God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (Genesis 1:16)
Long ago, ancient man saw two lights in the sky: the sun and the moon. They made the fairly safe assumption that the two lights functioned similarly.
We’ve know for a while now they were wrong. The sun is the source of the light, and the moon merely reflects that light. But they had no way of knowing that, and we shouldn’t be too hard on them.
That doesn’t seem controversial, but there’s a story about Bill Nye that shows it can be. In 2006, when speaking in Waco, TX, he mentioned that the moon only reflects light. Normally that wouldn’t offend anyone. But he also mentioned that Genesis 1:16 was wrong, which did cause offense:
The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”
He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.
A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.
“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.
If Bill would have stuck to science and left religion out of it, no one would have walked out.
So should scientists should stick to science and leave critiquing holy texts to theologians? Or should they try and communicate what they perceive to be contradictions between science and faith?
No. You can’t sit there as a fundamentalsit Christian listening to the scientific FACTS and refuse to see how they blow your chosen MYTH out of the water. Well, you CAN, but you shouldn’t be allowed to.
This is the big argument right now among atheists, whether to be nice little fellows and not tread on religious bunions, or call out the mythology and challenge it directly. Which side you pick will probably determine your answer to the question posed.
For myself, I’m not going to assault the cathedral, but I’m not going to hang my head, either. If they don’t want to hear the truth, then they’ll be left behind the modern world, and I lose no sleep over it. Challenge them. It’s what humans do.
I never really thought about how the bible says this but it is amazing that some are so easily offended by the truth. I think when a scientist can show how the bible is wrong about something they need to point it out to their audience.
It’s not amazing at all from a fundamentalist perspective.
See, the fundamentalist Christian is locked in – their theology forces them to believe that the Bible is the highest authority and the inspired word of God. There is no other authority that is higher – if a “plain reading of the Bible”** says something, well, that’s the word of God right there.
It’s a simple theology and there’s something compelling about it. Anyone can figure out what God wants you to do if you just read the Bible. And if the Bible seems a bit arcane or hard to understand – especially if you’re in the “King James Version is the Only Inspired Version” of the Bible camp – well, that’s why you have a preacher. He understands the “plain meaning” and can let you know what it is. A very easy way of handling all the complciated problems of life.
The problem is that it’s a very fragile theology. If you can prove that the Bible can’t be the 100% inspired Word of God – if you can prove that there are mistakes or even intentional lies in the book – then the whole belief system falls apart. There’s no way of knowing anything that God wants because there is no authority to tell you want God wants if you can’t trust the Bible. (Catholics long ago figured out the problem of relying on Biblical inerrancy and so put more weight on tradition and on their claim to authority as priestly descendants of Peter than on scripture pretty much precisely because of this problem).
It’s why I suspect that rigid fundamentalist theology is one of the leading causes of atheism in the US right now. They’ve put so much weight on the Bible being inerrant that it really doesn’t take much to destroy their faith. And liberal forms of Christianity are pretty weak sauce by comparison to the certainty that fundamentalism gives a believer, so the slide away from any faith at all can be pretty rapid.
Interestingly Catholicism could be picking up a lot of converts in the US right now because they’re one of the only Christian faiths that has a strong alternative to offer once a fundamentalist realizes that the Bible can’t actually be inerrant. Since the Church’s authority is built on tradition rather than scripture it’s more robust to scripture being wrong. Of course since that tradition is pretty much directly responsible for the cover-up of a number of pedophilia scandals, I can kind of see how folks looking for evidence of God’s authority might now consider the Church as an alternative these days.
More than likely, the people who were offended would agree to the scientific facts in this case. Neither would most people, believers or not, see the biblical text as a contradiction of science. The audience members simply took offense that Nye was criticizing their scripture in general by questioning its validity.
Some people go into aggressive defensive mode very quickly. Fundies especially so.
That was my reading of the situation as well.
One of the telltale signs that a person is brainwashed is that they react emotionally when their “faith” is challenged – even in a scientific way. The emotion is usually anger. The challenge is a personal attack against them – it’s not about the truth or validity of the argument.
Aww I wish this was on video. I couldn’t find it. I used to love Nye!
I wonder if the woman that left was quoted correctly: “We believe in a God!”
If she was, it’s interesting that she said “a” God. I’d bet if she had the chance to rethink her outburst, she might have left that part out.
Maybe she-a was-a Italian. *gesticulates wildly*
I think with something like this you can’t do a “cold open” — start out with the facts, lay all the groundwork for it and get people agreeing with you. Ideally, someone would bring up the Genesis passage for you.
