in? Can't you confine yourself to Ed Brayton's blog?

We just can't have nice things anymore.

Posted by: steve | September 5, 2010 5:12 PM

Oh for Pete's sake, heddle? Really? The physicist who doesn't have enough sense to be embarrassed at the childish fairy stories he believes in? Can't you confine yourself to Ed Brayton's blog?

heddle is probably getting a bit tired of being used as a chew toy over at dispatches.

Though why he thought it would be any different here is a mystery.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 5, 2010 5:41 PM

Heddle likes being a chew toy.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 5, 2010 6:00 PM

hyperdeath,

Let me guess... the "pillars of the earth" bit is just a metaphor.

Well duh.
Let me guess... your view is that figures of speech were not invented until the 1870's.

Oh, I love this show, and what luck! an episode with Brainy Metaphor. Let's see if I can do an impression:

[Speaking nasally]

"Papa Metaphor says you shouldn't metaphor anything in the Holy Metaphor metaphorically, except for those metaphors which are explicitly metaphorical, and Papa Metaphor is always right."

Posted by: JT93 | September 5, 2010 6:03 PM

The first thing I noticed about their advice is that it sounds exactly like Screwtape's advice to Wormwood in how to make a Christian fall away from faith: Don't do anything big or spectacular, just plant seeds of doubt and let him come to his own conclusions and become damned. Were I less logical, I might conclude that the Christians there are demonic.

Posted by: Tulse | September 5, 2010 6:05 PM

What is it a metaphor of?

Whatever our most recent understanding of astrophysics and cosmology is -- isn't it obvious?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 5, 2010 6:12 PM

Let me guess... the "pillars of the earth" bit is just a metaphor.

Well duh.

The Bible's completely metaphoric, except for those parts about selling children into sexual slavery, not eating shellfish, and stoning adulterers, which are to be taken literally.

Posted by: MadScientist | September 5, 2010 6:18 PM

Aaahahaha ... mild dyslexia does have its amusing moments. I saw:

"How can I show not only my friends, but other students, that God is wrong? "

Posted by: SC OM | September 5, 2010 6:21 PM

The Bible's completely metaphoric, except for those parts about selling children into sexual slavery, not eating shellfish, and stoning adulterers, which are to be taken literally.

And miracles. Oh, and genocide, which heddle thinks is quite fine and even to be celebrated as part of "God's redemptive plan."

The fact that the majority of humanity is stupid enough to subscribe to creobot bullshit scares the crap out of me. I have to share the planet with these people?

Yes, as the rest of us do with you. Please try to do it in a less repulsive manner. Thanks.

There's Katherine again, this time hating children and teachers. Did you get gang-banged by the football team and the science department in high school?

Go. Away.

Posted by: SC OM | September 5, 2010 6:24 PM

heddle, I think you missed the first question:

What do you think the writers of the bible actually thought about the cosmology of their world?

Posted by: ralphgentile3 | September 5, 2010 6:29 PM

I hopped over there (CreatConv), and I weep for humanity. Dropped some WTF? bombs on those poor idjits just for fun.

Posted by: hyperdeath | September 5, 2010 6:32 PM

heddle:

hyperdeath:

Let me guess... the "pillars of the earth" bit is just a metaphor.

Well duh.
Let me guess... your view is that figures of speech were not invented until the 1870's.

The second part of my post (i.e. the part which you didn't quote) made it abundantly obvious that my issue was with using the scripture-as-metaphor approach with hyperliteralist fundamentalists.

I'm perfectly aware that the Bible contains metaphor. However, a frighteningly large fraction of your coreligionists regard everything within it as literal truth. If a major religious figure started pressing the flat earth verses as fact, then large numbers would almost certainly accept it with loud hosannas. (After all, flat-earthism is not substantially more stupid that evolution denial.)

Stop explaining it to us, and start explaining it to them.

Posted by: David Marjanović | September 5, 2010 6:40 PM

Why wouldn't they believe that pillars hold up the Earth?

Indeed, it would be close to miraculous if they did not believe the Earth was flat and gravity was the force that pulls down, "down" being a direction inbuilt in the universe.

Posted by: heddle | September 5, 2010 6:52 PM

hyperdeath,

I'm perfectly aware that the Bible contains metaphor. However, a frighteningly large fraction of your coreligionists regard everything within it as literal truth

Not true. In fact completely false. Even the most literal-minded fundamentalists do not take all of the bible literally. Just ask them, for a simple example, what the 70 weeks of Daniel are. Or ask them, what did Jesus mean by generation whe he stated: "this generation shall not pass away until all [this prophecy] is fulfilled."

The fraction of Christians that takes everything in the bible literal--even discounting obvious metaphors (I am the vine) is actually zero,

But go ahead--perpetuate that falsehood. I mean, why not?

Posted by: heddle | September 5, 2010 7:02 PM

Owlmirror,

Why would people who believe that God has "sons" and can do anything he wants not believe that God can make the pillars supporting the cosmos sentient?

Which of course is not the question. Perhaps if asked they would say: yes of course, if god wanted to he could make pillars that could do renormalization group theory. But that doesn't mean they believe that he in fact did so.

No, the simplest explanation for passages such as

The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke (Job 26:11)

is a poetic description of the enormity God's power.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 5, 2010 7:07 PM

The fraction of Christians that takes everything in the bible literal--even discounting obvious metaphors (I am the vine) is actually zero,
But go ahead--perpetuate that falsehood. I mean, why not?

Clearly hyperdeath didn't mean literally everything.

Duh.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | September 5, 2010 7:10 PM

Nice false dichotomy: They had a modern cosmology, or they actually believed that pillars held up the earth.

Either their god gave them some version of the truth, dumbed down to their current level of comprehension, or somebody, somewhere, was speaking untruths.

There was a funny science-fiction short story about Moses trying to wedge all of modern cosmology into the first part of Genesis, and giving it up for the short version that was published. In actuality, it would have been shorter to give a few paragraphs of science, like Owlmirror did, instead of babbling on about ribs and pillars and stuff.

