Eight days ago, we had a guest replier here on the Rational Reply and I mentioned a few things about the insanity that is Conservapedia. What is Conservapedia? We'll no amount of simple introduction of mine will suffice to truly explain the insanity that goes on there, but I'll give it a shot.
Imagine an encyclopedia where the actual stated goal is to be biased. Imagine an encyclopedia where all articles are filtered through one person. If he says that article is good, it is. If he says that article is bad, it is. Imagine an encyclopedia where people are banned regularly for the act of talking about the articles they are writing.
That can't possibly work, can it? Of course not. It's a flaming train wreck of site, a testimony to religious stupidity, and absolutely hilarious to read!
Today, we delve into one of their works - the Starlight Problem!
What is the Starlight Problem? Well, it's that pesky detail that Albert Einstein brought to our attention: the speed of light is a constant. Since we can measure that speed and we can measure the distance to various stars in the cosmos and we find that those things are more than 6,000 light years from Earth, anyone who believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old has a rather large problem on his hands. Rational people, on the other hand, don't have a problem at all.
Here is, and remember I'm not making this one up, Conservapedia's article addressing this "problem".
Starlight problem
The starlight problem, or starlight travel-time problem is an objection against the young-Earth creationist argument that the universe is only 6,000 years old, in which the age of the universe is based primarily on the Genesis narrative. The problem is that if the universe is only 6,000 years old, one has to explain how light from stars more than 6,000 light years from Earth has reached us in the time available.
This so feels like the Spanish Inquisition Monty Python skit!
* cheesy inquisitor voice *
The problem is how light reached us in only 6,000 years...and measuring the age of the universe from a religious book!
The problems are how light reached us in only 6,000 years, measuring the age of the universe from a religious book, and choosing the bible for that book!
The several problems are...how light reached us in only 6,000 years, measuring the age of the universe from a religious book, choosing the bible for that book, and not checking the accuracy of that book against the rest of the universe!
Amongst these issues are such diverse problems as how light reached us in only 6,000 years, measuring the age of the universe from a religious book, choosing the bible for that book, not checking the accuracy of that book against the rest of the universe, and actively making up bizzaro world theories that kinda, sorta fit in with that book!
Despite this frequently being put as an argument against young-Earth creationism, light travel time is also a problem for the Big Bang theory.
There's stuff we don't know about the Big Bang theory?!? That's it! Young Earth Creationism must be completely correct!
Creationists have proposed a number of solutions. The currently-favoured solutions involve time dilation, in which time passed slower on Earth than in other parts of the universe.
Okay! That makes perfect sense! It's not the ancient goat herders that were wrong, it's that time itself has been altered! It's all clear now.
The size of the universe
Big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it really is.
Using parallax calculations, the Milky Way galaxy alone can be directly observed to have a diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years. Calculations based on the observed brightness of supernovae of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a star cluster approximately thirteen billion light-years away from Earth, observed by the Hubble Telescope using gravitational lensing.
Although creationists have at times disputed the size of the universe, virtually none propose that it is less than 12,000 light years across.
That's a refreshing breath of sanity scented air!
Suggested solutions to the problem
That the book is wrong? Nah! What was I thinking?!?
Several solutions have been proposed by creationists to explain how a young universe may be reconciled with these observations.
* pulls up a chair *
* gets some Doritos *
Oh boy! I can't wait to hear this!
They also point out that there is a logical fallacy in the argument, as the observation that many stars are millions of light years away is one of distance, not time. No matter how reasonable, it is a deduction, not an observation, that the starlight from stars millions of light years away would have required millions of years to reach Earth.
All except for that pesky "speed of light in a vacuum is a constant" thing. Curse you, Albert!
Light created in transit
Some creationists have proposed that the light we see from stars more than 6,000 light years away was not emitted by those stars, but was created 'in transit' by God.
Godidit! But did he use His Noodly Appendage?
However, most creationists reject this explanation,
Because they're not completely stupid.
as the light contains images of events that would therefore never have actually happened, including supernovae, meaning that we are seeing an image of a star exploding, even though the star never existed. This would make the creator a deceiver.
And He would never invite us to the really good parties ever again. He's kind of vicious that way with a really, really, really long memory for those kinds of slights.
