Sunday,
August 3, 2008 at 9:31am
Ugh,
I wasn't even in the mood to really write anything, but recent
activity on Youtube has pressed me to speak again so
soon.
DonExodus2 is an evolutionary biologist, I have linked to his videos in my No More Excuses section, he is really good at giving major details about evolution and how to combat creationists and creationism. I respect, in a sense, what he is about and have learned much from his videos. With that said, he also considers himself a Christian and made a 2 part video explaining his views in response to subscribers that wanted to know. After watching his videos and reading people's comments I find myself both sad and happy. I'm sad because just like every last person, or frequent idiot as I call them, DonExodus2's completely sound explanations of science, turn to muck when he tries to explain why he believes in God, or more explicitly, why he lives by the gospels and believes them to be true. I'm happy because as I was taking notes to fact check him about when the gospels where compiles, and by who, and the 500 "witnesses" to Jesus's resurrection, I was able to read in the comments people who had already tried pointing out where he had gone wrong. If my computer had sound I would've watched the video responses because there was a lot more to be said and it is the reason I chose to write this.
A couple lines that you endlessly hear from theists in defense of a god or belief in general go as follows. "The apostles died for what they believed about Jesus, therefore it lends credence to his truth." "The difference between belief and knowledge allow for subjective evidence to support a view where the objective evidence is perhaps lacking or incomplete." "Many things cannot be tested empirically, but that does not mean they are wrong." "Don't quote mine the bible because some dreaded line was just part of a story or needs to be kept in context" All of these were used by DonExodus2.
To the first point, as Christopher Hitchens frequently points out, people have died, killed themselves, killed others for many reasons. Whether you believe your dieing for love, a god, or democracy, the act of you dying only proves your conviction, not the truth of the situation. I guess that by alluding to the apostles deaths, it is the people who feel less inclined to sacrifice so greatly, they then regard it so highly. The Don asks the question "What's the different between knowledge and belief?" The way he describes it seems to me like it is blurring the lines between the words. A simple example, I believe my nightstand is hard. My knowledge of particles tells me it is ever in flux and the word hard doesn't even make sense. I think his plan was to stay away from the word faith. Technically, I believe and acknowledge the empirical world around me 100%, whether or not my understanding of that world can be rated that high. It is faith, the ability to believe anything without justification, that fuels the word games and hides in the confusion. The line about many things being untestable, but not necessarily untrue, speaks back to the Russel's teapot and doesn't need to be explained.
The two that I think have the most confusion are his statements about the credibility of subjective evidence and the problem of quote mining. Don made stab at Sam Harris for taking a line from Jesus, who was apparently telling a story, that involved violence. I've had a few hang ups about the "context" objection for a long time, because the people who generally levy that charge don't understand people's inability to understand historical context, let alone the context within a context of an ancient story. I've watched Sam Harris in enough debates and talks to know what he was doing when he took that line and made a speech about it. He was showing what happens when all those who don't have even a basics in "theological understanding," as Don puts it, get a hold of the bible and run wild. It wasn't taking a line and using it to damn all Christians or condemn the "good" parts of the bible, as is what happens when an Islamic "extremist"(o do I hate that term) would do when making a comparison. Also, given the many times Dawkins and Meyers get quote mined and are completely portrayed as an angry loons, you'd think a more honest charge would be levied.
I think the part about the credence of subjective evidence is the worst bit. It just seems totally contradictory and disingenuous to be trained in science, give astounding videos that are backed with pictures, citations, and further resources, to then say when the evidence for a god isn't there or "can't be said," as he puts it, claim not only His truth, but the truth of the gospels, Jesus, etc. I've talked about the time when I was feeling super anxious and my stomach was sick with that butterfly feeling and I asked God in my head, if he felt what we felt and was always with us, was He suffering at this moment? Creepily, the instant I asked that feeling felt like it was sucked up into my chest and went away. Now back when I bought into religion and knew almost nothing about science, this was damn near Jesus showing up at my door. After further introspection, and nearly a year of learning, I came away with many more likely scenarios for why this would have happened. I absolutely hate when people think I don't understand how they so super strongly feel God's presence and can see him all over. For whatever reason I'm just a fool who can't appreciate the importance and truth of subjective experiences. I just don't understand such compelling feelings of a supernatural life force or love. A big fuck you to those people in light of what it took me to overcome it.
In response to the Don's video, The Amazing Atheist went on a pissed off rant prematurely about, what started off as, a few lines in the opening of the Don's video, and then trailed off into why The Amazing Atheist chose his Youtube handle. Just like every argument of this type, the Don gets to look like a beacon of rationality by staying calm and pointing out the immaturity and hatred of The Amazing Atheist's video, and he is correct in doing so. Unfortunately, just like every argument of this type, nothing the Don says about TAA will validate what he got wrong in his explanation for why he believes in God. Arguments like these frequently distract and detract from the objective analysis about both sides and people can't filter beyond, "He looks like an angry asshole, while he stayed cool and, uber plus, is Christian like me."
What bugged me the most about this whole thing was the Don said something to the effect of, if you live your life by the gospels you'll be a happy person and I can't remember if he says outright that it's the best or true way to live, or just strongly implies that it is. Those kind of statements are the ones that keep us apart. When the cooler headed "rationalist" can still comfortably endorse the reliability of that ONE or BEST way to be happier. When the person who feels they are even meagerly trained in textual understanding can still swallow a puréed view of the bible instead of acknowledging the bad as bad and good as good, the damage is done. It is the very fact that DonExodus2 makes himself sound as intelligent has the rejects I suffer through, when it comes to explaining his belief, that reinforces my view that religion is one of the most destructive things we've ever concocted. It can take a well trained and helpful person and reduce them to a babbling idiot, even though that's the last thing you ever want to call them.