The Bible is not any version of the scientific truth about the beginnings of Earth, nor is it a parable or metaphor for the Big Bang. It is an attempt at a straight-out, truthful explanation in full, and many a dipshit creationist would agree that it not only is meant to be truthful, but that it is truthful in all ways.

Your milage may vary, but doesn't make you right.

(Speaking of the Bible, I just noticed that the Tower of Babel was built AFTER the Flood, by survivors or their immediate descendants. Once again, the folks that God personally helps turn bad just as fast as they can. (See the golden calf, Lot's daughters, Noah getting drunk, Adam and Eve, King Saul, King David ....).)

Posted by: gould1865 | September 5, 2010 7:17 PM

Doktor zoom @ 70

Interesting point. I sort of knew the meaning of Poe from context here, but I looked it up.

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

Perhaps I'm the someone. Sounded like the real thing to me. I know you can't parody a parody. And, there are points at which you can't tell the dancer from the dance.

You may be right. If you are, may be that, maybe, the thread comments are chocked with flaming poe's, tricky, not trustworthy, and the real fundies have stayed home. Don't know, but don't want to believe that, can go too far, for example is the email posted later in the day by PZ a Poe? He gets a lot of them. We get a lot of comments. Not knowing, we can choose one way or the other. Still, you may detect something and be right.

You posit the existence of a subtle counter-Poe. No way to detect that without a smiley. Now your post, is it a Poe as well, or a counter-Poe, and so am I writing a counter-counter-counter Poe here? Could be very entertaining if you can't tell friend from poe, or counter-poe, or counter-counter-poe, and so on.

Thanks for bringing this up. I am always glad to learn something.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | September 5, 2010 7:37 PM

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/09/dear-creationconversations.html

Dear CreationConversations, could you help me out a bit?
We’re about to study Science, where in truth I must admit
That my knowledge base is lacking, and I really don’t know shit,
‘Cept the science that my pastor says is true—

Like that evolution’s evil, which already I’d suspected,
Cos if God says we’re created, then that doesn’t mean selected;
If my teacher mentions Darwin, then I want my ears protected,
So I’m looking to the experts—namely, you.

So I hear we might be learning about animals and plants
And a bit on reproduction, where I think that there’s a chance
That I’ll get a funny feeling near the zipper of my pants
And I’m worried that I won’t know what to do!

Can you help me with some answers? Can you help allay my fears?
Can you help me if some science accidently hits my ears?
Cos the they say it doesn’t matter what a Christian student hears—
It’s their Darwinist-Evangelistic view!

If I hear their godless message, there’s a chance I might succumb,
And that violates my first amendment right to still be dumb!
It’s my right to read the bible till my thinking stuff goes numb!
My religion says that learning is taboo!

I’ll await your thoughtful answer with a keen anticipation;
You can see that I’m concerned about my future education—
If you can’t find a solution to this current situation
Then my dream to be a doctor might be through!

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | September 5, 2010 7:47 PM

A sentient pillar is just as ridiculous as a talking donkey:

Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"

Wait, does this mean Eddie Murphy is God?

Posted by: Sastra | September 5, 2010 7:49 PM

That does it. I refuse to believe that Cuttlefish is a public school student starting 9th grade biology. This is rigged!

Well done, sir.

Posted by: SC OM | September 5, 2010 7:58 PM

A common belief system among those not taught modern empirical methods is animism; the belief that all things have some sort of spirit. It's common today in much of the third world, and it has more than a few holdouts in the first world; those who believe in spirits and ghosts and demons. You probably don't believe in any of that, but many religious people do.

And in fact, in many indigenous cultures 'animist' beliefs form part of a cosmology of interrelationships and connectedness. The animistic/woo parts (condescendingly presented in Avatar) can be discarded and the rest - including empirical knowledge - can be seen as useful and accurate in its way. In contrast, animistic beliefs in the Bible are divorced from any ecological framework and merely used to promote a particular power.

Posted by: Anton Mates | September 5, 2010 8:04 PM

heddle,

But I also know that when "pillars of the earth" or "pillars of heaven" is used, it is used poetically. Consider:
The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke (Job 26:11)
If the bible is teaching that pillars hold up heaven, then it also teaches that the pillars are sentient and can be "aghast" at a rebuke.

That doesn't follow at all. Consider:

And He saith, 'What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood is crying unto Me from the ground'(Genesis 4:10)

If the bible is teaching that people have blood in their bodies, then does it also teach that blood has a voice and and can "cry" to someone? Of course not. The occurrence of poetic imagery involving blood doesn't mean that the authors of the Bible thought blood itself was just a metaphor. Ditto for the "pillars of the earth."

Job 9:5-8 describes God as

"5 he who removes mountains, and they do not know it, when he overturns them in his anger;
6 who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble;
7 who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars;
8 who alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the Sea;"

Is it really simplest to conclude that "mountains," "earth," "sun," "stars," and "sea" are meant literally here, but that "pillars" happens to be a metaphor?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | September 5, 2010 8:17 PM

Since the science controversy is firmly rooted in worldviews . . .

Could someone please explain to me in monosyllables what the fuck this means? 'Cause it sure seems like they're trying to say, "The only way to confront the advances of science is by denying they exist."

Can they really and truly rely on closing their eyes, plugging their ears with firmly-inserted index fingers, and screaming at the top of their lungs, "You're the suck, and I'm the bomb!"?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 5, 2010 8:19 PM

You folk aren't looking at it in the right way. All the stuff that's obviously stupid, like sentient pillars and π=3, are metaphors. All the stuff that says how great god is, like killing all the first born in Egypt and wiping out all living things except on those on the ark, are literal.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | September 5, 2010 8:21 PM

Teachers who find themselves on the receiving end of this must point out to the other students what is going on and explain to them directly what is wrong with it.

Interesting. It seems to best approach would be to ask the student questions in return, rather than trying to go all ivory-tower on their ass. Demonstrate powerfully that they are not the experts they are claiming to be.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | September 5, 2010 8:30 PM

What is Balaam's ass supposed to be a metaphor for?

God talking through an ass seems like a metaphor for some of his followers.