Moon-Spencer theory
Some creationists promoted an idea by Parry Moon and Domina Spencer that light somehow takes a shortcut through "Riemannian Space", taking no more than 15 years to reach Earth from the outer limits of the universe. However, this idea never really caught on and appears to no longer have adherents.
And is therefore included in this article for what reason?
Decrease in the speed of light
Creationist Barry Setterfield has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. This idea initially found wide acceptance by creationists, but is now widely rejected, although some still hold to the idea.
And, of course, an encyclopedia is the place to postulate widely discredited ideas.
One criticism of it by anticreationists
What is an anticreationist exactly? Is that anyone who disputes any creationist idea? Or is it a code word for evolutionist? Or perhaps a code word for scientist?
was that if the speed of light had changed, we should see the difference in the Fine Structure Constant as measured by nearby stars versus distant stars, but this was not observed. Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant may indeed have changed. They subsequently published this in Physical Review Letters. However, although this showed that mainstream scientists are prepared to entertain the idea of a change in the speed of light when it suits them, the size of the change did not provide specific support for Setterfield's idea.
In addition, there were other problems with the theory, leading most creationists to drop the idea, although some credit it with stimulating further research.
Which leaves us 0 for 4 with 4 strikeouts so far with the theories! And we're not saying that the scientists have rejected these ideas, it's the creationists that are saying they don't work!
Not to point out the breathtakingly obvious again, but if no one believes these theories - why are they in an alleged encyclopedia?
* knock knock knock *
UPS delivery man, sir!
* Front door opens *
Yes?
I have a letter for you from a Brother William of Ockham
Thank you!
* Opens the letter *
"Jim, thanks for taking the time to listen to the advice of a friar who's been dead for 660 years! The answer to your question is really, really simple. It's not really an encyclopedia.
Have fun watching the fireworks show tomorrow!
Brother Bill"
You know that guy is so helpful sometimes! He rocks!
Humphreys' model
In 1994 Dr. Russell Humphreys proposed a new cosmology that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger. In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a gravity well, meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.
As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of creation week were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe. According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".
This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.
By jove, this one is just wacko enough to confuse people who a) want to believe him and b) aren't actually scientists! Woot!
Time dilation field
Dr. John Hartnett, a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative time dilation model, by theorizing the Earth was in a time-dilation field during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. According to the Bible, God "stretched out" the heavens (space), and this movement during creation week caused time to travel faster for those objects, in accordance with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, adding to the time dilation caused by gravity, per Humphreys, in accordance with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
When all else fails, lets just go back to the old standard of the Earth being the center of the universe and really, really special!
Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory
Despite the use of the Starlight Problem in arguing against young-Earth creationism, the Big Bang theory has its own light travel problem, known as the horizon problem.
The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level).
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.
A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including several versions of an "inflationary model", in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light early in the Big Bang, but after different areas exchanged radiation to even out the temperature. However, there is no consensus on which explanation is correct, and each of the proposed solutions have their own problems.
Which is why the Cosmic Background Explorer's findings completely blow away the Big Bang theory! Oh wait a minute...they don't. It's data actually has shown a great fit with the predicted black body curve.
Still! It's not like they know everything! So that makes one thing crystal clear....Godidit! Yay! Is it time to declare victory and rush back to the church? Of course it is!
Showing posts with label Monty Python. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monty Python. Show all posts
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
A creationist answers our points...well one point...maybe
Our friend - and a saint no less! - Johnny enjoyed the fun we have here at the Rational Reply so much so that he decided to address the critical issue of what Monty Python song went with which movie while utterly glossing over the apparently worthless point of what constitutes a sign from God. Which is odd since it was the fundamental concept of his article in the first place!
So Saint Johnny, my good and noble dead purveyor of at least two miracles, here's your Rational Reply!
Par for the Course: Pot Shots from the Atheist Peanut Gallery
I loved this wacky ‘point by point’ response to a blog entry
Glad to hear it! We do aim to entertain here!
I wrote like 8 months ago.
There's this little secret about the internet. The stuff that's put onto it never, ever goes away and can be analyzed and built on months and even years later! I know this comes as a shock to anyone who is accustomed to things being built in six days and then never again changing and anyone who thinks that all of the answers that were written by ancient wandering tribes is 100% accurate and no new information is significant, but it's really true!
