Pharyngula

Posted by: Randomfactor | January 7, 2011 11:15 AM

He couldn't have done it without the Pope, the Chief Cause of Atheists Everywhere.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | January 7, 2011 11:15 AM

The Roman Catholic Church is already "soft" on evolution. In fact they are pretty much OK with science as long as you add "God did it" without being too specific.

Maybe they learned something from that Galileo business?

Posted by: lagerbaer | January 7, 2011 11:18 AM

Funny: The only time Ken Hams reasoning is sound is when he tries a reductio ad absurdum.

Posted by: Brian | January 7, 2011 11:20 AM

I've got to give Ken Ham credit for one thing: He does have the courage of his own convictions.

Very wrong headed ones, but at least he will stand for something, as opposed to other people who are willing to let their religion mean/stand for whatever is convenient now.

Science and religion are not reconcilable. People on both sides need to realize this.

Posted by: vanbeverningk | January 7, 2011 11:22 AM

but if we are all descendants of an allegory ..

It's sad when you only have 1/2 a brain cell, and even that isn't working.

Dude! If the whole story of Adam and Eve is an allegory (look it up the word!), then that MEANS that we didn't actually descend from them!

Posted by: SC OM | January 7, 2011 11:24 AM

Yay! Ken Ham has demolished Christianity!

Oh, nice try. The tides come in, the tides go out. There's never any miscommunication. Demolish that, violeur des porcelets.

Posted by: Dog Boots | January 7, 2011 11:25 AM

Ken Ham is making sense. The apocalypse is upon us.

Posted by: outawork_ee | January 7, 2011 11:27 AM

Does it need to be in comic sans if it makes sense?

Posted by: KG | January 7, 2011 11:31 AM

Evidence that Ken Ham is an atheist under deep cover mounts.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | January 7, 2011 11:33 AM

So God disappears in a puff of logic and Ken Ham goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the first Zebra crossing?

Posted by: viridian1 | January 7, 2011 11:37 AM

In the InformationAge_3.0, it is conceivable that religion will simply make itself obsolete and education and knowledge will prevail over superstition. That is my glass-half-full bit of wisdom for the day.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | January 7, 2011 11:38 AM

He's not making sense. The historicity of Genesis and sin being an allegory are not the only conceivable alternatives.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | January 7, 2011 11:49 AM

AJ: The historicity of Genesis and sin being an allegory are not the only conceivable alternatives.

They are once you've eliminated all cases that don't justify the use of violence to enforce your concept of sin.

The important thing is that the result be the justification of the use of violence to enforce your moral code in all ways -- that the only reason that someone disagrees with your code is that they are ignorant or evil.

Ken Ham is intellectually "honest" -- given the choice in possible results. The RCC is trying to have it's cake and eat it too, as usual, reifying poetic concepts in order to justify the use of violence to enforce their poetry while trying to deny the reification.

"God made the big bang" may as well be "God created us in 7 days" -- without the straight-forwardness and testability of the latter claim.

Posted by: Iain Walker | January 7, 2011 11:58 AM

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory

A big dumb non sequitur (specifically an exercise in serially denying the antecedent). Genesis could still be an allegorical treatment of some real phenomenon or state of affairs (e.g., for the sake of argument, sin). I mean, just because Animal Form is an allegory doesn't mean that totalitarianism isn't real. And even if we junk the doctrine of Original Sin, that doesn't mean that there's no need for a Saviour (there isn't any such need, but that there isn't doesn't follow from Ham's premise). The fact that human beings are less than morally perfect might well be good enough reason for God to send his only begotten sock-puppet to try and reform us, even without a magical hereditary stain on our characters.

I'm not in a position to judge what Ken Ham really does with piglets, but it can't be anything worse than what he does with logic.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | January 7, 2011 12:17 PM

The Orthodox Jewish flavor of "literal interpretation" doesn't include the doctrine of original sin.