The main thing here would be portrayal — instead of saying “Genesis was wrong” say “When Genesis was written, humanity knew less about the heavens than they know now,” for example. This is a REALLY simple argument to win.
Yes. But a fundamentalist would still find the implication that the Bible was written by men offensive. The Bible is, for them, literally the Word of God. WoG.
And Miss Fundie would likely still have taken offense and threw a fit.
Fundies have no problem spending millions to spread misunderstandings or outright lies in order to discredit scientific data that disagree with their worldview so I don’t think scientists should play nice and avoid from pointing to the huge holes in the worldview presented in the bible. By “respecting their faith” we only allow them to keep and spread their ignorance which, if they get their way will be the end of science as we know it in favor of magicman done it type of pseudoscience like un-inteligent design.
I wonder what those idiots were doing in a science lecture in the first place. Anyway, if they’re ofended by the truth thats their problem.
So should scientists should stick to science and leave critiquing holy texts to theologians?
Since when do theologians critic “holy” texts?
Or should they try and communicate what they perceive to be contradictions between science and faith?
Scientists definately should speak out against blatant inaccuracies in the bible.
Since when do theologians critic “holy” texts?
All the time.
Scientists definately should speak out against blatant inaccuracies in the bible.
As Aaron pointed out above, there’s a way to do that that has a higher probability of people listening instead of storming off in a huff. It’s the essential difference between:
“In the Ancient World, people did not know as much about the heavens as we do now, and so many of their descriptions reflect some misunderstandings.”
and
“Jesus was a really crappy astronomer. Look at that silly book his dad supposedly wrote!”
But the two statements you have made are are not the same at all. If it’s the word of god then the first statement makes no sense; either it is the word of god or it isn’t. There is no room for misunderstandings.
If (work with me here) if God existed, His communication with us would be like us communicating complicated concepts with the average paramecium.
Your dilemma is false; there is plenty of room on our end for misunderstandings.
The thoughtful fundamentalist (ha) would not be so easily fooled. Both statements mean the same thing: The Bible is not the WoG. The underlying idea of both statements is a negation of his belief system.
Your example is false.
Except that god is supposed to be perfect and very capable of communicating his exact ideas to a paramecium.
To further problematize your example, allegedly, God has communicated to various and sundry individuals, so clearly, if this entity exists, it is perfectly able to talk to people. And, as Sunny Day points out, this entity (esp. in Christianity/Islam) is perfect–there’s nothing that the entity can’t do.
I am the best lion tamer of all time (work with me here) and I can get lions to do amazing and incredible things. In fact, I am the perfect lion tamer. I can get a lion to do anything within a lion’s capabilities.
You are all gonna criticize me because even though a lion fetches my slippers and newspaper every morning, I can’t get the lion to talk?
Nope, I’m only going to criticise you if you were all powerful and created the lion knowing that it wouldn’t be able to talk and then let it go on a murderous rampage because it didn’t understand you.
Work with me here—if one day the lions all start talking for themselves and all along you got them to do was fetch slippers, you turn out to be a pretty crappy lion tamer after all.
I’m working with you here … but nah if god was all all powerful, perfect etc. etc. he would be quiet capable of making his creation understand his meaning far better than in the Bible. If on the other hand he wasn’t quiet so powerful …
We’re talking about Fundamentalists; that is, people who believe the Bible is inerrant.
If you say “The errors in the Bible are the fault of humans, not God”, all they’re going to hear is “There are errors in the Bible”, and come to the conclusion that you’re a dirty homosexual satanist who’s planning to give their children AIDS.
Pingback: Bill Nye The Non-Creationist Guy « Camels With Hammers
Amazing how people can claim that their faith is strong, and still be so terrified of any fact that might cast doubt on their beliefs…
It’s because they don’t know what’s in the bible, and that they brought children to learn about science, and all they care about is that their children don’t have the opportunity to learn from a stranger that the bible might not be true – because it doesn’t happen that often, it didn’t occur to anyone that the bible tries to pretend it has science all over it, that someone might say something while speaking at a science program.
It’s the same way you wouldn’t want a stranger without your permission teaching your children about the bible, and yet they aren’t careful how they talk; they’re downright presumptuous, too – not just the sneaky jesus pervs who talk to unattended children on your street, I mean just everywhere: god has a plan this, and I’ll pray for you that.
However, some people think it’s ok to learn about all of it and let the kid decide for themselves – even if that means you are an atheist and you hope your kids don’t fall in with the religious crowd. Some of us don’t think it’s healthy for kids to be indoctrinated into their stupidity (and how many found Jesus later in life – that happens all the time), or to grow up as if they are some other species than the rest of the world.