One already knows that he’s in for sarcastic inside jokes that miss the point when, in the first paragraph, the fellah says:
I've been promoted to "fellah". Sweet!
[Quoting Sntjohnny]I am reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s movie “The Life of Bryan” where a leper is healed and complains about it because it took away his livelihood of begging. Bryan replies “There’s just no pleasing some people!” and the Leper says, “That’s just what Jesus said!”[/end quote]
That’s a great movie! “Every sperm is Sacred” is an awesome song that just gets better and better the more I think about the truths that it hammers home. It rocks!
Of course, everyone knows that “Every sperm is Sacred” is not in the Life of Bryan. It’s in The Meaning of Life, as any true fan of Monty Python would know. Perhaps ‘Jim Rational’ picked up the skeptical reader to the Monty Python corpus. :)
Or went after a song that resonated with the subject at hand while segueing from the comment on Life of Brian. Either one.
And, I hesitate to mention this one, but please spell it Life of Brian, not Life of Bryan. Especially if you're going to question anyone's Python credentials. I'm just saying.
In typical fashion, Mr. Rational’s points resonate only with those who agree with him
No comment. I bow to your expertise in this particular field.
, and unless you can speak atheistese you’d never imagine that there was a point buried in his responses. I am fluent in atheistese, however.
So you'll be addressing these soon, right?
I will not respond in detail to a post
Shocked! Shocked I am that you're not bothering to explain lunacies such as having a Jesus that is not logically consistent, blithely reversing the scientific method, failing to see how atheists have morals, and claiming that someone who has been handed his morals on a platter isn't taking them for granted.
Gasp! Choke! No one saw that coming at all!
that is the epitome of preaching to the choir, but I will speak to one particular point where I think the man, despite crystal clear language on my part, missed the point.
Well, it's not as good as actually responding to the points above, but we'll take what we can get.
[Sntjohnny Quote]For example, I know an atheist who requested a sign from God. He received it. We spoke together on the phone about it. He was freaked out. After a few months he decided it wasn’t enough and that it was all probably a trick of the mind. Surely we can see how if God had done more or does more my friend can still chalk it up to a trick of the mind? Why should God give him what he wants when it won’t make him happy anyway?[/end quote]
Ah. I see your choice would be to write him off instead of trying to figure out what would convince him. Oh well. Too bad for you.
Ah, right. Let’s see. The man REQUESTED A SIGN FROM GOD. It isn’t brain surgery to ‘figure out what would convince him.’ The man himself asked for a sign, and he received it. Seriously, is this so difficult? I do hope that true rational Jims that are out there will pardon me for figuring that if a man asks for and receives a sign from God, but still isn’t convinced by that sign, my role in the matter is pretty limited. Indeed, about the only thing that I can do at that point is say, “Dude. You asked for a sign. You got it. What’s your problem?” Which, by the way, did say- though in kinder terms, as the gent is a friend.
The problem, Pussycat Jonathon, lies in what we believe that a sign from God actually is.
Faith healers, conjurers, ESP claimants, animal telepaths, and others of their ilk understand a particular basic human reality. That reality is that if you put someone in a context where they want to believe the insanity that you feed him, he will believe it. It's just that simple.
One important way to test this is to let the person out of that box, let him examine the realities of what he experienced in his own way without pressure and allow him to rationally review what really happened. Scientists, real ones who actually follow the scientific method, experience this as a matter of course by handing their findings over to other scientists for them to repeat the findings.
The description is far too lacking in detail, but here are just a few problems with your test:
The test subject talked to someone who wanted to convince him that there would be a sign from God. He didn't talk to anyone who would talk sense to him.
The test of "receive a sign from God" is laughably vague. Which one of a trillion coincidences did this prepared subject get freaked out about? I'm thinking it was at a Dairy Queen.
The test subject immediately called the person who prepared him to believe and received reinforcement. He didn't talk to anyone else. Getting prepared by someone to interpret random things in a particular way and then getting reinforced by that same person is what we call "bias". And that's the nice term for it. That's a really bad thing if you're trying to draw conclusions that actually match up to the real world. This test that you speak of belongs on the Lame List.