Original sin + salvation by faith (and Hell for unbelievers) are New Testament innovations.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | January 7, 2011 12:18 PM

Iaian:

The fact that human beings are less than morally perfect might well be good enough reason for God to send his only begotten sock-puppet to try and reform us, even without a magical hereditary stain on our characters.

Not if you want to morally justify the eternal and absolute torture of 99% of the human race for failing to "properly" accept the sockpuppet.

You're missing the agenda of argument -- all the excluded cases, because their results are absolutely unacceptable. No result which implies a partial, subjective, or relative value of religious truth is acceptable.

If there is any reasonable opposition to the rationality of accepting revelation exists, then the argument totally fails to fulfill the prerequisites.

You folks are judging Ken Hams "logic" are failing to note the many premises that he has implicitly assumed -- but which his audience imbibed by the time they were four.

God's poop can not smell. If it did, Hammites would argue that it's would be better to be an atheist than a believer in a poop-smelling God.

Posted by: Ken | January 7, 2011 12:28 PM

Uh-Oh PZ...not so fast about being a lazy...

Reasonstobelieve.org has lots of reasons to believe--in an old Earth at that. But I digress....

Ask ole' Ken Ham what happened to the Garden of Eden (and why) if that Genesis story is literal truth. After evicting Adam & Eve God guarded the place with Cherubim -- you'd think they'd be up to any attack by mere mortals (with urban sprawl being the likely threat).

And Eden included/includeS the "Tree of Life."

What happened to that tree? Is it dead now?

Consider the implications of that.

I'd love to read Ham's response to that one! Some alternative dimension would seem a necessary element of such rationalizing. Could actually get interesting, like a script for a comic book!

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | January 7, 2011 12:52 PM

frog, Inc wrote:

They are once you've eliminated all cases that don't justify the use of violence to enforce your concept of sin.

Is that supposed to be a general "your", or does it refer specifically to Ken Ham's?

Posted by: Ternon | January 7, 2011 12:59 PM

Future civilisations (should we leave a planet for them to exist upon) will look back on our religious history and shake their heads at its dehumanising savagery.

Or future civilizations will be even more religiously savage...

Posted by: Kagehi | January 7, 2011 1:02 PM

Uh... So, if there even was a first marriage, where in the Babble does is describe the vows?

Posted by: stvs | January 7, 2011 1:06 PM

You omitted the funniest quote:

The Big Bang has the sun and stars before the earth, but God said He made the earth before the sun and stars. Furthermore, the Big Bang has the earth beginning as a hot molten blob, but the Bible has the earth at the beginning covered with water.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | January 7, 2011 1:32 PM

¡Muchas gracias , Ken Hamm!

Posted by: SheepdogB | January 7, 2011 1:38 PM

Is Ken Ham demonstrating an upside to Dunning-Kruger here?

Posted by: lastyear | January 7, 2011 2:22 PM

To Somemadchef:

It says in the Bible that Adam and Eve had more children after Cain and Abel. So, Cain married his sister.

Also, the hebrew word that begins the book of genesis "Bereishit" can mean "when he began", in addition to "In the beginning."

Posted by: What a maroon | January 7, 2011 2:29 PM

Also, the hebrew word that begins the book of genesis "Bereishit" can mean "when he began", in addition to "In the beginning."

Posted by: KG | January 7, 2011 2:31 PM

I do have one question for the regulars; the whole Ken Ham piglet/sex thing. Are you just riffing on the guy's name or is there something deeper to that?

Yes, indeed there is: the fact that Ken Ham rapes piglets!

Posted by: Somemadchef | January 7, 2011 2:37 PM

I had a moment when I was away from my pc, and it struck me, like a white blinding light and I heard what sounded like Angels but it could have been more of a thunder sound but without any storm clouds.

If the Pope thinks there was a big bang maybe others will as well and then just how would Ken sell tickets to his museum. How would he be able to have "Christmas land 2011".