Well, messages are seductive. If someone is teaching you science, you learn something. If someone takes it upon themselves to inform your children, well, the bible here told a lie, well that’s just opening them up for seduction, too. I think there’s a difference between “how can you believe it, it’s so stupid” (about being seduced or cult-snatched into religion) and “well, my child has heard too much of the devil already, and I wasn’t given fair warning to protect them against it.” How was she to know how much further Bill Nye would be taking his lesson? She can take them home and put on their Armour of God pajamas and pray for them to have been really bored and not listening anyway. God, take the knowledge out of their ears! We believe the bible, and we believe in you! Distressing, isn’t it?
@jabster
it’s semantics. the approach taken will determine whether communication is even possible — factuality is completely a non-issue w/r/t that.
denial of facts, in the face of faith is a hallmark of fundamentalism. you aren’t going to win ANYONE over if you are expecting facts alone to do the work.
The only way to make any progress is to present them with a situation where their absolute faith is challenged intrinsically — this means making the factual case FIRST without biblical tie-ins, and once that’s been settled and the evidence shown, THEN show the biblical contradiction.
The moon issue happens to be a very good one — I imagine a skilled apologist would probably have some rebuttal (the “it was translated wrong” variety, probably), but it’s one where the facts are indisputable: we know WHY stars emit light and we know that the moon is not a star. QED. The moon as a reflector is further supported by the phases of the moon and revolution and the earth, but that’s ancillary — rely predominantly on the facts about the moon itself.
If you can get that, *THEN* present the biblical issue. In a direct conflict like that, they will either realize that they’re being irrational, find some way to rationalize the error (which is an entire follow up discussion), or continue being irrational. (stated in order of increasing probability).
Still — it’s better than turning them off from the get-go and getting nothing out of it.
If Nye did start off with the Genesis quote, then I think you’re correct. I’d like to see a transcript of the talk.
However, I think your list of potential outcomes should be reversed. Continued irrationality, I’m afraid, is the most likely result. At least here in the good ol’ USofA.
Oops, I think I misread what you wrote. I guess we’re agreeing about what’s the most likely outcome.
“Still — it’s better than turning them off from the get-go and getting nothing out of it.”
No. Its better to get them out of their chairs and make room for someone to be willing to attempt to get something out of it. Furthermore when they find themselves outside with the great majority of their peers remaining inside they may be embarrassed of themselves to start to question why so many people are staying. They can always come back inside if they want.
That’s what I thought too. Good for Bill Nye.
I really think that they are playing too sensitive. You know, it’s possible to be challenged, and still believe in god. I don’t really like to be an in-your-face atheist – all the time on the internet, I see people just hating us like this is all we ever talk about and “preaching” all the time, well, that’s just a few people that make us look bad. I digress. I don’t think coming right out and frankly saying, look this bible stuff has got some mistakes in it. No need to tiptoe carefully around some other people’s bugaboos. From what we have here, he doesn’t seem to have been aggressive, just speaking plainly. Even to some moderate people, that’s just coming on too strongly, to directly challenge the bible and not be “tolerant,” “shoving” the “truth” down people’s faces. Only because it’s the truth!
While they may have been able to take the “truth,” that the moon reflects light from the sun rather than emits light, he just happened to take a relevant passage from the bible – there, they can’t have this overt blasphemy in front of the kiddies. I have to wonder about this plan, as many of the posters here must have had a similar childhood. How can the god you believe in make you strong enough to hold onto the myriad logical fallacies if you aren’t brave enough to hear what another person has to say?
I mean, what is here, the devil? You have the mother bear protective role of keeping your children from hearing things that might make them smart, might make them atheists, this is the worst thing to fear. So while they are young, they are to know none of it, so by the time they are grown up, they have the full strength of nonsense capable of staving off “the devil” and the things he wants you to know about the bible not being true.
I bet if he didn’t bring the passage up, they might have been interested to learn that the moon actually reflects light from the sun and not even been aware this contradicts the bible. I don’t know how popular this passage is; I tend to think their church is just going over the passages they feel the need to lean on and this never came up. I can hardly believe a fundie would attend a science program at all, whereas some people a little more open-minded and grounded than that would still find Nye’s comment too “pushy,” and I say good for Bill Nye. Let them walk out and believe their nonsense – their mind wasn’t likely to be changed anyway, and they look like idiots in front of everyone. Cowards.
Maybe these people don’t consider themselves preachy, and you know, they did the right thing for themselves by walking out. It’s just that we are often hearing of the beliefs of others, and their intolerance of normal secular behavior. Hype. Anyone who isn’t them is a liberal atheist, and their so persecuted. It’s time for rational people to off-handedly challenge small bits of the bible that aren’t creation, challenge them by name in the initiative, not in the counterpoint.
