Friday Quote: The Authoritarian Mindset
by MikeGeneI do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant. "“ PZ Myers, June 20, 2007
Arrest: to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody.
For the record, let me say that I have never advocated, nor would I ever advocate, that we inflict great harm on children by arresting their parents because someone believes the parents are using homeschooling as an excuse to "keep their children ignorant." In fact, I am strongly opposed to such government intervention and an assault on liberty.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
But then again you are not an authoritarian bigot intent on imposing his own views on the rest of society.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
What about those public schools that insist on keeping kids ignorant about the problems with NDE? Can we arrest biology teachers and school board members under Myers' proposed system of justice?
Comment by russ — June 22, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
No, because the whole point is that PZ's objections are not reality based. If they were he would be forced to acknowledge the pitiful state of public education and its contrast to the success of homeschooling. In the end it is all about brass knuckle enforcement of preferred metaphysics by PZites.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hi russ,
Can you identify any real problems? What the DI pushes is just recycled creationist BS that has been refuted for decades.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 22, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Bradford:
How do you measure the contrast between homeschooling and public education in an unbiased way?
Is it perhaps the case that insufficient public funding is one of the reasons for the pitiful state of public education? From where I'm sitting, the US government is not exactly for its generosity to the underpriviliged. Millions of uninsured children and among the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world. A shameful minumum wage, and so on. Someone in an ironic mood might even call it a huge laboratory for social Darwinism.
Comment by Raevmo — June 22, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
No, because the whole point is that PZ's objections are not reality based. If they were he would be forced to acknowledge the pitiful state of public education and its contrast to the success of homeschooling.
Standard test scores and grades at the university level would do but this has already been mentioned and ignored. There is none so blind as he who will not see. Does it gall you that PZ was exposed as ignorant of facts or worse yet dishonest?
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Well no one has demonstrated that evolutionary history is simply the result of unguided random mutations filtered through selection. Indeed the entire idea seems very dubious to a great many people.
I would suggest that pushing that as the scientific explanation for life is pretty much selling the religion of atheism to schoolkids. The explanatory power for complex adaptations is simply missing.
Comment by mcromer — June 22, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Putting aside the whole Evo/ID/Creation debate:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult...
Replace Amish with Literalist Christian. Or a Buddhist. Or Atheist.
I am not sure if PZ understands the extra-legal implications of his statement. At the very least, what he is wishing forward is not likely to fly with any High Court anytime soon.
Comment by Blackadder — June 22, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
You mean other than the fact that the acccount of how a cell came about in the first place resembles a fable more than it does a scientifically rigorous explanation?
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Threads like this (are they called threads when it's a blog?) merely comfirm what I've long thought. The evo/creo debate has nothing whatever to do with science. Instead, it's purely tribal, with our thyroid hormones gettting the better of our frontal lobes.
Aagcobb rightly points out that the DI does nothing but push a load of tired Creationist propaganda (yes, dressed in a new tuxedo), and Bradford responds by moving the goalposts… "What about the first cell?"
Same old same old.
Comment by takuan — June 22, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
The problem is it is the most legitimate unanswered question in biology for which I make no apologies about asking. Speaking of the same old same old, can we get a response that amounts to something other than the evidence is out there but not yet found. Here is a follow up. What are the boundaries of a self-generating process with respect to an expected outcome? Von Neumann had some ideas along these lines. There need be no goalposts or artificial limitation with respect to inquiry. But the assumption of an unlimited power of natural forces to effect unobserved outcomes little differs from the creationist strawman METs love to conjure.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
It is not a moving of the goalposts if kids are taught in biology class about the arisal of the first cell along with what is evolution of species. Since that is what the comment referred to - kids being taught as almost-fact that which is not really factual.
Comment by onething — June 22, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Good point onething. Should a curious kid who inquires of the teacher: "But how did the first cell come into existence?" be told, "Never mind. That's called moving the goal posts and is not looked on favorably in polite biological discussions"
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Let's see what kind of stuff Darwinians have been teaching children. This is from the biology section of An Outline for Boys and Girls (1932) by John Baker, an Oxford Cytologist.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — June 22, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
"The Moody Blues" Very nice Bradford.