Religion is the best money making scam ever and our friend Ken knows it only too well.However he still has a long way to go to catch up with the Catholic church they have "Vatican land" and enogh wealth and political power to send a big fuck you to who ever they want.

Posted by: Leon | January 7, 2011 2:42 PM

Nice to see the religious nuts fighting amongst themselves instead of railing together against us nonreligious types. It's a good reminder too that if religion were to win out and eliminate the secular basis of society, the religious would then fall out among themselves and it would be ugly. Uglier still would be the necessary outcome: ONE sect would win out and oppress the others. Kinda makes government neutrality on religion look pretty good after all, doesn't it, theists?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | January 7, 2011 2:46 PM

So one day they took offerings to God and God liked Abels gifts but thougtht Cains were really shit.

Posted by: grudgedk | January 7, 2011 2:56 PM

Wait what? Ken Ham actually understands logic? Then what the hell has he been doing all this time?

But really? Quote mining Ken Ham? That's just cheap.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | January 7, 2011 3:16 PM

@AJ: Is that supposed to be a general "your", or does it refer specifically to Ken Ham's?

All theocrats. Everyone who needs a philosophy that justifies their authority over the morals of others.

Not "you, AJ" or "you, everyone in the world", but "you, assholes" -- you know, pretty much every kleptocrat for 10,000 years.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | January 7, 2011 3:25 PM

Ham explains the basis for Biblical literalism. If Adam and Steve Eve hadn't actually, literally eaten The Forbidden Fruit™ then there would be no reason for Jebus to spend a very uncomfortable afternoon some 4000 years later. Benny Ratzi's anti-literalist arguments are going to keep Ham from raping piglets getting harp lessons after he dies.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | January 7, 2011 3:40 PM

@Somemadchef: Maybe if the Bible started out as "Once upon a time" instead of "In the begining" we would not have to deal with retards like Ken Ham.

What makes you think it doesn't? That story does go back two, three, four thousand or more years. You'd expect a bit of language drift.

Didn't it ever make you suspicious that Jesus names Peter "The Rock" and then says he'd build his church "on that rock"? How much language drift from saying, "Simon, you're such a fucking blockhead that I'm gonna call you The Rock and use you as a foundation" to the current story?

Posted by: mothra | January 7, 2011 4:14 PM

"but if we are all descendants of an allegory"

An alligator and a hickory met one sultry afternoon at the edge of a swamp. . . .

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 7, 2011 4:30 PM

Yet if you attack Christianity on those terms, you're accused of making a caricature. The only defence I've heard is "That's not Christianity as I know it", which is hardly a compelling reason.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/lGEjW2Aixe9xVb0LScK3uupc0n42kY4HmGU-#989e3 | January 7, 2011 5:24 PM

I think the point all atheists can take from this issue is that believers are just as diverse in the details as we atheists are.

For example, I think that actually reading the Bible is the single best way to become an atheist (perhaps not better than growing up in the RCC, but I don't have experience in that realm so I cannot comment on it). But when you ridicule the Bible in front of many Christians, like Kel said (#70), they accuse you of making a caricature of their faith.

Our group is diverse and many atheists are the 'live and let live' type so they wouldn't agree with me here, but I think that our aim should be to convince religious people of all faiths to step back from the brink of literalism and fundamentalism. Now there is a segment of that group that can handle extreme cognitive dissonance and are unreachable. But since this sub-group, in at least the three main world religions (but also others), is certainly the one we should all be concerned about.

The amount of scientific knowledge out there that contradicts literalism, which has to be rationalised, criticised or even chalked up to the "secular agenda" by ministers is just staggering, and access to that information is greater than ever before; people in their mid-teens to late-20s, who are in the formal-operations stage of cognitive development (Piaget) and the post-conventional/autonomous period of moral reasoning (Kohlberg) are primed to make their own judgements on the way they've been brought up and to develop their own views. That's the nature aspect of the human condition: our brains are all capable of critical thought and rationality by 17-20 years of age. If a person is able to enter an environment which forces him/her to confront and assess dearly-held views with people of hugely diverse perspectives (changing the nurture aspect of their development), the literalism will almost certainly be moderated. Education has always been the key.