Science has nothing to do with religion and religion has nothing to do with science. It would have been better if he hadn’t related the sun and moon to the biblical “greater light” and “lesser light”. If he hadn’t, perhaps no one would have been offended and would have stayed and listened to what he had to say… But that makes for less drama.
I agree science has nothing to do with religion. But without science and reason, how can religion separate truth from falsehood?
That’s oh so simple — if it’s your religion it’s obviously true; if it’s someone else’s religion then the normal rules of criticism/logic apply. So for example if you wish to prove your god exists just tell how you can feel him in you heart so you know it’s true etc. etc. if someone of a different religion claimed exactly the same thing either they are just deluded or it’s the devils work. If an atheist points out that both of you are claiming the same thing so how do you separate the truth then remember who your common enemy is and stone him to death.
The moon does not emit light. I wonder if that’s why we couldn’t see that plume of dust explode when we torpedoed it the other day.
The plume was visible from the LRO that also took images, but I think that many scientists were suprised that there was no spectacular view. But that does not mean that it is not interesting. lack of something is also very interesting, that indicates that they are on something new.
The impact was visible very briefly in near Infra red and UV. Images are shown now on the sites.
Another issue with the Genesis account of the Moon is that doesn’t quite govern the night. It spends as much time in the day skies as it does in the night, and as a result it is absent in the night sky half the time. Not much of a governor.
It must be off hiking the Appalachian Trail…
The problem is that you can’t be gentle with these people. You can’t present facts without offending. Their offense is the adult equivalent of sticking fingers in ones ears and shouting. H.L. Mencken was very incisive on the topic:
So should scientists should stick to science and leave critiquing holy texts to theologians? Or should they try and communicate what they perceive to be contradictions between science and faith?
Religion has made a habit of getting into science — and has put a lot of muscle and money behind the attempt to squash science. Why shouldn’t scientists occasionally take a stab back? Did it lead to a constructive discussion in this case? Nope. But one could make the argument that it was a point that needed to be made.
Right. They came to hear him speak, and they took the comment as attack. It wasn’t like he confronted them on the sidewalk while they were going somewhere else, or just happens to like to argue, like some co-worker or brother-in-law you dread.
I think a lot of people are able to be happy with their religions as well as curious about science, and just never make the connection, because we spend a lot of energy dancing around saying the wrong thing to people – and especially if they are sick of this “PC” trend of not being allowed to be an out-loud bigot, well that’s even better. This is not intolerance or bigotry. This isn’t a book we wrote so we could make up stuff you probably believe in just so we could persecute you. This is your book, these are words in your book. We’re just saying it’s incorrect. Why so sensitive?
The bible is not a science book, and they may not necessarily comprehend that it attempts to explain scientific things in a direct contradiction to actual discovered scientific knowledge in the millennia since “it started.” If he had just stated the sun and the moon, yadda yadda, they probably would have learned something, but they wouldn’t have learned that extra thing. This wouldn’t have offended them and they wouldn’t have to consider too intently what their bible says is not the same thing as what we know. We know we know what we know, those of us who choose to know it. Religion and science are “the same thing” so long as religious texts attempt to explain the natural world and people still believe that has to be the truth because it’s IN the bible. As long as they ignore what’s in the bible or are able to understand it in its historical context, some believers seem to take in science just fine. Once you point out the contradictions in plain speech, you have just made a person see. They could cling to their book and not accept science, but you’ve made them, just like a preacher, to open that book to that page, to consider what they’ve heard, and gotten into their head.
Creation is the usual example, and I can sort of take that this way: we have evidence of evolution, but none of us were there. I don’t think creation is truth, but it is different from this sun/moon thing. The bible is a book written long ago by people who didn’t know what we know now. Or god. Either way, we can study the sun and the moon NOW and see right in front of us how the sun is a star and the moon is a satellite of earth, that it reflects light – you can see for yourself today. No need for a time machine to settle a bet here. This challenges words in the bible that people believe in far differently, as far as I’m concerned, than evidence of evolution disproves creation, if they would only use their reasoning skills to deduce it.
Forthright pointing stuff like this out ought to be more common, and people might just get used to it.
Well, the moon does emit infrared light. Too bad we can’t see it. ~_^
BBR FTW!
I dunno. The older I get, the less sympathy I have for fundies. If they’re going to be so quick to anger, even in the face of facts, I think – in an eye-for-an-eye sort of way – they deserve to have it thrown in their faces.
I mean, come on, God doesn’t even know how rainbows were formed!
Hey, it’s an irrational, rage-prone person!
