Interview at the Creation Museum

I found Michael Shermers interview at the creation museum very interesting. Click on the link to watch it. He was very polite and mainly just asked questions. I thought the womens answers also very interesting. She seemed to contradict herself often, saying interpretation was important at one point, and then saying you couldn't interpret Genesis. If you set out saying, 'I know what scripture says, so anything that contradicts it must be wrong' is very weird. It's also a form of interpretation, which she said you can't do.
I don't really see any difference between how this women chooses to believe, and how a Scientologist chooses to believe. I guess it bugs me, because she can literally make stuff up. If you don't have to prove anything, you can just say, "this is the way it is", and there is no obligation to offer any evidence.
I wonder what she would think of theologians like J.I. Packer who thinks she is flat out wrong when it comes to her literal reading of Genesis. Would she care, would she say he does not know how to read the Bible? I guess we have an idea, because of how she dismissed Collins and Miller.
Watching the interview has left me a little baffled and worn out. It seems to me to be so sad that all that money would go to something that has no real importance to Christianity, peoples lives, and can only really do harm.
I think I need a cup of tea and a shower.
Scott

Stem Cell Research and Ideology

The restrictions on stem cell research have been lifted. Now, I don't know how stem cell research works. I am not a biologist or a chemist, or any sort of reputable scientist. Pharyngula has an article on what it would take for it to be turned into a cure. The reason I bring it up is, stem cell research was part of the previous American governments war on science, and seems to be quite controversial down there. It appears to me that there was never a good argument against stem cell research. That it was mainly a "slippery slope" argument.
This leads me to ideology. Ideology would be a very good explanation for why people are against stem cell research. I assume I work within an ideology as well, and it got me wondering what issues I am for or against, not based on any sort logic, thought, or reason, but just because of my personal ideology. A friend on Facebook joined a "impeach Obama" group. I found this very curious. I am not American, but from what I understand of their history and laws, there is no foundation for a group of this type. Especially so early on in his term. You could probably make a good case for impeaching Bush, but I am not a constitutional lawyer. What struck me about that group, it was obviously based on ideology. There was no thought or reason, no holding the government accountable for the previous eight years. These people just said what their ideology told them. When it's so obvious, it makes it hard to take that person seriously.
Part of my ideology is that voting is important and constructive. I get annoyed when people don't vote, and I don't really care what their reasoning is. They could be right, have very good reasons, but I just get annoyed when people don't vote. Another part of my ideology would be freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
What things do you agree with, just because they are part of your ideology? Would you join an impeach group because you did not like a politician, and not because he had actually done anything wrong?
Cheers,
Scott

What Is America?

I just finished reading 'What is America?' by Ronald Wright. I would highly recommend it. Some of the historical information I had heard before, through shows such as 500 Nations. It's a good read for those wanting to understand the American psyche.
I had not realized just how much of the Pre Columbian east coast was farm land. My understanding of the original Americans was a more 'Last of the Mohicans' style, but that was something that the victors wanted people to think. That they had taken land that was not being used, that the 'noble savages' had no need for it. An example of this being a lie is The Cherokee nation. In the early 19th century it had it's own constitution, and a higher literacy rate than the U.S.
It was interesting to me that Bush was not even close to being an anomaly, but the first "Bush" was Andrew Jackson, and that he ignored the supreme court to expel the Cherokee. It was his inauguration that would be one of the first moments when you could point to the divide between the "enlightenment" America and the "Frontier" America. One embracing learning and the other embracing myth and superstition.
It was also fascinating to see how much the Puritans have affected how the 'Andrew Jackson Americans' view themselves and their relation to the world. I have joked about the puritan heritage, but it's a terrible and disgusting thing. I once admired their spirituality and literacy, but this book is just one in a long line that has dispelled that admiration. I am actually embarrassed that I thought that way. They are a classic example of how belief can be a poison, even long after you are gone. It got me thinking of what I was working out before, in a previous post, about belief not being important. What you believe can be irrelevant, emphasis on the can be, but how you believe is important. What Peter Rollins called heretical orthodoxy. To quote from the beginning of his book,
"Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief...help(ing) us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way - that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner. The reversal from 'right belief' to 'believing in the right way' is in no way a move to some binary opposite of the first (for the opposite of right belief is wrong belief); rather, it is a way transcending the binary altogether. Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world."
It's surprised me that the 'What is America' and the bit it talked about the Puritans would make me think of that quote. The Puritans and their cultural heirs, the modern fundamentalist, are continuing the focus on belief as the be all and end all of their lives, rather than believing in the right way. This is why you get a focus on issues rather than people. Portions of archaic holy text having to be literal would be an example of what you believe running amok. If your focus is instead of believing in the right way, I would hope that would lead to a more loving focus on right relationship with the people around you, and a flexibility in allowing for error in your belief system.
There are a lot of good quotes in 'What is America'. I could probably spend the next month with entries on it, but this is a small portion of where it got me thinking. I doubt that's where it will take yours, but read it, and let me know where it led you.
Cheers,
Scott