Yeh metaphysics is being taught as science.
Then why does one need to impose scientific theories if they are so self evident and contrasting views have been refuted? The weakness of Darwinism can not be more graphically demonstrated than by those who insist that jail time should be given to those who do not go along with it. When indoctrination and propaganda need to be invoked to propagate a theory thats a sign that it stands on very shakey ground indeed.
Vivid
What the DI pushes is just recycled creationist BS that has been refuted for decades.
Comment by Vividbleau — June 22, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 am
Parents do not have complete rights to do anything they want to their children. They can't abuse them, they cant' exploit them, they can't refuse to educate them. That's the law. People who scream "authoritarianism" don't know anything about family law, I imagine, or perhaps they are the sort of know-nothing libertarians who infest the internet. One of the crucial roles of government is to protect children, and unfortunately sometimes that means protecting them from their parents.
I know plenty of homeschoolers who do an excellent job of educating their kids, but if they aren't, they are in violation of the law.
Comment by mtraven — June 23, 2007 @ 1:05 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 am
Good question. It seems that, with Darwinism, the central issue has never been is it true, but rather how can we get more people to believe it. In effect the central problem of Darwinism is a marketing problem. For example, we have the American Society of Naturalists statment on evolution "targeted to a broad audience, including policymakers at government agencies, private foundations, college and university administrations, corporations" etc. What for, if Darwinism is merely a scientific theory, like Pauling's theory of hybrid orbitals? The Society for the Study of Evolution is a Darwinism-marketing organization, headed by D. Futuyma. The AAAS is a Darwinism-marketing organization (with some dubious former directors involved in eugenics). At the annual meeting of AIBS we have Kenna Shaw of the American Society of Human Genetics (eugenics organization) discussing the question "Why don't doctors learn evolution, and what can we do about it?" Well, why should they learn about an ideology completely worthless to their profession? And why force them?
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — June 23, 2007 @ 1:13 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 am
Frankly, it is a rare RARE case where I trust the government to "protect" children more than their parents. The child would have to be in physical danger or be facing sexual or the most extreme (read, suicidal) emotional abuse. I would absolutely NOT say this is a crucial function of government - the government is a last resort in extreme cases.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — June 23, 2007 @ 1:21 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 am
I read the post by PZ, and from my standpoint, his example could be a case of child abuse. PZ errs, though, by implying that this sort of practice (raising children to be preachers) is the norm among evangelical Christians. In this case, the child states that it is easier to be a preacher than to study the bible; as if the two are seperable. I would hope that any good parent would encourage the child to study the bible and theology in order to be a good preacher. PZ appears to be good at presenting a strawman, and then arguing against home schooling of all things.
Should we fear his thinking? I think the evidence of the advantages of home schooling speaks for itself. His thinking is laughable.
Comment by Randy — June 23, 2007 @ 1:27 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 am
mtraven
Likening home schooling to child abuse - when in fact home schooled children excell above public schooled children - is a dangerous and paranoid delusion.
PZ Myers' post has nothing to do with concern about quality education or protecting children from parents. I would be willing to bet PZ Myers has never blogged about the violent crime, sexual assault, drug use, and sexually transmitted diseases in public schools. Probably not one mention of the fact that 8.4% of high school students report 1 or more suicide attempts in the previous year. PZ Myers probably doesn't find the fact that there were 48 violent deaths in public schools during the 2004/2005 school year worth blogging about. No, what PZ Myers is upset about is that some children are beyond the reach of the propaganda that is shoved down the throats of public school children, not the quality of education. PZ Myers wants control. "Authoritarian" is the appropriate label.
And as for your lbit about parental rights, assuming you live in the United States, the right to raise your children as you see fit is a fundamental right that is highly protected and any law that infringes upon that right is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. The idea that parents can be arrested for using and education system that has been demonstrated to be better than public schools is beyond ignorant.