This is what atheists who complain about PZ and Dawkins don't get: they aren't trying to be assholes, they are trying to educate people, to force them to confront their ridiculous superstitions and see them for what they really are - myths. Yes, a large portion of the populace either won't see their rhetoric or are hardened against it by a lifetime of hearing how much people of faith are persecuted, but as a force in moderating religious people or even making new atheists, they are somewhat effective. This is also only one aspect of the Gnu Atheists' repertoire, but it can be quite powerful in the right context...the right brain.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 7, 2011 5:57 PM

But when you ridicule the Bible in front of many Christians, like Kel said (#70), they accuse you of making a caricature of their faith.

When there's such a range of beliefs out there, how can you be expected to be able to cover all of them? You can focus on specific things - in which case you're going to make arguments that don't apply to most, or you can argue abstracts - in which case you're neglecting the specifics that make the underlying abstracts plausible. Either way, you're not taking their belief seriously...

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | January 7, 2011 6:14 PM

Is it intellectually lazy of me to think that the folks who wrote the Bible meant what they were saying without five layers of allegory and such? Is it unreasonable of me to expect people to mean what they write?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | January 7, 2011 6:16 PM

are just as diverse in the details as we atheists are.

Also, some of us aren't in as secure positions as Dawkins or PZ, so we can only be outspoken with a modicum of anonymity.

Posted by: CJO | January 7, 2011 6:27 PM

Is it intellectually lazy of me to think that the folks who wrote the Bible meant what they were saying without five layers of allegory and such? Is it unreasonable of me to expect people to mean what they write?

It's imaginitive literature. Approach it as you would any other work of imaginitve literature. When you read, say, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, what would it mean to ask if Mark Twain "meant what he wrote"? That it really happened? That if it had really happened it would have been expecially significant in some way? Or just that it's an entertaining and emotionally satisfying narrative that also functions as social commentary?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 7, 2011 6:34 PM

When it comes to what the authors meant, I don't think that means a literal interpretation is warranted. It's mythic storytelling, and surely by now we know what that means. It's not really meant to be taken as true or false, it's an account in the absence of knowledge. It would be silly to take it literally, and even sillier to think it the work of the divine. The only reason that we need to address it in such terms is that there are plenty of theists out there who do.

Posted by: arachnophilia | January 7, 2011 6:55 PM

@Steven Mading: personally, i suspect the truth is somewhere between "literally false" and "allegorical". clearly, there are bits in the bible that are somewhat based in history (like, the assyrian exile, which probably really happened), and many events and people were used to relay specific (and not always totally honest) religious points. but there is symbolism in the text. this does not excuse, of course, using said symbolism to escape the fact that the text is often wrong.

for instance, we know from the difference between gen 1 and gen 2 that the redactors of the bible didn't much care for establishing a literally accurate story, as they've chosen two contradictory tales, and included both because they have different etiological purposes. the factual concerns of the stories weren't the main point... but that doesn't mean they're not wrong. it doesn't even mean they're not related the etiological purposes.

in any case, i find your final statement not-quite-true. i think it's the other way around: people insist on calling the bible metaphorical because they lack the ability to call it false.

oh, and this business about genesis 2-4 defining marriage as between a man and a woman is bunk, and the rest of genesis goes on to show it. marriage cannot be a contract between a man and a woman because the woman did not count as a person. rather, she is the property being exchanged between two men, her father and her husband. this contract is not even exclusive: many of the patriarchs had multiple wives. oh, and adultery was punishable by death. rape was punishable by marriage ("you break it, you bought it").

thank god we've mostly gotten over this stuff, right?