Posted by: SC OM | September 5, 2010 8:32 PM

Teachers who find themselves on the receiving end of this must point out to the other students what is going on and explain to them directly what is wrong with it.

Hmm. Have any teachers tried the epistemic approach (TM)? Ask the student why she believes that, and that, and that..., and use this to raise a discussion about what science as a way of gathering knowledge about the world means? (I assume science teachers are allowed to bring this in....) Really, the epistemic basis of science should be fundamental to the teaching of any branch of science, and emphasized from the start.* If teachers focus solely on facts and theories, it's a problem, I think, because students don't learn how people arrive at facts and theories and what makes science epistemically singular.

*I love how PZ, in connection with this, emphasizes the history of science. (At least I think he's said he does....)

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | September 5, 2010 8:35 PM

And He saith, 'What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood is crying unto Me from the ground'(Genesis 4:10)

Well, duh. To God, everything has a voice, or at least informs Him. He was speaking metaphorically there, but only in the sense that He was describing how it seemed to Him, as he talked to the guy.

A detective could say that the clews spoke to him, but that doesn't mean that he meant that they had literal voices.

Our actions cry out to God that we are sinners, I am sure.

God can speak in metaphors, like the rest of us, but when He writes something down in the Bible, not as his speaking voice, we'd better believe it.

Is that clear?

Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com | September 5, 2010 8:35 PM

@wormman.

I am involved with the Australian Secular Lobby ( http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=171506088479 ) and my daughter goes to a school in Queensland.

Could you please contact me (follow the link to Danny Stevens profile in facebook on the ASL page). I would like to discuss your classroom experiences, such as the one mentioned in post #82.

I am trying to collect a body of such stories and gather together a network of teachers that are having to deal with religious incursion into our schools.

Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com | September 5, 2010 8:47 PM

Teachers who find themselves on the receiving end of this must point out to the other students what is going on and explain to them directly what is wrong with it.

Interesting. It seems to best approach would be to ask the student questions in return, rather than trying to go all ivory-tower on their ass. Demonstrate powerfully that they are not the experts they are claiming to be.

Turning to the other students and saying "who can tell me what so and so is trying to say? What do you think?" and then responding to their answers is far more powerful, and reduces the challenger's attempt at controlling the agenda or raising their status with the others.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 5, 2010 8:59 PM

Since the science controversy is firmly rooted in worldviews . . .

Could someone please explain to me in monosyllables what the fuck this means?

It means: "Hi, we'd like to justify our fairy-tale by using the logical fallacy of false equivalence. KTHXBYE!"

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | September 5, 2010 9:15 PM

I always liken the post hoc differentiation between what's metaphor and what's literal in the bible and claiming that it supports your position to winning the lottery - if you're allowed to choose your numbers after the draw, that is.

But I'm surprised heddle hasn't dropped in the usual caveat of the bible having been written for 'intelligent reading', i.e. which is defined as one that - coincidentally, I'm sure - agrees with his sect's exact interpretation.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 5, 2010 11:03 PM

#140 Menyambal
If you liked that you'll love the Hovind version. The dinosaurs were on the ark, and lived on up into the Middle Ages before going extinct. He knows because the dragons in fairy tales were actually dinosaurs, that flew & (my favorite part!) breathed fire!
But maybe they didn't all go extinct. Ever heard of Nessie or Ogopogo.....??

Posted by: Lee Picton | September 5, 2010 11:18 PM

In a former life, before becoming an IT geek, I WAS a ninth grade English teacher and had some very advanced students. I also say with total confidence no ninth grader ever wrote that question. As someone has already pointed out, it was the equivalent of the soft porn magazines where the "questions" were written by the same people who composed the answers. But the people who actually believe the website will believe it, because they just aren't very smart.

Posted by: chaseacross | September 5, 2010 11:53 PM

A response to creationist badgering that emphasizes other direct confrontation with the student, vis-a-vis singling the student out by asking the rest of the class what they think of the student in particular, or through Socratic/epistemic engagement wouldn't fly in the vast majority of public schools. It's not anti-evolutionist bias, mind you; it's a matter of pedagogy. Modern pedagogy, at least from what I gather from friends of mine who are teachers, frowns upon such a confrontational approach. As to the extended dialogue, the "epistemic method," it just can't be justified in a classroom of 40 students who have a lot of material to go through, and five other classes that day. The teacher could spend the entire class period negotiating with one stupid creationist and make no headway, all the while putting the class behind schedule.

I think the best response is for an instructor to flatly and firmly respond to any nonsense, and suggest that they'll make themselves availible for discussion after class. The class can move on without having to essentially waste a very precious day on one student's inane questioning.

Posted by: SC OM | September 6, 2010 12:30 AM

As to the extended dialogue [?], the "epistemic method," it just can't be justified in a classroom of 40 students who have a lot of material to go through, and five other classes that day. The teacher could spend the entire class period negotiating with one stupid creationist and make no headway, all the while putting the class behind schedule.

Well I've taught classes that size, and I think it's realistic.

So there. :)

Seriously, though, the epistemic basis of science is what science is. I mean, it should have to come first. If that puts the class behind schedule, then as far as I'm concerned that's far better than staying on schedule with the memorization of facts delivered from on high, most of which the students won't remember (even for standardized tests a few months later).

Posted by: melissa.b.elliott | September 6, 2010 12:56 AM

@132 Gordy:

Is that an admission of guilt? :)

Posted by: ask-who-knows | September 6, 2010 3:24 AM

When I taught 8th grade English, state curriculum required a research paper in the final quarter. During the first quarter and with class set sources I'd bought, I taught note taking, paraphrasing, focusing the topic. Other steps followed in the middle quarters so that a paper could--so to speak--write itself in the last.

The overall topic was the eye so that all students could see their classmates success at handling the steps. In the fourth quarter, each student could choose an entirely different topic, but most stayed with the eye--narrowed down to structure, selected diseases of, development, comparison, etc. They added their own resources at this stage.