Comment by Jehu — June 23, 2007 @ 3:24 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 am
Randy,
No, he didn't say that, he said it was easier to be a preacher than a pastor. And he is correct.
I have no idea why this is child abuse. I find it rather pathetic that so many people are intimidated into thinking that there is no such thing as a spiritual relationship with God and so if a young child claims to be motivated by his own spiritual experience it is just assumed his parents are domineering crack pots.
Let's say that the kid is put up to it by his parents, while I don't agree with that, I wouldn't call it child abuse. In the United States, an average of nearly four children die every day as a result of child abuse or neglect. Child preacher doesn't hardly register. The kid obviously has parents that love him and take care of him.
Furthermore, the idea that religious home schoolers are a significant source of child abuse is comical. In fact, the leading cause of child abuse and neglect is probably substance abuse, which is a sociological phenomenon symptomatic of the materialistic world view that PZ Myers promotes, not religion. Adults who never attend religious services are almost eight times likelier to have used marijuana in the past 30 days and more than five times likelier to have used another illicit drug than those who attend religious services weekly or more often.
Comment by Jehu — June 23, 2007 @ 4:30 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
The only point that is undeniable here is this: the writer of the #1 Science blog wishes to have parents, who have broken no law, arrested. Arrested. And as we can see, not one single critic here has offered one word of criticism about Myers' extremist, authoritarian fantasies. Why the complete silence?
Comment by MikeGene — June 23, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
To set the curricula for school students is to wield power; to set the curricula for a state's or a nation's school students is to wield an enormous amount of power. That power should not be centralised; curricula should be a negotiation between parents, teachers, and students, not something dictated by the state. Teachers, parents, and students should have complete freedom to negotiate what will be taught in school, whether their school is taxpayer funded or not.
The commenters over an Pharyngula talk lofty about preventing parents from 'indoctrinating' their children; of course if the government ever prevented them from teaching their own children what they believe they would decry it as tyranny.
Comment by BenK — June 23, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
How about this video? Watch the bit at the end.
And there are the many cases of children of Christian Scientists dieing because hey were denied medical treatment.
Comment by mtraven — June 24, 2007 @ 11:53 am
June 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Be careful what you ask for. The reason for the silence is mostly out of politeness to you. Joy had already posted on this and noted that she was "…finding a lot less knee-jerk support among Myers' amen choir than [she] would have expected". There isn't anything here to get overly excited about.
Here is what PZ Myers said in context…
"So if it is child abuse and exploitation, it's all god's fault? Can we have him arrested for that? I do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant.
Maybe if we monitor this kid, will be able to get evidence for the existence of god when we catch him compelling a 7-year old to do unnatural acts, like bible study."
Pharyngula is popular because PZ Myers is a prolific and entertaining writer. Bill O'Reilly is "the number one show that dominates cable" (Just ask him). Do you think O'Reilly is popular because he is level-headed and insightful?
PZ Myers said he would like to have GOD arrested!
Myers made a mistake in letting you quotemine a rant. Bill O'Reilly gets quotemined all the time. But I am not sure either is too worried about making this kind of "mistake" as long as people keep listening.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hi mtraven,
You wrote…
As it happens, I am in a unique position to dispassionately argue both sides of this question (I was raised as a Christian Scientist).
I can tell you, most Christian Scientists earnest believe they are doing what is best for their children. I have noted that, unlike most religions, Christian Scientists generally practice what they preach.
"There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error…" link
A reliance on material substance, like medicine, it is an ERROR and detracts from embracing the Truth that there is no substance in matter.
A lot of people don't understand how anyone could forgo reliance on any medicine that has been proven effective, even those who say "In God, We Trust".
Christian Science has practitioners to help those struggling with this "mortal error" and they generally provide a reasonable balance between spiritual and material healing. Sometimes the practitioner makes a mistake.
Is this child abuse?
P.S. to Stunney - Now would be a good opportunaty to show us what a non-wooden personality looks like. If the Truth is that all is infinite mind, is it "child abuse" to rely on that Truth?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I'm sure that's true, but it's entirely beside the point. Religion can make people insane, and believe that things which are harmful are actually beneficial. So the question is, does society or the state have the right or duty to intervene in such cases?