By the way, if your friend really received an undeniable sign from God that can stand up to actual test protocols, James Randi has a million dollars for him. Even if he doesn't need the money, I'm sure he has a charity that can use the cash. Go for it!
My hats off to you, Rational Jim! More proof that no Christian ever worry that there is any reason to worry about the challenges of the atheistic community! Peace, homeslice.
And peace to you, my good friend! But please, the name is Jim Rational. And thanks for demonstrating that no scientist need ever worry about rational challenges from your quarter!
So Saint Johnny, my good and noble dead purveyor of at least two miracles, here's your Rational Reply!
Par for the Course: Pot Shots from the Atheist Peanut Gallery
I loved this wacky ‘point by point’ response to a blog entry
Glad to hear it! We do aim to entertain here!
I wrote like 8 months ago.
There's this little secret about the internet. The stuff that's put onto it never, ever goes away and can be analyzed and built on months and even years later! I know this comes as a shock to anyone who is accustomed to things being built in six days and then never again changing and anyone who thinks that all of the answers that were written by ancient wandering tribes is 100% accurate and no new information is significant, but it's really true!
One already knows that he’s in for sarcastic inside jokes that miss the point when, in the first paragraph, the fellah says:
I've been promoted to "fellah". Sweet!
[Quoting Sntjohnny]I am reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s movie “The Life of Bryan” where a leper is healed and complains about it because it took away his livelihood of begging. Bryan replies “There’s just no pleasing some people!” and the Leper says, “That’s just what Jesus said!”[/end quote]
That’s a great movie! “Every sperm is Sacred” is an awesome song that just gets better and better the more I think about the truths that it hammers home. It rocks!
Of course, everyone knows that “Every sperm is Sacred” is not in the Life of Bryan. It’s in The Meaning of Life, as any true fan of Monty Python would know. Perhaps ‘Jim Rational’ picked up the skeptical reader to the Monty Python corpus. :)
Or went after a song that resonated with the subject at hand while segueing from the comment on Life of Brian. Either one.
And, I hesitate to mention this one, but please spell it Life of Brian, not Life of Bryan. Especially if you're going to question anyone's Python credentials. I'm just saying.
In typical fashion, Mr. Rational’s points resonate only with those who agree with him
No comment. I bow to your expertise in this particular field.
, and unless you can speak atheistese you’d never imagine that there was a point buried in his responses. I am fluent in atheistese, however.
So you'll be addressing these soon, right?
I will not respond in detail to a post
Shocked! Shocked I am that you're not bothering to explain lunacies such as having a Jesus that is not logically consistent, blithely reversing the scientific method, failing to see how atheists have morals, and claiming that someone who has been handed his morals on a platter isn't taking them for granted.
Gasp! Choke! No one saw that coming at all!
that is the epitome of preaching to the choir, but I will speak to one particular point where I think the man, despite crystal clear language on my part, missed the point.
Well, it's not as good as actually responding to the points above, but we'll take what we can get.
[Sntjohnny Quote]For example, I know an atheist who requested a sign from God. He received it. We spoke together on the phone about it. He was freaked out. After a few months he decided it wasn’t enough and that it was all probably a trick of the mind. Surely we can see how if God had done more or does more my friend can still chalk it up to a trick of the mind? Why should God give him what he wants when it won’t make him happy anyway?[/end quote]
Ah. I see your choice would be to write him off instead of trying to figure out what would convince him. Oh well. Too bad for you.
Ah, right. Let’s see. The man REQUESTED A SIGN FROM GOD. It isn’t brain surgery to ‘figure out what would convince him.’ The man himself asked for a sign, and he received it. Seriously, is this so difficult? I do hope that true rational Jims that are out there will pardon me for figuring that if a man asks for and receives a sign from God, but still isn’t convinced by that sign, my role in the matter is pretty limited. Indeed, about the only thing that I can do at that point is say, “Dude. You asked for a sign. You got it. What’s your problem?” Which, by the way, did say- though in kinder terms, as the gent is a friend.
The problem, Pussycat Jonathon, lies in what we believe that a sign from God actually is.
Faith healers, conjurers, ESP claimants, animal telepaths, and others of their ilk understand a particular basic human reality. That reality is that if you put someone in a context where they want to believe the insanity that you feed him, he will believe it. It's just that simple.