Some creationist-leaning students happily chose irreducible complexity of the eye. If they were full-on, can't-tell-me-differently fixed on creationism, they changed to a different topic before the paper's due date. If they stuck with the topic, the paper showed the science putting irreducible complexity out of the picture.

Win/win, I thought.

awk

Posted by: danielm | September 6, 2010 4:50 AM

PZ, you mean they really do think that Chick's "Little Suzy" character situations actually happen in real life?

That's...spectacularly bad thinking.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 6, 2010 7:09 AM

Teachers have to walk a fine line. If a student asks "Were you there?" when the age of the earth, the Big Bang (whatever) are taught, they cannot make the obvious retort "Were you there?" when God created the Universe in 6 days. They have passed from teaching science to criticizing religion. A big No No in public schools.
It is one reason I think those religionists who are feeding these questions to their kids to stymie the teachers are particularly foul. They are encouraging students into taking swings at teachers knowing the teachers hands are tied.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 8:00 AM

hyperdeath,

I concede that the holey-handed one's failed "I'll be back" prophesy is taken as metaphor

One of many. Tell me a person's theology--are they classic YEC fundamentalists? Calvinists? Catholics? Arminians? Preterists? Amillennialists? Postmillennialists? Premillennialists--dispensational or historic? Give me that and I'll make a sizable list of non-trivial verses they do not take literally--thereby falsifying your claim from #99 that "a frighteningly large fraction of your coreligionists regard everything within [the bible] as literal truth."

Simply put, your claim is demonstrably false. You would be better to state your claim this way:

a frighteningly large fraction of your coreligionists claim to regard everything within [the bible] as literal truth.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 8:59 AM

lenoxuss,

For whatever reason, it has since become "obvious" that Jesus didn't really mean it.

No it hasn't become obvious.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 10:08 AM

Owlmirror,

To a (comparatively speaking) limited extent--yes. That is, as a presuppositionalist I do presuppose that [1] god exists and [2] the bible is his word. I also presuppose [3] that god is not a god of confusion and that the study of his word (theology) must be consistent with the study of his creation (science.) (With the corollary that, being human endeavors, either or both can, at times, be wrong.)

I think that from that point forward I can "derive" all my theology. For example, the literal six day creation is untenable, because it violates presupposition number 3.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 10:30 AM

nigelTheBold, Captain Smug Author Profile Page,

Hm. If God is not a God of confusion, why are there so many different interpretations of the Bible?

Because, as I stated, theology and science are error prone. For example, in the early 20th century I might have been tempted to conclude the bible's first three words were allegorical because the prevailing science taught, erroneously, that we lived in a steady-state universe.

Ah! But until we undertook the scientific endeavor, the people reading the Bible were forced to take the Genesis story literally.

Except, of course, the many who did not. Such as pre-scientic early church theologians like Justin Martyr, Augustine (who differs from the literal interpretation by infinite orders of magnitude), Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeous, Origin, ...

The Bible is intrinsically confusing, as exterior knowledge is required for proper interpretation.

The so is every physics book on my shelf. Not a single one, not even the most introductory, are completely self contained.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 6, 2010 11:02 AM

Because, as I stated, theology and science are error prone.

But science can be corrected with empirical evidence and reasoning about that evidence; by the scientific method.

What method exists to correct theological errors?

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 6, 2010 11:40 AM

I also presuppose [3] that god is not a god of confusion and that the study of his word (theology) must be consistent with the study of his creation (science.)

Hm.

Two points about this:

Firstly, I'm pretty sure you're presupposing more than that. For example, the Trinity is not explicated anywhere in the bible, but it has become part of the "standard" theology of Christianity. The Nicene Creed makes explicit theological assertions not made in the bible, so you're also presupposing the truth and correctness of the theology in the Creed, as an interpretation of the bible, in addition to the bible being the word of god itself. And there are additional theological interpretations in Calvinism as well; those derive from certain interpretations of the bible as well.

The other point is that I see a contradiction or inconsistency between the premise that god is not a god of confusion, and your earlier acknowledgement that revelation is not something rational. You believe that your revelation is true, and that every revelation that you disagree with must be false. Those of us who did not receive your revelation have no reason to accept it as true. So everyone who did not receive or believe your revelation (or those revelations that you accept as being true), and those who believe in false revelations, must, necessarily, be confused as to the truth.

That seems like a lot of confusion to me.

Posted by: tacroy | September 6, 2010 11:57 AM

To clarify: Owlmirror and nigel, you are assuming that heddle's presuppositions are changeable. They're not. God is not a God of confusion*, and that topic is not up for debate. heddle might confuse you by seeming to defend the position, but he's not actually thinking about it; it's more like a schizophrenic calmly explaining to you exactly why the stairway is out to get him, while you explain that stairs are inanimate and can't actually move.

Here, let's try it: heddle, how would you know if you were wrong about presupposition 3, that God is not a God of confusion? Would it take scriptural evidence, like what God is claimed to have done when we tried to build the tower of Babel? What about real-world evidence, such as the brute fact that atheists exist at all (and are therefore confused about the existence of God, despite the fact that you see it so clearly)? What sort of thing would it take to make you abandon presupposition 3?

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | September 6, 2010 12:07 PM

We'll have to disagree on the Trinity. I believe that starting from the presupposition that the bible is the word of god that one can derive the doctrine of the trinity--no further presuppositions required. But I have no intention of posting such a derivation in the comments of Pharyngula.

Bollocks.

Logic is a pointless exercises if your starting premises are flawed.

If we are allowed to presuppose what we like, we can prove anything. If we presuppose that Harry Potter is non-fiction we can show that magic is real.

Pre-suppositional apologetics is just dishonest, and that fact you buy into tells us a lot about your moral and ethical values (or rather lack thereof).

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 12:09 PM

tacroy,

What sort of thing would it take to make you abandon presupposition 3?

An irreconcilable difference¹ between the bible and science. (That would actually cause me to abandon all three.)
--------
¹ Which does not mean I will rehash, yet again, old challenges: What about striped livestock? Cud-chewing rabbits? Pi = 3? Bird-bats? I don't need nor care to convince you that there are no irreconcilable difference.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | September 6, 2010 12:16 PM

Which does not mean I will rehash, yet again, old challenges: What about striped livestock? Cud-chewing rabbits? Pi = 3? Bird-bats? I don't need nor care to convince you that there are no irreconcilable difference.