Sounds like stunneyism, but I hope stunney is willing to go to the doctor to correct the balance of his humors (too much choler and black bile, I would say).
You tell me.
BTW, I am not, in general, a big fan of government intervention in people's lives. But, clearly in cases of physical and sexual abuse (not nearly as rare as they should be), it is the role of the gov to step in and protect children. "Cognitive abuse" is something else, but some of it seems to rise to the level where action is required. Christian science is another hard case.
Comment by mtraven — June 24, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Hi mtraven,
I asked "Is this child abuse?"
You responded with…
So you are punting, eh?
I suggest that is a little unethical since you brought the Christian Science example into the discussion. However, since I can't count on anyone else stepping up to the plate, I will explain my views on this.
We all should insist that our government refrain from arbitrating Truth. Which means the government needs to stay out of moral questions.
We should have an ethically based (not morally based) process by which llaws are made. As citizens, we have been made a promise, in writing, that this process will be free of any actions "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Unfortunately, a lot of morally righteous people don't even see the difference between morals and ethics.
Murder is illegal, not necessarily immoral. Murder is an ethical violation in that someone broke a mutually agreed to rule. Whether or not murder is a sin is not something our government should be in the business of deciding.
Which brings us back to child abuse.
As to whether a particular action meets the legal definition of child abuse, I would consult a lawyer.
As to whether a particular action SHOULD be a violation of child abuse laws, I would consider the practical consequenses of the action on the general public (i.e. the state).
It is in the best interest of the state to encourage/insist parents look out for the health and well being of their children. As long as a parent is knowledgeable and motivated by what is in the best interest of the child, the state shouldn't intervene.
Most Christian Scientists I know are college educated and quite knowledgeable. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the few remaining news sources worthy of being considered reliable. Therefore, in general, I would not call what Christian Scientists do "child abuse" as long as the motivation is what is in the best interest of the child. However, that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Interestingly, I would find it more likely that a court would be ethically bound to consider it evidence of child neglect when a parent says "We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
The authoritarian attitude comes easily to a "liberal" like Myers. He is convinced he is right and his worldview provides nothing that should restrain his behavior towards those he disagrees with.
Additionally as an atheist, as they have lamentably tried to do so many times before to disasterous consequences, he sees now as the only chance for building "heaven on earth" and so will endorse any tactics to get to that goal, again without restaint.
He is no different to the Jacobins, the communists or the nazi's in that regard.
Comment by thesciphishow — June 24, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Thought Provoker,
How can you be so wrong? Here is what PZ Myers said,
"I do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant."
And your excuse for this fascist attitued is,
So I guess PZ's mistake isn't wanting to arrest parents, it is wanting to arrest parents and not suppressing freedom of speech!
Well done. You have really exposed yourself as the irrational extremist that you are.
Comment by Jehu — June 24, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
mtraven
So teaching somebody a view you disagree with is child abuse?
That video is from Fred Phelps' congregation, a very small group garners a lot of media attention from thier shocking antics. But have they ever been associated with violence? Like for example the public school educated Dylan Klebold who hated Christians and wore a t-shirt that said "Survival of the Fittest" when he shot up his school and then committed suicide?
While sad, it is not nearly as significant as the harm caused to children by materialist values. Over a million children are killed by their parents every year from abortion. The leading cause of child abuse is parents that have a problem with alchohal or drugs, the rate of alchohal and drug use is far lower in those who attend church. For example, those don't attend church are 5 times more likely to use illicit drugs.
Comment by Jehu — June 24, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hi Jehu,
I know what PZ Myers said. I quoted him in context. The question is, are you willing to stop ranting long enough to think?
Other than "sad", do you have an opinion on whether or not Christian Scientists are a priori guilty of child abuse if they withhold medicine from a sick child?