One important way to test this is to let the person out of that box, let him examine the realities of what he experienced in his own way without pressure and allow him to rationally review what really happened. Scientists, real ones who actually follow the scientific method, experience this as a matter of course by handing their findings over to other scientists for them to repeat the findings.
The description is far too lacking in detail, but here are just a few problems with your test:
The test subject talked to someone who wanted to convince him that there would be a sign from God. He didn't talk to anyone who would talk sense to him.
The test of "receive a sign from God" is laughably vague. Which one of a trillion coincidences did this prepared subject get freaked out about? I'm thinking it was at a Dairy Queen.
The test subject immediately called the person who prepared him to believe and received reinforcement. He didn't talk to anyone else. Getting prepared by someone to interpret random things in a particular way and then getting reinforced by that same person is what we call "bias". And that's the nice term for it. That's a really bad thing if you're trying to draw conclusions that actually match up to the real world. This test that you speak of belongs on the Lame List.
By the way, if your friend really received an undeniable sign from God that can stand up to actual test protocols, James Randi has a million dollars for him. Even if he doesn't need the money, I'm sure he has a charity that can use the cash. Go for it!
My hats off to you, Rational Jim! More proof that no Christian ever worry that there is any reason to worry about the challenges of the atheistic community! Peace, homeslice.
And peace to you, my good friend! But please, the name is Jim Rational. And thanks for demonstrating that no scientist need ever worry about rational challenges from your quarter!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
You can't always get what you want
Our good and noble friends over here have penned a complaint about atheists not being decisive about Mr. Christ. Enjoy!
One of the things that really irks me is when a person can’t be pleased no matter what you give them. I am reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s movie “The Life of Bryan” where a leper is healed and complains about it because it took away his livelihood of begging. Bryan replies “There’s just no pleasing some people!” and the Leper says, “That’s just what Jesus said!”
That’s a great movie! “Every sperm is Sacred” is an awesome song that just gets better and better the more I think about the truths that it hammers home. It rocks!
If you can’t please someone no matter what you give them, for my own part I tend to stop trying to please them at all. At the very least, when confronted with such behavior, I tend to view it as marked irrationality. I do not feel threatened by people’s arguments if they can’t say what will satisfy them.
I agree! When my son says he wants a Tool CD and I get it for him and he’s not happy about it, I really don’t feel like getting him the next thing that he says he wants. Of course, when he says that he wants a “good CD” and I get him Tito Pointe’s Greatest Hits and he’s not happy, it’s probably because there was some confusion on what makes for a “good CD”.
So I could just write him off as never being happy or try to figure out what a “good CD” is. I know what my choice would be!
For example, I know an atheist who requested a sign from God. He received it. We spoke together on the phone about it. He was freaked out. After a few months he decided it wasn’t enough and that it was all probably a trick of the mind. Surely we can see how if God had done more or does more my friend can still chalk it up to a trick of the mind? Why should God give him what he wants when it won’t make him happy anyway?
Ah. I see your choice would be to write him off instead of trying to figure out what would convince him. Oh well. Too bad for you.
Such themes have come to my mind again as I read the Phillip Pullman trilogy for an eventual review. I am through book 2 beginning book 3 and I am curious as all get out to see if ‘Jesus’ enters the scene, but already I have seen him describe- with approval- behavior that in other places I have heard atheists despise. There is no way I can go deep into it right now. As a brief example, consider Pullman’s approval of bravery, courage, and even the use of lethal force under certain conditions.
Now compare that with an exchange I had recently with an atheist who, because I granted him superhero status and the title “Hyperbole Boy”
Oh boy! *sits down with a big smile*
I can’t wait to hear the story of how you faced off against someone else on the internet who was just WRONG and showed him the error of his ways!
These stories are so much fun!
has concluded that there is no better example of a Christian being unloving, for, after all (and he cites passages), Jesus was so nice. This sort of disproportionate response to what I said is exactly why I gave him the name “Hyperbole Boy.”
As disproportionate as dubbing someone “Hyperbole Boy” and coming to your own site and crowing about it?