Posted by: raven | January 7, 2011 8:04 PM

I wouldn't feel too sorry for the Pope. He can take of his own battles.

According to the Pope, Protestants like Ham are Fake xians and wasting their time in church. They are going to hell anyway.

Xians can always be counted on to fight among themselves. It started at the very beginning.

Posted by: speedweasel | January 7, 2011 8:21 PM

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory—but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us?

With an appeal to consequences?

Posted by: arachnophilia | January 7, 2011 10:32 PM

@Rey Fox, Death of the Party: (#87)

It's not supposed to be imaginative literature. It's supposed to be a divinely-inspired account of the history of God and God's people.

i know the fundies say that about it, but that doesn't really seem like a good representation of the actual text. besides, when do the fundies know ANYTHING? including and especially anything about their own bibles?

It's either literal and wrong, or it's figurative,

or literal and figurative and wrong. or literally figurative and wrong. or figuratively wrong.

Posted by: them.bones | January 7, 2011 11:41 PM

Should we even waste two seconds on Ken Ham, who raped and killed a piglet in 1990? Well first of all, it’s not true! It's not true that Ken Ham raped and killed a piglet in 1990. So if you have any proof that Ken Ham raped and killed a piglet in 1990, stop gossiping and go right to the police with it!

(with apologies to Gilbert Gottfried)

Posted by: WayBeyondSoccerMom | January 8, 2011 12:13 AM

Help! I sent my Episcopal church going brother the link to the pope's announcement about the Big Bang and this is his reply:

What do scientists theorize as the cause of the Big Bang theory? What happened before the Big Bang? Not sitting in the Pope or anyone else’s camp on this one, since no one really knows, but hypothecates. Can we imagine any other response to the Pope’s when no one can prove he’s wrong. It could have been Bugs Bunny. But it does leave quantum cosmologists appearing naïve or flat-footed to propose a theory that something like the Big Bang began from nothing. It just appeared. Not saying that’s the appropriate place to insert God, but it fits for believers. Perhaps someone can one day explain to me what pre-existed the Big Bang and what kicked it off – but don’t waste my time with twin universes colliding unless you can explain their formations…

Anyone want to go to bat for me, to answer him?

Personally, I find it kind of sad to be so worried about something that happened 13.7 billion years ago, but not seem concerned that science still doesn't know why we yawn.

And, of course, my brother is so curious about what existed prior to the Big Bang, but forgets to ask that other nagging question, "if God exists, who made God?".

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | January 8, 2011 12:22 AM

Anyone want to go to bat for me, to answer him?

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | January 8, 2011 2:56 AM

If "we don't know something" equals "God", then "God" is really close to equalling "we don't know anything".

As I have said before, Christianity as presently practiced is about faith, which is just a dignified word for pig-ignorant. The argument for a god of the gaps is an argument for knowing as little as possible.

Posted by: Iain Walker | January 8, 2011 11:19 AM

frog, Inc. (#32):

Not if you want to morally justify the eternal and absolute torture of 99% of the human race for failing to "properly" accept the sockpuppet.

True, but the kind of Christian who thinks of the Fall as an allegory are probably also going to be those who don't believe in a literal hell, either.

You're missing the agenda of argument -- all the excluded cases, because their results are absolutely unacceptable.

I know what the agenda of the argument is. I was just commenting on the form of it. It's still the same old argument that fundies keep trotting out: If Genesis is literally true, then Christ's redemptive sacrifice was meaningful. Therefore, if we assume that Genesis is not literally true (e.g., an allegory), then Christ's redemptive sacrifice was meaningless. Fallacy of denying the antecedent.

And the fact that Ham and his ilk find alternative constructions of a Christian worldview to be unacceptable doesn't mean that they can't be constructed, or that they aren't at least as (in)valid as his. One can still get to "Christ died for our sins" without making Ham's literalist assumptions about the Genesis account of the Fall. There's more than one way to crucify a saviour (if one is that way inclined).