Whatever shall we do?
I know. Let’s poke it with a stick!
The overlap between the kind of people who are offended by pointing out the contradictions of the bible in a science lecture and the kind of people who like to complain about “political correctness” infringing on their god-given right to be bigots is probably huge.
Perhaps. That doesn’t, strictly speaking, make it any smarter to poke the enraged bear with a sharp stick.
Unless there is a legitimate concern for your personal safety, there is absolutely no reason to hold back. Would they do it for you? Obviously not. You are under no obligation to grant them that kind of courtesy, and at some point, someone is going to have to stand up to them.
Unless there is a legitimate concern for your personal safety, there is absolutely no reason to hold back.
That’s a silly standard. “If the bear is behind a fence, it is absolutely OK to poke it with a stick.”
Would they do it for you? Obviously not.
“Because the bear might eat you if it could, it is absolutely OK to poke it with a stick.”
…at some point, someone is going to have to stand up to them.
It is just necessary that someone should shoot the bear. After all, look at those claws! Those sharp teeth! Those soulless eyes! Obviously needs to be put down.
Your analogy sucks, again. We expect more and better from Humans. Bears, not so much.
“That’s a silly standard. “If the bear is behind a fence, it is absolutely OK to poke it with a stick.””
Except in this case the fence is called “The Rule of Law” and “Assault and Battery Charges”, we are all bound by the fence. Still somehow you want to give deferential treatment to people who are demonstrably wrong.
“Because the bear might eat you if it could, it is absolutely OK to poke it with a stick.”
The stick in this case was critical thought. The only inflicted harm was entirely egotistical.
“It is just necessary that someone should shoot the bear. After all, look at those claws! Those sharp teeth! Those soulless eyes! Obviously needs to be put down.”
Only because in Bizzaro-Nope world, “standing up to them” means rounding them up and exterminating them.
Your analogy sucks, again.
The stick in this case was critical thought.
No, the stick in this case is going up to someone and saying, essentially “nyah nyah, you’re wrong!”. People can engage in and communicate critical thought without enraging their interlocutors, even when those interlocutors are somewhat unreasonable.
The only inflicted harm was entirely egotistical.
The inflicted harm was two-fold. One was emotional, and I suppose you can ignore it as not real or something, but people’s emotional health I tend to find important. The second, and more important harm, is that which is done to any future chance to convince that person of any point related to the one at issue. These people are now less likely to see the error of their ways (not more) and are also likely in the future to discount astronomical evidence in any other argument. For people who want a truly rational world one of these days, that seems like real harm to me.
Your analogy sucks, again.
Yes it does. It was off-the-cuff, a mite sarcastic, and emphasized points different than the ones that probably should have been.
It’s not necessary to make everyone listen if they don’t want to. It’s somewhat important to make examples of them if they choose to play that role. I don’t think their response was particularly uncalled-for. It should shock people as much to witness the over-reaction as it was for them to hear that the bible was being used as an example of things too silly to believe.
I do not know what happened or how this came about. I tend to think it was intentional and not just a faux pas.
However, I do think you’re over-stating the “taunting” factor. Someone has to press the first button. Before people get comfortable with seeing knees and bare arms at the beach, they’re going to have to faint and protest the exposure of an ankle. From what the article says, i can hardly think the statement was provocative in tone, just that something arbitrarily forbidden was spoken out loud, as a matter of fact, and a few people received it as an attack.
They seemed to be receptive to learning about science, or they wouldn’t be there, and they were probably not wearing signs that said “DANGER – overly-excited religious type – DO NOT MOCK MY BIBLE”. In a matter-of-fact, yet entertaining and congenial manner that I can only infer because he’s Bill Nye, he took an example of human progress and discovery and compared it to another old book that pretends to have truthful information about scientific subjects. We used to think this and now we know that it’s not true.
You would have to be a dummy to expect that wouldn’t upset someone by choosing to make an example of the bible in specific, right? In this day and age, it shouldn’t upset that many people – however, when will we get to that point if we cater to this type of person? I don’t think it’s being a dick, I don’t think they are bears being poked with sticks. They choose to act as bears and call words sharp sticks – you are doing the same. I can also be an enraged bear about things I choose, and call some words sharp sticks if they feel that way to me – but that doesn’t stop people from saying them, and neither does it make me right to take it so hard and inflate intentions of people just trying to pop the sacred bubble around people. If it’s so fragile, they are going to have to limit their exposure to the world. And I’m not saying that to apologize for anyone who’s actually being a dick.
The world is full of uptight people who haven’t adapted, so I don’t mind letting them show themselves out the door if they don’t like things that are said. My mind here is not to engaging them or educating them gently, and letting them the luxury of privately questioning their beliefs if they are so inclined.