But perhaps my atheistic friend is unaware of instances where Jesus went well beyond such playful jabs. For example, he calls the Pharisees Sons of Satan and Whitewashed Tombs. In Matt 23 he calls them snakes and a brood of vipers. And of course, we all remember his ‘cleansing’ of the temple- probably twice. My atheistic friend acts as though if I had played it completely straight he would have considered Christianity more credible. Is it his view that Jesus was a panzy? Do people find Christianity attractive because its founder was a wuss?
At the same time, we often hear complaints about conduct in the Bible where people are wiped out and killed wholesale. We aren’t usually given the reasons, but we are told that it is just. This is considered a perfect example of how religion is evil. But it is, in fact, the same sort of argumentation we see in Pullman’s books, where so long as the cause is just, the violence is justified under certain conditions.
Zzzzzzzzz…huh? Oh I’m sorry, I fell asleep there. Where were we?
The fact is, the reason why Jesus is compelling is not that he was a sissy pacifist, but rather that he was overwhelmingly mighty, but, to accomplish a particular deed, he set aside his aggressiveness and took whatever was thrown at him. He could have overthrown the gates of Hades by force, but only by laying down his arms did he not only defeat Hades but also freed its prisoners.
Which Hades were we talking about? Did the writers of Christian and Greek mythology have a crossover issue where Jesus wooed Persephone and had a battle royal against Hades for control of the underworld and the hand of the fair maiden?
I’m bummed that I missed that issue. It sounds good!
When a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows, all except a handful of Ayn Randian objectivists applaud his valor. Here, to save his fellows it would have done no good to charge out of the trench when the grenade tumbled in and kill those who tossed the grenade. Here, only self-sacrifice could achieve the goal, but it did not follow that the soldier was soft and tender in spirit. You see, it depends a great deal on the circumstances and what one wants to achieve. There is a time for aggressiveness but there is also a time for meekness. The problem is knowing exactly which time it is. (Ecc. 3)
Yep, knowing when the right time to do the right thing is hard. Thank you for writing an article about that!…
Or did you write an article about people who aren’t happy no matter what you do for them? Why are we here again?
I think most of us agree that there is a time for negotiation and a time for action.
Controversial to the core, you are!
The time to have persuaded Hitler was years before WW2,
I don’t think Hitler could have been persuaded, but I get your point here.
and when it was clear that the time for persuasion was over, the pacifist Dietrich Bonhoeffer realized that to pursue justice and mercy it would mean trying to kill Hitler. Do we really think Roosevelt was being ‘unchristian’ because he went to war against Hitler? Should he have endlessly spoken in soft terms? Would we think of FDR as a great war time president if he had?
Odd question since if FDR had done so then he wouldn’t have been a wartime president. How does this fit with people not being happy again?
Atheists are going to have to make up their minds. Do they want a Jesus meek and mild? Or do they want a Jesus that administers justice? But they complain when we hear about justice being administered and likewise they complain that it was sadism for God to punish his own son.
That’s an even odder question since its Christians who want a Jesus in the first place. He’s your savior after all. All atheists want is some truth from the Christians that is self consistent, fits with what we see in the real world, and doesn’t just mean whatever someone else wants it to mean ip post facto.
But Pullman gives it all away: The truth is that there is a balance. The problem is how do we discover that balance.
That would be to make a theory, check that theory against reality, and then adjust that theory in accordance with the observations. That’s pretty much the way we discover everything.
The argument is over what world view best explains the fact that there is a balance at all.
So your idea is to start with a “world view” and explain how that view is a good idea? Okay, but you’re not going to discover much that way.
I see no reason at all to expect atheism to explain why such moral realities exist.
That’s fine. Atheism does explain why moral realities exist, but you’re free not to expect it.
I expect them only to take them for granted and use them when it suits them to judge God, Jesus, and yes, of course, Christians.
Ding! Ding!
In the red corner, we have a person who has been simply handed a set of rules and told to follow them without evidence. He does so.
In the blue corner, we have a person who spends years looking at himself and his society, deriving the reasons why people should behave in a good and decent way and why that personally works for him.
Which one is taking something for granted?
One of the things that really irks me is when a person can’t be pleased no matter what you give them. I am reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s movie “The Life of Bryan” where a leper is healed and complains about it because it took away his livelihood of begging. Bryan replies “There’s just no pleasing some people!” and the Leper says, “That’s just what Jesus said!”