Did you see my answer to that hypothetical?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
TP to Jehu:
There are somewhat fewer than 100,000 Christian Science followers in the US, an estimate because the church doesn't report membership. How many of those do you suppose are minor children? How many of those children die in a given year from religiously motivated lack of medical care? How many of the parents get prosecuted for child abuse in that situation? Hint: you've more fingers than that.
FACT: There are more than 40 million children - US citizens all - who have no health care coverage or access at all. Right now. This doesn't count the number of children (citizens) of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants picking your produce and mopping your floors who are denied access to health care in America. A recent bill from the current administration's recent lapdog Congress removed rules that required hospital ERs to treat all comers, the only health care access tens of millions of American children had. Their parents are SOL too, which explains how a woman managed to bleed to death on the floor of a California ER just last week. George W. Bush signed a law when he was governor of Texas that allowed hospitals to remove care from anyone who couldn't pay, including children. More children have died from that practice in Texas than have died of being Christian Scientist's children in all of the US.
My, my! We sure have a lot of compassion for the sick in America, don't we? [barf!]
Is that child abuse? If so, how come doctors and hospital administrators and legislators aren't going to jail?
Looks to me like you're focusing on the least angle, because it's got a religious flavor. Until and unless basic health care is universal in this country, y'all don't have a holier-than-thou leg to stand on.
Comment by Joy — June 24, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Hi Joy,
Thank you for bringing things into perspective.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 24, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Joy,
That number seems rather high, that would be 13% of the U.S. population.
In California, if you have low income, children can get very good free medical care with Medi-Cal. If you are in a higher income bracket there is a program called Healthy Families . A Doctor's visit with Medicare is free and with Healthy Families it is something like $5. A family of 3 can qualify for Healthy Families if you have an income less than $43,000 per year.
My understanding is that Medi-Cal and Healthy Families are funded by Medicare, so I suspect that the programs are very similar in other states.
So what you are claiming is that 13% of the U.S. population is a child in a family who is too well off to qualify for the above programs but cannot afford medical insurance. I find that unrealistic.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 2:26 am
June 25th, 2007 at 2:50 am
TP
Then why did you say he wanted to arrest God when in fact he said he wanted to arrest home schooling parents? Clearly you were attempting to misdirect from PZ's blatant statement.
I don't believe they have the requisite mens rea to qualify for child abuse.
The far greater cause of child abuse is substance abuse, which is a symptom of the post-modern culture brought about by the materialist philosophy you advocate. Children of substance abusers are nearly three times as likely to be abused, and more than four times as likely to be neglected, than children of parents who are not substance abusers. 8 million children in the United States have substance-abusing parents. Up to 80% of the 3 million children who come to the attention of the child welfare system each year have parents with substance-abuse problems. In the United States, 1,400 children a year die of child abuse and neglect, most of it related to substance-abuse.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 2:50 am
June 25th, 2007 at 7:21 am
California is not the only large population state that offers free medical care programs to low income people. As the Geico commercial line indicates: You still have to apply for it. The victimized class of our health care system are middle income people who pay health care insurance rates inflated by our tort system.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 7:21 am
June 25th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Hi Jehu,
Concerning PZ Myers' rant you asked…
Did you miss that PZ Myers wished he could arrest both God and the god-fearing parents?
Here is what PZ Myers said in context"¦
"So if it is child abuse and exploitation, it's all god's fault? Can we have him arrested for that? I do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant..
Maybe if we monitor this kid, will be able to get evidence for the existence of god when we catch him compelling a 7-year old to do unnatural acts, like bible study."
Itwas a rant. It was a stupid rant. And I suggest it is stupid for us to expand any more energy on it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 10:28 am
June 25th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Jehu
Cite for each of the claims numbered above?
Comment by Robin Levett — June 25, 2007 @ 10:50 am
June 25th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Robin,
Let me help you out with some Google.
[1]
[2]
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 25, 2007 @ 11:55 am
June 25th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Thought Provoker,
Your extreme irrational bias is surprising. You said,
Wrong again. PZ Myers asked whether it was possible to arrest God not that he wished he could arrest him. Then PZ said he wished he could arrest home schooling parents.