Dialogue

I have been mulling over a problem the last few days, and I am curious what other people think. His new book is out and I am wondering, would you pursue a dialogue with a person like Ray Comfort? I would compare him to the mental equivalent of people like Sylvia Brown, or especially David Irving. These people are not necessarily evil, they can be quite 'smart', but they are intellectually harmful, destructive, and tend to lie or ignore evidence. . That would be my main problem with Ray, he acts like he works within the rules of reason and logic, but ignores them habitually. If he was working within a more postmodern thought pattern, I probably would not care. If you're gonna play the logic/reason game, you should play by the rules. I hope if meeting them I would be polite, but have the courage to tell them they are full of bullshit. David Irving is especially insidious. The modus operandi of the holocaust denial movement, as in creationism, you ignore anything that would expose your world view as fantasy. The comic above is a nice illustration of this type of thinking.
Back to my question. Is there a point to having a dialogue with people like that? This is most likely a very hypothetical question, as I will never meet the fellow, but what then do you do with people who subscribe to that sort of world view? Do you gently point them in the direction of more credible apologists. I might have gone that route, pointing out the works of Ken Miller or Francis Collins when addressing the science, and maybe people like Alvin Plantinga when addressing the logic and philosophy. They are all Christians, thought provoking, and unlike when quoting Comfort, don't make it seem like you have sub average cognitive functioning. For a person into Sylvia Brown, I would probably recommend Michael Shermer or Carl Sagan.
I am starting to wonder if the best move is to just ask a person like that questions, and then minimize contact whenever possible. Though this does not sit well with me, as I like reading and being exposed to opposing views. A habit I have developed is to google the names of authors I like, along with the word 'criticism'. This does not always lead to valid criticism, but it can lead to some funny rants. Being exposed to views that contradict my confirmation bias helped me get to where I am now, so I think it can also be helpful for others. Again though, after initial exposure to a person who espouses ideas and views similar to Comfort/Brown/Irving, is it best to eject from the dialogue before your brain squeezes out of your ears and tries to strangle you?
I have met very thoughtful, and thought provoking people of faith. I do like those sort of intense God talks, but when I meet a Ray Comfort type fundamentalist, I find it hard not to get angry. It does not do me any good, it's not constructive and I can't have a good discussion with the person, because I am too annoyed. It's like having a nice warm shower, with someone dumping a bucket of cold water on you. Actually not cold water, but a bucket of runny, cold, cow shit. You need another shower to just to wash the stink off.
What would you do? Do you talk to the Comforts of the world, try to stay calm, polite and respectful, or do you just excuse yourself and try not to get the mental equivalent of cow shit on you before you leave?
Cheers,
Scott