I basically agree with you in the context of the Nye comment. I was reacting with the taunting analogy to this quote above:
“The older I get, the less sympathy I have for fundies. If they’re going to be so quick to anger, even in the face of facts, I think – in an eye-for-an-eye sort of way – they deserve to have it thrown in their faces.”
The bold part in particular. This is the difference between off-handedly saying something “forbidden” as you put it, and intentionally antagonizing out of some sense of cultural revenge.
I agree, LMNOP, intentionally being antagonistic accomplishes nothing constructive, and only serves to further polarize the sides.
The only person that can make them “cross over” to the side of rationality is the person themselves. Childish quid pro quo does not bring anyone any closer to that cross-over point.
I stand firm on my belief that the Mooney/Kishenbaum accomodationist stance is incorrect. The “live and let live” paradigm does not benefit anyone if the “living” believe in something that is known to be factually incorrect (ie. six-day-earth, certain other aspects of a literal bible interpretation). They should be corrected, but in such a way that the facts are presented first and the argument slowly builds towards the point of conflict, rather than beginning at the point of conflict and then supporting it with facts. The more common ground that can be established, the more likely they are to see your side.
Never mind.
It sort of disgusts me, that this is too shocking for them to handle. Just based on what story we have to go on and what little I know about Bill Nye, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize this as an enraged bear until she felt personally threatened, by not a sharp stick at all. We’re too afraid to discuss it because anyone we meet might be an enraged bear, and anything we might say to them would be construed by them as a sharp stick, so everything is carefully measured words, or avoid touchy subjects altogether.
Their fragility is none of my concern.
Video schooling of a modern geocentrist It’s just that it’s their precious book. It’s not more than debunking other myths you grew up with, except it’s their book.
There is nothing wrong with marginalizing them by just happen to compare what we know with what they were misled to believe is correct. They are basically saying there is something wrong with being human, being curious, and having knowledge, they don’t have any gratitude for human progresses they do selectively enjoy, and that’s offensive to a lot of us. I know it’s a difficult issue, but we’re the ones who always have to be careful what we say because someone might get hysterical.
Their fragility is none of my concern.
It’s not for their sake.
Nietzsche’s oft (overused) quote about monsters and the abyss is where I’m aiming, here. I don’t give a damn about which fundy’s feelings get hurt when their rotten-applecart of beliefs gets upset. My thing is I don’t wish to see Atheism become identified (fairly, this time) as something that has become aggressive, socially malignant, toxic. I don’t want secular humanism and scientism to socio-politically take up the role currently occupied by Evangelical Christianity. That’s like straight-up “take your father’s place at my side” Jedi-to-Sith crap right there.
I think more people need to provoke these rage prone fundies. It shows them for what they really are and people will lose respect for them. I don’t think the poking a bear with a stick is really a good way to look at this. If they were like bears we wouldn’t be having near the trouble we have with them. When we have trouble with bears we either pen them up or we shoot them.
I think more people need to provoke these rage prone fundies. It shows them for what they really are and people will lose respect for them.
The non-fundie world is not exactly outpouring with respect for fundies. Beyond that, the guiding rule should be “don’t be a dick”. That’s what my momma taught me. When other people are dicks, that rule doesn’t just fly out the window.
Only you get to decide who’s being a dick and how to treat them.
I never claimed that, and I continue to fail to see how people get that from my online comments. My nick is at the top of every post of mine, which usually indicated that the contents inside are my opinion and nothing more. Beyond that, people are able (and usually willing) to make any judgments they want.
But in general, is it really so hard to tell the difference between being a dick and not being a dick? I mean, we can disagree on the margins, but usually it’s pretty clear cut. Intentionally provoking people to anger? That, whatever else it may be, is usually dickish.
When you can’t handle or trust scientific fact coming from the mouth of Bill Nye the Science Guy, then you might just have to take a deep breath *inhales as a demonstration* and re-evaluate your life.
Bill Nye was invited to speak there, right?
If he was speaking in some public place, then bringing up the religiously-related arguments is irrelevant, unless explicitly asked a question about them.
But in the context of being a guest at a venue where he KNOWS there will be a predominantly creationist crowd, it behooves him to be tactful in his choice of words and presentation so that he may communicate his point.
If he wields a verbal sledgehammer, they’re going to shut their ears and not listen to *ANYTHING*. that is communication FAIL.
I’m definitely NOT promoting an accommodationist Mooney/Kishenbaum stand here — I don’t think you should tell them it’s ok to believe in their irrational view just because it’s important to them.