You excuse this as a rant. Imagine for a moment if Bill O'Reilly said that he wished he could arrest all homosexuals. How much longer would he have his job?
Furthermore you have failed to respond to the direct correlation between a materialistic world view, substance abuse, and child abuse. You laugh off suggestions about arresting home schooling parents for not teaching evolution to their children but when a real danger to children is raised you run and hide.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Robin Levett,
As angryoldfatman already pointed out, it was actually Eric Harris who wore the shirt and it said Natural Selection.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Hi Jehu,
You wrote…
He would probably get a raise.
What does any of this have to do with the validity various scientific hypotheses?
Or are you willing to concede the ID Movement is, in fact, all about getting our nation back on the path to righteousness?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Thoughtless Provoker,
Will you concede that anti-ID movement is about promoting a materialist world-view?
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Jehu
Indeed; and, if I remember rightly, that is the name of a video game?
You haven't dealt with the claim that they "hated Christians"; angryoldfatman tried to, but the cite he produced that showed you were technically wrong about the tee-shirt demolished the claim that they were, at least preferentially, anti-Christian. In fact, they were equal opportunity haters, considering themselves a two man master race.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
MikeGene
(my emphasis)
Do you have a cite for this "undeniable" point?
Comment by Robin Levett — June 25, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Robin Levett
You have to be kidding. Now Mike Gene has to provide a citation to prove a negative?
Can you provide me a cite to show when you stopped beating your wife?
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Hi Jehu,
If that will make you happy, yes.
(BTW, I consider myself neither a materialist nor part of a movement).
Now, are you willing to concede the ID Movement is, in fact, all about getting our nation back on the path to righteousness?
What does any of this have to do with the validity of various scientific hypotheses?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
TP this is nonsense. Who favors that Berlinski? Joy? Mike Gene? many others with whom I am personally familiar and who would not fall within the stereotyping that your choice of words indicates?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Thoughtless Provoker,
No it isn't. It is about preventing materialism from subverting science.
What does arresting parents who home school have to do with science?
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
I was discussing this with Jehu. I think it is rather obvious where he/she is coming from.
However, I have made no secret of my distain and distrust of the ID MOVEMENT. My opinion of what the movement is up to can be summed up in the following quote"¦
link
I suggest the Wedge Document is alive and well in Jonathan Wells' mind and probably in Jehu's mind too. Do you want to try to convince me otherwise?
As for ID science, hopefully it is obvious by now that I am open to any scientific arguments you, Berlinski, Joy and Mike Gene wish to make.
In fact, I feel my quantum/retrocausality hypothesis meets the qualifications of being an ID scientific proposal (unless ID is inherently about supporting a belief in God).
So, is this about science or is it about a belief in God?
You may be comfortable with mixing the two, I am not.
I am curious how long and in how many ways Jehu is going to allow me to make my point. I will stop when Jehu stops. You have the power to make us both stop, but will you do it ethically (i.e. evenly)?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Hi Jehu,
Are we having fun yet?
Ok, I will modify my question…
ID Movement is, in fact, all about keeping our nation on the path of righteousness, right?
Nothing, PZ Myers is an opinioned blowhard. So what?
What does PZ Myer's opinion have to do with supporting your scientific hypothesis?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Jehu
Nope. He says that PZ wants people arrested who have broken no law - that's a positive assertion. Its the "broken no law" bit that I want to see backed up. That's not asking him to prove a negative.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 25, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Thoughtless Provoker,
I have no problem with you Jonathan Wells quote. I agree with it 100%. I don't see that as being about "restoring rightousness" as you put it. I see it as preventing materialists such as PZ Myers and you from subverting science to advance their agenda.
You mean as in the idea that life is designed by people from the future? I think that is an idea that Behe mentioned as consistent with ID and was roundly mocked for it by nickmatzke.
I first heard of the that theory in the classic movie Repo Man.
In ID the designer does not have to be God. Strong Panspermia is a form of ID.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
There are existing laws against child abuse but none that would base an abuse charge on religious teachings. PZ obviously would expand the scope of abuse to encompass some if not all religiously linked behavoir. The "I wish we could arrest" part is open to interpretation.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Yes it is.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hi Jehe,
I didn't think you would. That's the point.