Postmodernism and Theology

Something happened over 300 years ago in Western culture. It had a huge impact on how we view the world, it's called the The Enlightenment, which was preceded by the age of reason. I think this had a huge impact on how people practice Christianity.
I'm a big fan of the scientific method, it obviously works, and is probably the best tool we have for discovering realities in the natural world. Many in the religious community reject much this tool points out, and yet embrace the practice when thinking about their relationship with God. The Bible is approached as something that can be studied, taken apart, and truth can be extracted in much the same way a Chemist would create medicine. When you reduce it to an interpretation, you miss the point. I think Christianity is starting to recover from the adoption of enlightenment thinking and is maybe moving towards the more mystical side of things.
I listened to a speaker this last week who got me thinking along these lines, his name was Peter Rollins. He gave me great hope for a direction of belief, which is that belief does not necessarily matter. What you believe might not be nearly as important as I was led to think. I'm still processing what that means, but I think it is leading me in a good direction. A painting would be a good analogy of this for me. Science can tell us how it was painted, when it was painted, what kind of paint was used, but the meaning of the painting is in the eye of the beholder. It might not matter what I think the painting means, but it's more important that I keep wrestling with that meaning. I liked a story Peter gave which two rabbis are arguing over a verse in the Torah, an argument that has gone on for over twenty years. In the parable God gets so annoyed by the endless discussion that he comes down and he tells them that he will reveal what it really means. However, right at this moment they respond by saying, "What right do you have to tell us what it means? You gave us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with them."
That story, and more of what was talked about are in this interview.
Well, that's what I've been thinking about this last week. I might decide it's all bunk, but maybe not.
Cheers.

Hits, Misses, and Ideology

I listened to two podcast lately, and each one got me pondering about how we think.
The first podcast was an interview of Christopher Burns, who is a thinker on modern information management. Here is the link to his interview.
The second podcast is the first in a series called, 'The Climate Wars.' It was done by the CBC radio show 'Ideas'. Here is the link to the paper on the study that was mentioned by Donald Braman.
Us humans tend to remember views and ideas that agree with our own, and our brain actively ignores evidence that would force us to change our ideas and views. Basically, it's very very hard to be skeptical, especially of our own beliefs. We don't like it, and it's like working out at the gym. The more you do it, the stronger the skeptic muscle gets. This was what struck me in Christopher Burns podcast.
It amazed me that the Ideas program had such a strong example of that. In America, climate change became an ideological war, and the same happened, in a lesser extent, in countries with strong American media presence. It seems that the conservative right in America saw the solutions to climate change as a subtle attack on their 'values'. If the solutions to climate change were switched from regulations on pollution, and things of that nature, but to nuclear plants and ideas of that nature, their views on climate change switched. The science had no effect on their views. The science never changed, but the solutions effected if people would accept the science or not. In the first example, people would deny climate change. In the second, with solutions they found ideologically acceptable, all of a sudden climate change was real, happening and we needed to do something about it! I found that truly astonishing.
To learn from this, if you have a very strong opinion on something, be wary of ignoring evidence just because it disagrees with your ideology. There is a strong chance your brain is working against you to keep you in the dark. Examples of people remembering hits and ignoring misses would be holocaust deniers and young earth creationists, which, unsurprisingly, approach their subject matter in almost identical ways. A good further look at this would be Michael Shermers, 'Why people believe weird things'
That's all for today.
Cheers.

Reading

Happy Inauguration day.
Reading has been an important part of my life for about seventeen years. It started with the Narnia books, traveled to Tolkien, bloomed into SF and then expanded beyond. If we ever have kids, then I hope to encourage reading in the wee ones. Outside of the benefits of learning and brain development, I think one of the most important things is the constant challenge in perspective. We all look at the world in slightly different ways. Sometimes in vastly different ways. Reading can challenge our preconceived ideas. From blogs on the internet to Mark Twain, rarely will authors let us sit comfortably with our ignorance. Yes a person can sit within one genre and thought, but the true gift of reading is to find books that don't reinforce what you already think. This is the true fear of the fundamentalist, and why books get banned. It just occurred to me, that's why I not longer go to "Christian" book stores. I think that's why I always loved SF, it shows you the possibilities. Where ideas can take you, or the consequences of current actions. It's amazing what people like A.C. Clarke foresaw in their writing. They can also tell really cool stories, that are just fun to read. Terry Pratchett is brilliant in this way. He makes me fall down laughing, but also pokes fun at how we look at the world.
Why did I feel the need to write about this? I guess because the written word gives me hope. As long as ideas can be passed around, then the fundamentalist can't make the rest of us stay static. Also, once again America has a president that values learning and it looks like he is going to end the war on science. I think it's telling that one of the insults in the election was 'elitist', which, as far as I could tell, meant that you could read.
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
Heinrich Heine 1933