But I AM saying that if you are not willing to approach this situation tactfully, you may as well not accept the invitation AT ALL. If you think you can be completely irreverent to their beliefs in your presentation and still have it be even micro-marginally effective, you’re delusional.
The point of public speaking is to COMMUNICATE. Communication requires a speaker and a listener(s). You will be most effective at communicating by maximizing the number of listeners you can maintain for the longest period of time. Do not do this at the expense of truth, of course. But there are plenty of ways to broach this issue without turning people off at square one.
“But there are plenty of ways to broach this issue …”
So would you like to put forward some?
He already has. This is not rocket science. You can say “hey, this neat scientific finding I’ve found, well, it proves your book WRONG!” as Nye did, or you can just give them the findings and assume they already know what’s written in their precious book. There’s a difference between providing an inconsistency and rubbing in the fact that the person is wrong. There’s no need to go out of your way to insult people in order to provide them with contrary information, and doing so is usually counterproductive.
I think you are making an assumption that the people knew that the bible said that. I figure most people don’t know what it says about the moon and until he pointed it out they were ok with it. I very much doubt they would have left if he hadn’t said anything about what the bible says but they should have if they already knew what the bible says.
I very much doubt they would have left if he hadn’t said anything about what the bible says but they should have if they already knew what the bible says.
But that’s precisely the point. Human brains work in weird ways, including partitioning off sources of belief that contradict one another. If someone holds a particular belief strongly due to trusting strongly the source of that belief, challenging it *directly* by using a less trusted source of belief is going to fail. What you have to do to be successful is make the other source more trustworthy. Building up science is more effective than tearing down faith until a person trusts scientific reasoning (at least almost) as much as their familiar faith-based junk.
“Your dilemma is false; there is plenty of room on our end for misunderstandings.”
Care to answer that Nope, oh you choose not to? Yes I understand that this is what you believe but humilty is a good trait don’t you think so — or is that only something other people should have?
Huh? Care to answer what?
For someone who likes to put forward the lets engage with people, you certainly made a goodjob of hounding Aor from this blog. I’m no fan of brgulker, and I’m relatively sure that he isn’t of me, so I choose not to reply to him; you on the other hand went out of you way to take the opposite position to Aor at every opportunity.
Practice what you preach Nope, practice what you preach …
Hounding Aor? Generally (in all but one case, in fact), he initiated the engagement. Usually in a nasty way. Usually I’d be talking with someone else, and he’d swoop in accusing me of being a liar or intellectually dishonest or some such, and I’d defend myself.
And even with him I was way more polite than the situation dictated. I do practice what I preach, though obviously not perfectly; I can get angered or irritated just like the next guy. I do not like bullies, nor people who cast random aspersions, and he tended to be that guy. A lot. Not quite turned up to eleven, the way Alex Guggenheim was, but loud enough.
If you’re referring to this behavior in regards to the “false dilemma” comment, it was a technical observation, nothing more. When someone presents a situation as having two options, and there are clearly more than two, that’s called a false dilemma. It wasn’t meant as an insult, and if it was taken that way I apologize.
Do I think humility is a good character trait? Meh. Being humble in some cases can be wise, in other cases can be foolish. I tend in general to be arrogant (which like humility is smart in some situations and really dumb in others), and also to interact with many arrogant people. In such situations, I fond that absent humility, politeness is even more critical than usual.
What in Nye’s presentation gave you the impression that he was “rubbing in the fact that the person was wrong”? He pointed out one text that says the moon is a light; he countered it with the fact that the moon is a reflector of light. If some precious widdle Chwistian can’t handle that, then that’s too frakking bad.
Why in a science lecture would it ever occur to someone to take time out to point out ancient peoples and their books got it wrong, unless they were somewhat deliberately poking the bear?
I think it’s just like debunking some other old notion, or popular belief. The bible isn’t sacred to everyone, and we should be able to say this to people, intolerant people who think everyone should think like they do, and believe all the lies they believe.
I think in the current climate where religion attempts to explain scientific things or provide answers that are wrong, and trying to get these answers taught in school as an “alternate theory,” this is fair. You can keep your religion if you want to, and you can get mad at Bill Nye for even bringing it up in front of your precious children, but I thought this was at least some evidence of a push back. We can’t wait for someone to say something stupid and then counter it with knowledge. We can say something smart, and make an example of this book, and make an example of the people who got up and left.
Like I said in another post, this was an excellent use. Evolution/Creation would have been too direct, and for the people who believe in the bible, they will know every angle there, and still – none of us were there. I can somewhat understand the “skepticism” of a fanatic who thinks both theories have academic validity because none of us were there when it happened and choose to believe Creation happened like in the bible and dismiss the fossil record. Bill Nye chose another example, one that can be observed by anyone, from earth. Maybe like the prehistoric era, it’s too far away to be certain, they may think.