What do insults to the intelligence of American taxpayers have to do with whether or not a scientic hypothesis is valid?
No. I gave an overview of the hypothesis in this thread.
This is where I presented my scientific ideas logically, not by threats from a popular movement.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Robin Levett wrote:
The Columbine shooting was in April 1999.
Natural Selection was released in October 2002.
Now we know why Klebold and Harris were neoNazis and thought they were superior to eveyone else: they had Hitler's time machine.
Do your atheist apologetics always resort to bad science fiction plots as authorative sources?
Read the second link, in full. It shows plainly what the mainstream media (e.g., Salon, in the first link) failed to report. It has links to back up its claims. It even corrects the popular Christian misconceptions about one of the victims and provides more context.
Or you can ignore it as before and keep trying to rehabilitate Klebold and Harris. I don't blame you, really. If they killed in the name of my ideology I'd be pretty upset too.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 26, 2007 @ 11:25 am
June 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hi AngryOldFart,
You wrote…
So what is your "ideology" based on?
Is it based on a very old collection of writings authored mostly by Judeo religious leaders?
This collection of writings described quite a bit of killing in the name of its ideology.
My "ideology" is based on thinking for myself and being able to understand (via internally consistent logic) the things I believe in. Most of all, I focus trying to refrain from lying to myself.
One of the biggest problems with being hypocritical is that it is a form of lying. If one makes a habit of it, the lies become accepted as unquestioned Truths by the perpetrators themselves.
One of the best ways to guard against such self-delusion is to open up closely held beliefs to challenge. The more closely held the belief to more imperative it is to have it questioned.
One of my most closely held beliefs is that I don't know the Truth.
Do you know the Truth?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Amazing. There was more well reasoned condemnation of PZ's comment on his own website than there is here at TT.
Comment by chunkdz — June 26, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
chunkdz:
How about this then: for his comment PZ should be declared an enemy combatant.
Comment by Raevmo — June 26, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Couldn't your thinking still be incorrect across the board? If your internally consistent logic is consistently wrong how would you notice (internally) that your thought process was providing you an accurate reflection of reality?
Juxtaposed with those who believe in those very old writings?
You might not be lying to yourself, but you're kidding yourself to think that those who adhere to the teachings in those writings are being any less logical and consistent than you are.
Is this too in reference to those old writings that were collected together?
How closely do you hold your belief that you are a open-minded individual who values 'not lying to himself' most of all?
If I believe deeply that Jesus loves me, that he is 'the Son of Man'… is this the type of belief that it is imperative for me to question?
So with all of your focus on not lying to yourself and you admitting that you don't know the Truth - how do you know when you're lying to yourself and not lying to yourself?
Comment by Doug — June 26, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Raevmo
Like I said…
Comment by chunkdz — June 26, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Hi TP,
I'm sorry your emotions are getting the better of you. I have not called you any names, though if you think it lends credence to one's arguments I can certainly begin doing so. As you can probably tell from my initial choice of screen names, I'm not all that sensitive to it.
I haven't spoken of my ideology. It was not the subject I was discussing.
Jehu had made some statements about the Columbine shooters, and Robin asked for cites (presumably because he/she didn't believe Jehu was telling the truth). Since Jehu was delayed in responding and apparently citing from memory, I provided the cites after some fairly uncomplicated Googling.
Robin defensively provided excuses for Klebold and Harris, one of which was easily falsified, and another that was obviously boilerplate from any one of numerous kneejerk atheist websites. After addressing them, I stated my supposition that his/her defensive reaction was due to a perceived insult to his/her ideology.
Now you have weighed in, TP, and you're very emotional and defensive. This is a very strange reaction from someone who constantly chides others with the phrase "Let's do science!" whenever they offhandedly mention ideology, and implies that he is the one who is rational, even-keeled, open-minded, and "thought-provoking".
Instead of projecting, TP, perhaps you should be more introspective and deduce why you have reacted this way.