We will take this to mean you are unable to deal with these contradictions so will pretend they do not exist.

Your cowardice, and dishonesty, is showing again. Not pretty.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 6, 2010 12:20 PM

I think what I said is that my conversion was supernatural--maybe that's what you mean.

Yes; I intended "revelation" simply as "revelation that Christianity is true", derived from your description of that conversion experience.

Do you think that doesn't count as being an actual revelation?

Incidentally, since discussing the possibility of a minor temporal lobe seizure as a possible natural explanation of that experience, I have discovered that sometimes an infection can cause extremely altered mental states (and not in the usual sense of being obvious delirium -- no fever was associated with the infection, only a high white blood cell count). Granted, once the infection was cured by antibiotics, the altered mental state reverted (more-or-less) to baseline, but perhaps in some cases, something felt to be a revelation that occurred during a similar infection might be retained and believed as being something true.

Just throwing that out there.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | September 6, 2010 12:23 PM

I think what I said is that my conversion was supernatural--maybe that's what you mean.

Has it not occurred to you Heddle that your "conversion" was the manifestation of mental illness ?

Seems far more likely, and explains your continuing irrationality.

Basically, I reckon something broke in your mind. Possibly you brain, if there is an underlying physical cause.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 12:31 PM

Matt Penfold

We will take this to mean you are unable to deal with these contradictions so will pretend they do not exist.

Take it however you like. (We? Are you a spokesman?) Of course others on here will recall my addressing these--and you can also search my blog. But again, you are free simply to declare victory. I don't care-I just do not want to go through the arguments yet again, knowing exactly how the discussion will go and how much time it will waste.

Has it not occurred to you Heddle that your "conversion" was the manifestation of mental illness ?

It has. That is a possible explanation. I believe I have said so on these pages.

Posted by: lenoxuss | September 6, 2010 12:43 PM

It's true that plenty of theologians have long advocated for a non-literal reading of Genesis — but evolution and modern geologies aren't the only discoveries that could possibly prompt such a "re-reading".

For example, Augustine and others noticed that Genesis has the Sun being created in the fourth "day", which makes no sense, so some aspect of the text must be non-literal, right?

Not necessarily. That the sun is the source of daylight seems entirely apparent to us now (as it did even in Jesus's time), but, going much further back, plenty of Caananite/Phoenician cultures believed that the sun was simply a bright thing we see during the day (and the moon likewise). This certainly fits with the text of the story.

I think a very good argument could be made that almost every assertion of non-literalness was made after a contradictory discovery of one sort or another.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 6, 2010 12:56 PM

What method exists to correct theological errors?

Various. For example, older manuscripts might be discovered. Improvements occur in our understanding of biblical Hebrew and Greek. Technology and scholarship improve translations. Advancements in our understanding of first century Judaism help us to interpret Paul's writings in a more accurate context. Or simply new theologies are developed that are more consistent. Likewise science can help to correct theological errors--for example geocentricism or flat-earthism.

Hm. No, I don't think this works.

Science can correct empirically incorrect statements or beliefs in the bible -- but I don't see how it could correct non-empirical theology.

For example, while we're talking about god being of confusion or not, there's the verses that assert (or imply) that god never lies, and those that assert (or imply) that god does indeed lie.

  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html

What could fix this? Manuscripts with negations (or lacking them) for some of the clauses? Or is the "proper" understanding that god does lie, to unbelievers?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | September 6, 2010 1:00 PM

The error is when you refuse to examine your theology in light of new discoveries.

Edited for accuracy.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | September 6, 2010 1:12 PM

So, to sum up:

The Bible is literally true, except where it is not. When the a Bible verse contradicts observable nature, it is allegory. Therefore, anything in the Bible can be allegory, rather than literally true, but is assumed to be literally true unless contrary evidence appears.

Cases in which the Bible are demonstrably in error (bats aren't birds! pi ain't 3! and so on) maybe be safely ignored, as they are inconsequential.

That's an epistemic mess. It's a good thing that God will judge our eternal souls based on whether or not we believed in him, and he put forth his own case for existence so clearly and concisely.

Otherwise, the Bible would look just like a poorly-written mess of historical and not-so-historical fiction and mythology.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 1:55 PM

Owlmirror,

None of those verses make God into a liar. Some speak of God withdrawing a sort of common grace from believers which leaves more susceptible to lies and delusions. Akin to the the famous Rom 1:28:

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Or they speak of God sending an evil agent to accomplish his plan—which he does all the time and is no surprise—for example he calls Nebuchadnezzar his servant. And he sent Satan to Job.

Or they are just dumb, like the reference in Jeremiah 4, in which Jeremiah is not quoting god but quoting false prophets.

nigelTheBold, Captain Smug

The error is when you refuse to examine your theology in light of new discoveries.

There are several really stupid and cheap ways to reply to a comment. Among the cheapest and dumbest is the "there, fixed that for you" tactic and it variations, such as you employed. As in your comment:

So, to sum up: Now, to make an illogical, absurd extrapolation:

There, fixed that for you!

The Bible is literally true, except where it is not.

Well yes--isn't that sort of a trivial tautological statement? What are you trying to say? Do you know someone who claims" "the bible is literally true, even when it is not literally true?"

Cases in which the Bible are demonstrably in error (bats aren't birds! pi ain't 3! and so on) maybe be safely ignored, as they are inconsequential.

They are not inconsequential nor should they be ignored. They are easily explained.

Therefore, anything in the Bible can be allegory, rather than literally true, but is assumed to be literally true unless contrary evidence appears.

We already demonstrated you are wrong here. Augustine, for example, had no evidence suggesting that creation was instantaneous (which was his view)--he was not trying to reconcile the bible with science--yet he did not take the creation account literally. Sorry--this is just a misconception that you refuse to give up.

Sastra,

A question, then: do you think Christian theology can be examined in light of the basic values of the Enlightenment -- and reconciled?