You folks are judging Ken Hams "logic" are failing to note the many premises that he has implicitly assumed

Maybe. Fundies make so many ad hoc assumptions without even a shred of justification that it's sometimes hard to keep track of them all. But that doesn't make the actual arguments they put forward any less invalid. A hidden assumption doesn't validate an argument if it remains hidden.

Posted by: Iain Walker | January 9, 2011 9:01 AM

Uglyhip (#101):

As for the marriage thing, that only follows if you accept divine command theory, which was well and truly put to rest by Euthyphro.

If only. It's still fairly popular, especially in Calvinist circles.

If you want a glimpse of true evil, and if your blood pressure can handle it, here's William Lane Craig following the logic of divine command theory to justify Biblical genocide.

Posted by: Iain Walker | January 9, 2011 9:51 AM

KG (#103):

That link is one of the most truly vile pieces of writing I have ever read.

Yup. The first time I came across it, I'd just been watching the BBC's series Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution, which highlighted the fact that Himmler was concerned about the moral effects of the Final Solution on the SS soldiers carrying it out (which was one of the reasons they swtiched from shootin gto gas, becasue it was less traumatic for the killers). So when I read Craig blithely musing:

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."

I had to go back and reread it several times just to check that it really did say what it said. If ever a Godwinning was justified ...

There was a time when I thought that if I were ever to meet Craig, I'd be able to have civil discussion with him. Now, if I ever encountered him in person, I think I'd have real trouble not spitting in his face.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | January 10, 2011 9:27 AM

CJO: In Mark, whose calling/naming of the disciples is reproduced largely intact in Matthew and Luke, Jesus giving Simon the name Peter(="rock" in Greek) is followed shortly by the Parable of the Sower, in which one of the conditions under which the seed fails to bear fruit is falling on "rocky soil". There is no "upon this rock" speech until Matthew, a later composition.

Interesting. I didn't know that Mark was anti-Petrine. Was it pro-Jamesian? I wonder which sect wrote it... Am I safe to assume that it's not Pauline?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | January 10, 2011 9:45 AM

If only. It's still fairly popular, especially in Calvinist circles.

Calvinism is the most nihilistic philosophy imaginable. Everything in existence is due to arbitrary whim, who is saved and who burns forever is already decided (and you're probably the later), nothing you do can change it and ultimately there is no purpose in the universe other than to just plod ahead on autopilot fulfilling what was decided from day 1.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | January 10, 2011 5:05 PM

CJO:

I've always figured that the apostles were semi-fictional totems for different sects. So "Peter" was the symbolic founder of "Petrines" (some kind of liberal Jewish sect), "James" was the symbolic founder of "Jamesians" (a traditionalist Jewish sect) and "Paul" was the symbolic founder of some Gnostic gentile sect.

Each of their historical reality varies and is ultimately secondary to their role as symbolic founders of 1st & 2nd century Christian sects (just like John the Baptist is clearly a symbolic founder for some Jewish gnostic sect that the Christians tried to co-opt -- that one is well-attested because they survived as Mandaneans. They must have been successful enough that the Christians could only partly co-opt them). The apostle John is the only one who can be fairly well pinned down to a Syrian Jewish sect that was absorbed into Joshua-Christianity as a "symbolic founder".

Maybe Mark comes out of an attempt by Joshuan (Jesusian) Christian trying to co-opt non-Joshua sects as his disciples, but under old Josh instead of being equal founders?

Of course, since the documentary evidence is so poor and so buried under centuries and millennia of propaganda and re-writing of texts, we will never know. Even if we find a buried library, everyone will refuse to even consider an analysis that undermines Christian mythology.

Of course -- this all runs down my theme of having a skepticism in the experts of certain fields, with the best example of a field where the opinion of field experts is of fairly little validity in terms of their analysis being "Biblical Archeology/History" (as opposed to their knowledge of particular facts).