Comment by angryoldfatman — June 26, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hi angryoldfatman,
What made you think I was reacting emotionally? You are the one with "angry" in the screen name. I was being provocative.
You claimed…
However, earlier you wrote…
That is why I was talking about the referenced "ideology", namely yours.
I would rather do science, but people seem to be interested in "ideology", so I am offering my spin on things in an attempt to keep things balanced.
BTW, here is the link to the science-focused thread if you would like to contribute there.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
TP,
On numerous occassions you have randomly taken pot shots at Christianity in threads that, prior to your comment, had nothing to do with Christianity.
These usually occurring in the form of a snide comment.
Comment by Doug — June 26, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
Would you consider this thread and my comment in it an example of what you are talking about?
If you do, allow me to address your other comments in that light.
I wrote… "My "ideology" is based on thinking for myself and being able to understand (via internally consistent logic) the things I believe in."
Since I was talking about my ideology, I don't see how this was a snide remark or a pot shot. You responded with…
I don't know the Truth, do you?
I wrote… "Most of all, I focus [on] trying to refrain from lying to myself."
Obviously, I was talking about myself, since I used the word "myself". However, you responded with…
I didn't say you, or Christians in general, were. However, angryoldfatman had indicated that he would be "pretty upset" if someone killed in the name of his ideology. It appeared to be an inconsistent position if angryoldfatman did, in fact, base his ideology on a collection of writings that contain plenty of examples of people killing the the name of their ideology.
I wrote… "One of the biggest problems with being hypocritical is that it is a form of lying. If one makes a habit of it, the lies become accepted as unquestioned Truths by the perpetrators themselves."
I was explaining why I have an aversion to hypocritical thought. I think it is unhealthy for individuals and societal groups to engage in it. But I could be persuaded to think otherwise.
But since you have asked, I think the collection of writings commonly called the Bible has many inconsistencies that would require liberal interpretation to make sense of it as a whole. Since you asked.
I wrote… "One of the best ways to guard against such self-delusion is to open up closely held beliefs to challenge. The more closely held the belief to more imperative it is to have it questioned."
"Open-minded" needs to be quantified. I am not open-minded in that I am willing to embrace any suggestion as being true, but I am open to being persuaded through logic and evidence. I am also open-minded in that I accept that I don't know the ultimate Truth for anyone else.
As for lying to myself, all I can do is my best.
I believe it is. But that is my opinion, I suspect it is probably not yours.
I wrote… "One of my most closely held beliefs is that I don't know the Truth."
This comes down to that tricky little nuance between a lie and a falsehood. One can be honestly incorrect without lying.
I could be incorrect in my presumption that I exist, but I am pretty sure I am not being dishonest with myself to think that I do exist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 26, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
angryoldfatman
You claimed:
Problem is:
Please note the dateline. So when was Natural Selection released again?
Jehu also claimed that they were "anti-Christian"; by implication, that that was their motivation for the killings, no doubt relying upon the legend of Cassie Bernalls. The problem is that your second cite (to which I will refer later) included the quote:
So your two cites didn't really help Jehu's original claim; and far from being falsified, my comments on the cites are demonstrated accurate. For the record, perhaps you could identify "one of numerous kneejerk atheist websites" from which I supposedly took my "boilerplate" response. I actually simply read the cites you produced…
Then you employ your second sight (told you I'd refer back to it) to claim that Harris and Klebold killed in the name of "[my] ideology". Unlikely as it may seem, my ideology isn't based upon any hero-worship of two murderous little shits who considered that they were entitled to end the lives of so many of their classmates. Your second sight is apparently on the fritz, but perhaps you could tell me what it suggested my ideology actually is.
As for the suggestion that I was trying to rehabilitate the killers - where you get that from my statement that
I would love to know. Perhaps you could take me down the twisted byways of the logic that got you to that conclusion from that rather unpromising start.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Oops - the URL for my 25 June 1999 reference got lost in the editing - it is:
http://denver.rockymountainnew...
Comment by Robin Levett — June 26, 2007 @ 4:55 pm