You'd have to give me an example--but my gut instinct would be to say yes. Something like slavery. Gradually a modern abhorrence of slavery arose in Christianity-- which shouldn't have required Enlightenment thinking (the bible should have been enough)--but maybe that was the catalyst.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 2:24 PM

Sastra,

Can enlightenment humanism be reconciled with the Calvinist concept of Special Election -- and that other vessels are made for destruction?

I don't know. I never thought about it.

Posted by: lenoxuss | September 6, 2010 2:33 PM

I think a very good argument could be made that almost every assertion of non-literalness was made after a contradictory discovery of one sort or another.

That might be true--but it's a feature, not a bug. The error is when you refuse to examine your theology in light of new discoveries.

You don't quite mean "examine"; you mean "re-interpret". All along, the underlying pattern has been something like this:

1. The Bible is true.
2. X is true.
3. Therefore, a plain interpretation of the Bible will not contradict X.

The problem is the unwillingness to ever test premise 1 (or even define it in a testable way).

This wouldn't actually be so bad if there were mountains of prior evidence in favor of premise 1, requiring us to reconcile it with the evidence for premise 2. (That sort of thing happens in science every once in a while, leaading to the production of new hypotheses.) I can certainly imagine a world in which the Bible was right so often it would be bewildering whenever it appeared to be wrong. But that would be a very different world — one in which believers routinely and confidently tested the text, without any fear their predictions might be shown wrong.

Oddly enough, in our world, neither literalists nor moderates nor any Christian in between ever shows true bewilderment with the Bible.

I'm now reminded of this great video by NonStampCollector. Part of the conversation in it serves as a sort of single-blinded test of whether the believer really believes in the words of the Bible, or is merely willing to defend whatever words he thinks are in the Bible.

Posted by: tacroy | September 6, 2010 3:12 PM

heddle: you mentioned God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Were you aware that Exodus, as written in the Bible, almost certainly never happened?

No Jewish slaves toiling away for Pharaoh, no parting of the red sea, no wandering around for forty years - none of that ever happened, as far as the archaeological record is concerned.

What, then, is it a metaphor for?

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 3:39 PM

nigelTheBold, Captain Smug

Which leads me to ask, why should we take the Bible seriously as a source for morality in modern times?

Well--there is no particular reason why you--an unbeliever--should take the bible seriously for anything. (I don't even think you could, if you wanted to.) But my answer, for my own purposes, would be: Because int the NT Jesus teaches:

love your neighbor as yourself

as the greatest commandment concerning how people are to treat one another. Unless you're an idiot Ayn-Rander, I don't see how you could have any basis to complain.

tacroy,

heddle: you mentioned God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Were you aware that Exodus, as written in the Bible, almost certainly never happened?

No I wasn't aware of that. And I believe Owlmirror and I had this discussion a long time ago--I am also not going to rehash that debate.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 6, 2010 4:09 PM

Some speak of God withdrawing a sort of common grace from believers which leaves more susceptible to lies and delusions.

But that isn't what the text says. There's nothing about common grace, or something being withdrawn, but rather, God doing something actively to bring about confusion and deception.

This is another example of a presupposition of something not in the bible -- that common grace exists, and that God "withdraws" it. The bible gives God a more active role in bringing about deception.

What theological discovery could be made that would show that the idea of common grace, and its withdrawal, is wrong?

Or they speak of God sending an evil agent to accomplish his plan—which he does all the time and is no surprise—for example he calls Nebuchadnezzar his servant.

I've argued before that power and knowledge confer responsibility. Is God not responsible for the evil done by his evil agents?

Or they are just dumb, like the reference in Jeremiah 4, in which Jeremiah is not quoting god but quoting false prophets.

But per Ezekiel, false prophets are deceived by God. They're speaking truth as far as they know, and the ones who heard it thought they were hearing truth.

How does one tell false prophecy from true? By the fact that the foreign invaders -- who don't believe in God -- were victorious?

Why wouldn't that mean that the God of the invaders is the true one, even if it's an idol?

------------

Because int the NT Jesus teaches:

love your neighbor as yourself

as the greatest commandment concerning how people are to treat one another.

But that isn't how God of the bible treats humans. God manipulates and confuses and sends evil agents and deceives humans as to his will, and causes them to not do what is in their own best interest, leading them to eventually be damned forever.

Perhaps God hates himself, and hates humanity as much as he hates himself?

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 5:00 PM

Menyambal

Well, we might if it seemed to explain a lot of things or really seemed to work as a guide. Which Christians claim it does.

That’s just it—it won’t make sense to you. So it would not be possible for you to use it as a guide. You would keep telling yourself—this is nonsense, why should I use it as a guide?

First, why is that in the New Testament, instead of making the foundation of the Old?

Because we live in the New Testament era, not the old. As Paul wrote of Jesus:

For [Jesus] is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances (Eph 2:14-15)

We are not the people of an ancient nation which existed under the old covenant and exists no more—so we do not follow their laws.

Not that loving one another is bad, but how does Christianity support any unique claim to the concept, or any better than average expression of it?

It doesn’t support any unique claim. Obviously the same morality shows up in many religions and in atheism—our expression is no better as far as I can tell.

How does "Love thy neighbor" mesh with [1] Hell, [2] Holy War, [3] Crusades, [4] Saint Bartholomew's Day, [5] hacking Hypatia to death, [6] sects and [7] violence?

[1] Irrelevant—Neither I nor any other person can condemn anyone to hell.
[2-5, 7] It doesn’t
[6] ??

OwlMirror,

But that isn't what the text says. There's nothing about common grace, or something being withdrawn, but rather, God doing something actively to bring about confusion and deception.

But that isn't how God of the bible treats humans. God manipulates and confuses and sends evil agents and deceives humans as to his will, and causes them to not do what is in their own best interest, leading them to eventually be damned forever.

Well, first of all God does not have to play by the same rules as the creatures. Us—he tells us to love one another. But of himself it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. And secondly, god doesn’t lead anyone to be lost, that’s the default and the humanly inescapable state. It is only because he leads some to be saved that not all are lost—but the only active divine intervention is in a positive sense.