I think he swiftly avoided the sensitive hot-button issue and honed in on another biblical explanation, and given that a lot of people who may have read the bible even once, only go over and over and over passages mentioned in church and meanings explained to them by a clergy. They can still believe in god and his book, but you know, don’t pretend any of the explanations are relevant to science. This one and this one, and even that one, and oh yeah, that one too.
I see some on this thread are focused on the value of learning a fact, learning that the moon reflects the sun’s light, and just don’t even mention the bible or any other old thinking, so long as they learn this is true, nobody gets hurt. Science is supposed to stick to science, and also let religion intrude on science. Science doesn’t always have to let this happen or wait for it to happen to say something (like nuh-uh, you dummies, it’s like this). It’s an elephant in the room. Not a bear.
Read my previous comments. :)
in short: present all facts FIRST, before challenging faith.
Their brains need to be sufficiently primed to allow for cognitive dissonance to take place.
It’s not subversive — you aren’t beguiling them into abandoning their faith; but in order to get them to HEAR, LISTEN and ultimately comprehend the facts of reality, they must not be shutting their ears to what you’re saying.They will ultimately be the ones that make the decision of which way they want to go, you would simply be presenting them with the opportunity for cognitive dissonance.
It’s like getting someone to drive into a brick wall — you don’t start out with the collision because most people wouldn’t voluntarily put themselves in an accident — but if you start them far away from the wall, and start them slow — you create a POSSIBILITY of a collision as they speed towards the wall.
Don’t weaken the facts — this is not a “strengths and weaknesses issue” — it’s simply a matter of approach. You want them to speed down that road for as long as possible so they have some good momentum before they realize there’s a wall ahead. Sufficient momentum is an absolute necessity if they are to break through that wall as well.
If you do your job right, they will realize that either (a) the wall is illusory and they were being irrational, or (b) they were being irrational, but they don’t care. (in the latter case, they are voluntarily remaining ignorant of reality…).
If they are particularly paranoid, clever, or well-familiar with apologetics, this approach may not work because they’ll see the brick wall miles ahead; be wary of them out maneuvering you in this case, or you may end up being the one in the driver’s seat.
In my experience, I have found that most people tend to be in category (b) from above — every now and then I’ll have a discussion with someone that reaches (a), but blind faith is a powerful thing.
You dont understand that verse. The sun is the light of Christ within, the True light which “lighteth every man”. This represents the state of mankind as He should be, fully illumined and walking in the Light. The moon (which has no light of its own, is merely a reflection) governs the “night”, the darkness of the Self, man foolishy attempting to walk by his own (dim) light which so many are doing today. The results are tragic for “every man does what is right in his own eyes”.
As David says in the Psalms…”until the moon be no more”. When mankind has finally put the moon (false light of self) under his feet (Rev 12.1) for good, then there will be true peace and unity among the nations. But as long as we insist on walking in the dark…the blind leading the blind then both will fall into a pit, the pit of self and what a dark pit indeed.
John C:
That would be a METAPHORICAL interpretation of the text. People who are able to grasp the metaphorical nature of scripture generally have a much easier time reconciling it with modern scientific thinking.
We’re talking about people that are biblical LITERALISTS — taking the scripture completely literally (earth and universe created in six 24-hour days, etc.).
I have the sudden urge to make popcorn.
Indeed.
Light on the butter please…
the Bible was not wrong when it said the lesser light …the moon is a lesser light because it is reflecting the sun, and the stars are stars to us….. not suns,….. but our sun is the sun to us …not a star…duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!………………..we dont say look at the star rise we say the sun rise !!!!!God created the moon to reflect the sun… so it wouldnt be so dark at night !! That scripture is relative to us on our planet earth, if we were on another planet our sun would be a star ….duh !!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s quite amusing to hear somebody talk about planet Earth who doesn’t seem to live here….
Then it’s too bad the Moon is on average not visible for half of the night. Poor workmanship, if you ask me.
Well, your abundance of exclamation points and ellipses, nonsensical spacing, and strategic use of the word “duh” has certainly convinced me!
To be fair, there is not one single ellipsis in that post. An ellipsis is a punctuation mark indicating a pause longer than that signified by a comma, and introducing a separate but related thought or a conclusion or completion of the thought expressed in the prior clause. It consists of three dots…no more, no less.
And before you mock my counting skills, the groups of three dots that are present are preceded or followed by gratuitous spaces, and therefore not proper ellipses.