DonExodus2 is an evolutionary biologist, I have linked to his videos in my No More Excuses section, he is really good at giving major details about evolution and how to combat creationists and creationism. I respect, in a sense, what he is about and have learned much from his videos. With that said, he also considers himself a Christian and made a 2 part video explaining his views in response to subscribers that wanted to know. After watching his videos and reading people's comments I find myself both sad and happy. I'm sad because just like every last person, or frequent idiot as I call them, DonExodus2's completely sound explanations of science, turn to muck when he tries to explain why he believes in God, or more explicitly, why he lives by the gospels and believes them to be true. I'm happy because as I was taking notes to fact check him about when the gospels where compiles, and by who, and the 500 "witnesses" to Jesus's resurrection, I was able to read in the comments people who had already tried pointing out where he had gone wrong. If my computer had sound I would've watched the video responses because there was a lot more to be said and it is the reason I chose to write this.
A couple lines that you endlessly hear from theists in defense of a god or belief in general go as follows. "The apostles died for what they believed about Jesus, therefore it lends credence to his truth." "The difference between belief and knowledge allow for subjective evidence to support a view where the objective evidence is perhaps lacking or incomplete." "Many things cannot be tested empirically, but that does not mean they are wrong." "Don't quote mine the bible because some dreaded line was just part of a story or needs to be kept in context" All of these were used by DonExodus2.
To the first point, as Christopher Hitchens frequently points out, people have died, killed themselves, killed others for many reasons. Whether you believe your dieing for love, a god, or democracy, the act of you dying only proves your conviction, not the truth of the situation. I guess that by alluding to the apostles deaths, it is the people who feel less inclined to sacrifice so greatly, they then regard it so highly. The Don asks the question "What's the different between knowledge and belief?" The way he describes it seems to me like it is blurring the lines between the words. A simple example, I believe my nightstand is hard. My knowledge of particles tells me it is ever in flux and the word hard doesn't even make sense. I think his plan was to stay away from the word faith. Technically, I believe and acknowledge the empirical world around me 100%, whether or not my understanding of that world can be rated that high. It is faith, the ability to believe anything without justification, that fuels the word games and hides in the confusion. The line about many things being untestable, but not necessarily untrue, speaks back to the Russel's teapot and doesn't need to be explained.
The two that I think have the most confusion are his statements about the credibility of subjective evidence and the problem of quote mining. Don made stab at Sam Harris for taking a line from Jesus, who was apparently telling a story, that involved violence. I've had a few hang ups about the "context" objection for a long time, because the people who generally levy that charge don't understand people's inability to understand historical context, let alone the context within a context of an ancient story. I've watched Sam Harris in enough debates and talks to know what he was doing when he took that line and made a speech about it. He was showing what happens when all those who don't have even a basics in "theological understanding," as Don puts it, get a hold of the bible and run wild. It wasn't taking a line and using it to damn all Christians or condemn the "good" parts of the bible, as is what happens when an Islamic "extremist"(o do I hate that term) would do when making a comparison. Also, given the many times Dawkins and Meyers get quote mined and are completely portrayed as an angry loons, you'd think a more honest charge would be levied.
I think the part about the credence of subjective evidence is the worst bit. It just seems totally contradictory and disingenuous to be trained in science, give astounding videos that are backed with pictures, citations, and further resources, to then say when the evidence for a god isn't there or "can't be said," as he puts it, claim not only His truth, but the truth of the gospels, Jesus, etc. I've talked about the time when I was feeling super anxious and my stomach was sick with that butterfly feeling and I asked God in my head, if he felt what we felt and was always with us, was He suffering at this moment? Creepily, the instant I asked that feeling felt like it was sucked up into my chest and went away. Now back when I bought into religion and knew almost nothing about science, this was damn near Jesus showing up at my door. After further introspection, and nearly a year of learning, I came away with many more likely scenarios for why this would have happened. I absolutely hate when people think I don't understand how they so super strongly feel God's presence and can see him all over. For whatever reason I'm just a fool who can't appreciate the importance and truth of subjective experiences. I just don't understand such compelling feelings of a supernatural life force or love. A big fuck you to those people in light of what it took me to overcome it.
In response to the Don's video, The Amazing Atheist went on a pissed off rant prematurely about, what started off as, a few lines in the opening of the Don's video, and then trailed off into why The Amazing Atheist chose his Youtube handle. Just like every argument of this type, the Don gets to look like a beacon of rationality by staying calm and pointing out the immaturity and hatred of The Amazing Atheist's video, and he is correct in doing so. Unfortunately, just like every argument of this type, nothing the Don says about TAA will validate what he got wrong in his explanation for why he believes in God. Arguments like these frequently distract and detract from the objective analysis about both sides and people can't filter beyond, "He looks like an angry asshole, while he stayed cool and, uber plus, is Christian like me."
What bugged me the most about this whole thing was the Don said something to the effect of, if you live your life by the gospels you'll be a happy person and I can't remember if he says outright that it's the best or true way to live, or just strongly implies that it is. Those kind of statements are the ones that keep us apart. When the cooler headed "rationalist" can still comfortably endorse the reliability of that ONE or BEST way to be happier. When the person who feels they are even meagerly trained in textual understanding can still swallow a puréed view of the bible instead of acknowledging the bad as bad and good as good, the damage is done. It is the very fact that DonExodus2 makes himself sound as intelligent has the rejects I suffer through, when it comes to explaining his belief, that reinforces my view that religion is one of the most destructive things we've ever concocted. It can take a well trained and helpful person and reduce them to a babbling idiot, even though that's the last thing you ever want to call them.