Is God not responsible for the evil done by his evil agents?

Apparently not in the cosmic moral calculus. Again, the classic case is that Satan had to ask permission and then god sent him to Job. It would appear that given that satan is a free moral agent he is solely responsible for his actions against Job. Or maybe the classic case is Judas—whose deeds were ordained by god—but who is morally culpable.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 6, 2010 5:59 PM

[6] sects and [7] violence?

I think it's a pun. Sax and violins.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 6, 2010 6:21 PM

well, there's always the defense

Posted by: Dania | September 6, 2010 6:26 PM

If true the explanation is not that people read the bible, understand it, and are converted/convicted--but the other way around.

*sigh*

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on Sastra's question, if you ever come to any conclusion.

Posted by: heddle | September 6, 2010 6:41 PM

Dania,

I need Sastra to clarify. I'm thinking now of the question:

Can enlightenment humanism be reconciled with the Calvinist concept of Special Election -- and that other vessels are made for destruction?

In a certain sense I think Calvinism owes something to the Enlightenment--it has always been the the theology of the Christian egg-heads, and Calvinists are often accused, within the family, rightly or wrongly, of taking a too scholarly/intellectual approach to the bible. So I do believe Calvinist theologians of the era adopted Enlightenment techniques of scholarship.

But I don't think that's what Sastra means. I think the question is about doctrine of election vice humanism. If so the answer is perhaps no--but I am not on solid ground here. I could believe that Christian doctrine in general (not just Calvinism)--with a doctrine of eternal torment for the lost--could never be reconciled with a some definitions of humanism. Nor could the concept--again not particular to Calvinism, that man is incapable of saving himself. Or, again, the doctrine of Original Sin--again not particular to Calvinism.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | September 6, 2010 7:18 PM

But Calvinism sounds particularly evil because, as I understand it, we can't do anything about our salvation.

Which is especially evil if there is something that can be done to achieve salvation*. I mean, the Calvinistic approach is to assume that you haven't been saved - unless you can 'feel the love of God inside you' (make of that what you will) - and so you don't bother doing anything about it.

*Not that I, personally, believe that's anything other than a load of dingo's kidneys, but I'm also prepared to admit I'm wrong if I'm ever presented with evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Michael Dowd | September 6, 2010 7:44 PM

nigelTheBold @123, I apologize for dropping out of the previous conversation we were engaged in without notice. I've been traveling across the country and offline most of the last week. I finally replied to you, albeit briefly, here (you may also want to see here). Unfortunately, I'm also traveling this week and will have little time to reply again before Thursday.

Posted by: goldfinch | September 6, 2010 7:56 PM

Well, first of all God does not have to play by the same rules as the creatures. Us—he tells us to love one another. But of himself it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. And secondly, god doesn’t lead anyone to be lost, that’s the default and the humanly inescapable state. It is only because he leads some to be saved that not all are lost—but the only active divine intervention is in a positive sense.

To me, this sounds like rationalization of bad behavior by god. He doesn't have to play by our rules, anything he does is right and good. That is rather scary. We are all victims of god's whims. I don't want part of that god. I can love my neighbor as myself, the second greatest commandment, but be damned to hellfire for not accepting Jesus. Even if I have never heard of Jesus. The commandment to love your neighbor is meaningless.

God has a personality disorder. Everything is about him. He makes and changes rules and rarely communicates what they are. He allows different religions and then does a gotcha to the people who were born into the wrong one. We have to walk on eggshells so as not to offend. Our love must be unconditional but his is conditional. And this is the natural state of affairs?

(As far as common grace, did god skip Hitler and various other psychopaths?)

(Even love your neighbor as yourself is ambiguous as a statement against slavery. Ten to one slaves were not considered your neighbor back when this was written. I bet the gays weren't considered your neighbor either. Certainly women weren't, as the NT is clear that women were to be treated as inferiors to men. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14))

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | September 6, 2010 8:44 PM

'Tis Himself wrote:

Now I know heddle will claim I'm misrepresenting his god, but I'm not. His god is a selfish, sadistic megalomaniac with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old.

Actually, he probably won't; in order to maintain the internal consistency of their claims the Calvinists have dispensed with the one aspect of God that so many other Christians consider to be the foremost: omnibenevolence.

Basically, heddle admits his god is a vile, unjust monster - but to him (and his need to paint his religion as intellectually defensible), an asshole god is a better option than a incompetent and/or inconsistent god. To give him some credit, though, he doesn't try to pretend God can be both - like most Christians.

It doesn't say much about heddle that he feels the need to worship a divine bully.

Oh, definitely. No-one with any real character would do anything but scorn such a monster, so it leaves the only option being sucking-up out of some combination of fear and fawning gratitude.

But he'd probably tell you he doesn't have a choice; however, if you want to see some really spectacular handwaving you could tell him this contradicts free will - since that's another cake he does want to both have and eat.

Posted by: Sastra | September 6, 2010 9:38 PM

heddle #213 wrote:

But I don't think that's what Sastra means. I think the question is about doctrine of election vice humanism.

Yes, with specific emphasis on the belief that God made many people for the purpose of being damned, in order to fulfill a higher goal.

To clarify, you wrote earlier about the importance of examining theology in light of new discoveries, so that doctrine may be interpreted according to what is otherwise known through the wisdom of the world. You were specifically referring to scientific knowledge, but in #190 I brought up another form of modern "knowledge:" the humanistic assumptions gradually engendered by first the Renaissance, and then the Enlightenment.

If so the answer is perhaps no--but I am not on solid ground here. I could believe that Christian doctrine in general (not just Calvinism)--with a doctrine of eternal torment for the lost--could never be reconciled with a some definitions of humanism. Nor could the concept--again not particular to Calvinism, that man is incapable of saving himself. Or, again, the doctrine of Original Sin--again not particular to Calvinism.

To this list I would add what you wrote above, "God does not have to play by the same rules as the creatures." The model of "government," if you will, is autocratic in the extreme, with a rigid hierarchy. Not only is there no democracy, but, from God's standpoint, there are no human rights, and no divine duties. We are means for an end, and what we need to know most, we do not learn: we are granted, or we are not granted.

I agree with your assessment then, in that I don't think one can examine the Calvinistic version of theology from a humanist standpoint, and not find the situation reprehensible, and God unworthy of worship. The religion is anti-humanist.

The problem though, is that your solution -- that the damned cannot understand or accept the ways of God -- seems to be in conflict with the fact that for the most part you're a product of the Enlightenment yourself. "Science, liberty, free inquiry and expression, democracy, human rights" -- you enthusiastically endorse them all. You strive to practice them all, uphold them as ideals. That is, when it comes to the world.

When it comes to religion, however, you don't try to incorporate these values into your doctrine, or re-interpret what is written in light of the developments in ethics and government of the last two thousand years. The ways of man are not the ways of God, apparently. Which suggests that your ways are not the ways of God, either. Nor are God's ways, the ones you choose.

Do you think Christian theology can be examined in light of the basic values of the Enlightenment -- and reconciled? No.

I think you have an internal conflict then -- not as obvious perhaps as creationists have, but still significant. And this one is not going to be about exegesis of Biblical passages so that they may be seem to be in harmony. The internal conflict is you, with you. That one may not be playable in public. I don't know.

Posted by: lenoxuss | September 6, 2010 10:52 PM

#224: I have to agree with this take on Calvinism; it's no worse than any other non-merit-based system of afterlife allocation. Heck, it even allows for God to unconditionally save just about everyone, rather than damn nearly every last one, as is usually assumed of CalviGod.

Calvinism's mind-bendingness always reminds me of Newcomb's paradox.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 7, 2010 5:40 AM

lenoxuss: thank you for mentioning Newcomb's paradox, it's fascinating stuff.

Posted by: Susan | September 7, 2010 11:30 AM

I just want to say, the Teachers' Day is coming, hope my teachers all happy everyday.
I'm a bad student ,most of my teachers didn't pay attention to me.But, there is still some teachers care for me,found my talents,gave me some advise on my life when i was confused.I'll remember them forever!
Happy Teachers' Day!

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 12, 2010 1:36 AM

Returning here late -- oh, well.

heddle @ #205:

As applied to the skeptics bible “exegesis” that god is a liar, the explanation is that god never lies—but yes he may send someone deceptive and yes he may withdraw common grace making you an easier mark.

So God never lies directly but sometimes does so by proxy? This strikes me as being a distinction without a difference.

Well, first of all God does not have to play by the same rules as the creatures.

There's a word that describes a person who demands that others follow rules that he himself absolutely does not follow.

The fact that God is more powerful than all humans does not change the fact that God is a complete hypocrite.

And secondly, god doesn’t lead anyone to be lost, that’s the default and the humanly inescapable state. It is only because he leads some to be saved that not all are lost—but the only active divine intervention is in a positive sense.

And yet, if that's the case, what's the point of the "withdrawal of common grace"? What's the point of Romans 1:28? If all people are damned by default, what difference does making some of them "do what ought not be done" make? Why does God take away their free will to realize that they are in the wrong and repent?

It certainly looks like God is making them harm themselves worse, and harm others as well (by allowing them to act against others, and by setting a bad example).

Apparently not in the cosmic moral calculus.

It still looks like the cosmic moral calculus is a hypocritical one.

Again, the classic case is that Satan had to ask permission and then god sent him to Job. It would appear that given that satan is a free moral agent he is solely responsible for his actions against Job.

No, this makes no sense. If Satan had attacked Job of his own free will, against or without God's command, your argument could follow. But Satan has to ask permission from God, and is granted permission by God. God explicitly gives Satan permission to attack Job, and sets the limits of the attacks (firstly not to touch Job's body, then not to end his life). How is Satan a free moral agent, here?

Or maybe the classic case is Judas—whose deeds were ordained by god—but who is morally culpable.

This is a simple contradiction in terms. Judas had no free will to do anything different from what he did (that's what "ordained" means; God commanded that those actions occur -- how was Judas supposed to contradict God's explicit will?). God must be responsible for what he himself commands!

A while back we had a discussion/argument that words do have meaning. An honest assessment of what the word "responsible" means must apply to God as much as it applies to much weaker and more ignorant humans.

heddle @ # 213

Nor could the concept--again not particular to Calvinism, that man is incapable of saving himself.

As I understand it, non-Calvinistic soteriology might revolve around the concept of repentance. Humans have the free will to repent, and sufficiently sincere repentance is understood to be sufficient and necessary for God to grant to the penitent salvific grace, unless, of course, God denies them that free will to repent, per Romans 1:28.

Under Calvinism, repentance is either meaningless, or can only follow from already-granted salvific grace. Or so I would infer.

heddle @# 224:

And who says the odds are low? In Revelation there is a vision of an uncountable multitude in heaven. Heaven will be heavily populated.

By any population estimate, the vast majority of humanity is not Christian, and was not (in the past) Christian. So the vast majority of humanity must be damned.

And why is the alternative less monstrous? In the non-Calvinist alternative you have to choose prior to conversion from your own free will. But take two people where one chooses and the other doesn't. Why did one choose? Was he smarter? Dumber? Richer? Poorer? Better educated? Less educated? Born into a Christian family? Whatever the reason there was something different that allowed one to choose and not the other. The non-Calvinist soteriology is just as unfair.

Hm. No, non-Calvist soteriology is somewhat less unfair. Not greatly more fair, but somewhat less.

At least there is something that the chooser can knowingly do, as opposed to having to count on having received a completely invisible "gift".

The only people who can claim fairness are the Universalists

I think that the system in "Hell is the Absence of God" was slightly more fair than theology realized in our world. God provided empirical evidence of his existence, and of the fate of the souls of the dead.

People knew what the rules were, and could order their lives in accordance with those rules. And they knew that damnation involved no torture or cruelty, unless you count endless existence as torture.

Well, except for Neil Fisk; the example that demonstrated the true unfairness of a God who saves and damns at a whim, rather than by showing some sort of awareness of human merit.