That’s a great movie! “Every sperm is Sacred” is an awesome song that just gets better and better the more I think about the truths that it hammers home. It rocks!
If you can’t please someone no matter what you give them, for my own part I tend to stop trying to please them at all. At the very least, when confronted with such behavior, I tend to view it as marked irrationality. I do not feel threatened by people’s arguments if they can’t say what will satisfy them.
I agree! When my son says he wants a Tool CD and I get it for him and he’s not happy about it, I really don’t feel like getting him the next thing that he says he wants. Of course, when he says that he wants a “good CD” and I get him Tito Pointe’s Greatest Hits and he’s not happy, it’s probably because there was some confusion on what makes for a “good CD”.
So I could just write him off as never being happy or try to figure out what a “good CD” is. I know what my choice would be!
For example, I know an atheist who requested a sign from God. He received it. We spoke together on the phone about it. He was freaked out. After a few months he decided it wasn’t enough and that it was all probably a trick of the mind. Surely we can see how if God had done more or does more my friend can still chalk it up to a trick of the mind? Why should God give him what he wants when it won’t make him happy anyway?
Ah. I see your choice would be to write him off instead of trying to figure out what would convince him. Oh well. Too bad for you.
Such themes have come to my mind again as I read the Phillip Pullman trilogy for an eventual review. I am through book 2 beginning book 3 and I am curious as all get out to see if ‘Jesus’ enters the scene, but already I have seen him describe- with approval- behavior that in other places I have heard atheists despise. There is no way I can go deep into it right now. As a brief example, consider Pullman’s approval of bravery, courage, and even the use of lethal force under certain conditions.
Now compare that with an exchange I had recently with an atheist who, because I granted him superhero status and the title “Hyperbole Boy”
Oh boy! *sits down with a big smile*
I can’t wait to hear the story of how you faced off against someone else on the internet who was just WRONG and showed him the error of his ways!
These stories are so much fun!
has concluded that there is no better example of a Christian being unloving, for, after all (and he cites passages), Jesus was so nice. This sort of disproportionate response to what I said is exactly why I gave him the name “Hyperbole Boy.”
As disproportionate as dubbing someone “Hyperbole Boy” and coming to your own site and crowing about it?
But perhaps my atheistic friend is unaware of instances where Jesus went well beyond such playful jabs. For example, he calls the Pharisees Sons of Satan and Whitewashed Tombs. In Matt 23 he calls them snakes and a brood of vipers. And of course, we all remember his ‘cleansing’ of the temple- probably twice. My atheistic friend acts as though if I had played it completely straight he would have considered Christianity more credible. Is it his view that Jesus was a panzy? Do people find Christianity attractive because its founder was a wuss?
At the same time, we often hear complaints about conduct in the Bible where people are wiped out and killed wholesale. We aren’t usually given the reasons, but we are told that it is just. This is considered a perfect example of how religion is evil. But it is, in fact, the same sort of argumentation we see in Pullman’s books, where so long as the cause is just, the violence is justified under certain conditions.
Zzzzzzzzz…huh? Oh I’m sorry, I fell asleep there. Where were we?
The fact is, the reason why Jesus is compelling is not that he was a sissy pacifist, but rather that he was overwhelmingly mighty, but, to accomplish a particular deed, he set aside his aggressiveness and took whatever was thrown at him. He could have overthrown the gates of Hades by force, but only by laying down his arms did he not only defeat Hades but also freed its prisoners.
Which Hades were we talking about? Did the writers of Christian and Greek mythology have a crossover issue where Jesus wooed Persephone and had a battle royal against Hades for control of the underworld and the hand of the fair maiden?
I’m bummed that I missed that issue. It sounds good!
When a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows, all except a handful of Ayn Randian objectivists applaud his valor. Here, to save his fellows it would have done no good to charge out of the trench when the grenade tumbled in and kill those who tossed the grenade. Here, only self-sacrifice could achieve the goal, but it did not follow that the soldier was soft and tender in spirit. You see, it depends a great deal on the circumstances and what one wants to achieve. There is a time for aggressiveness but there is also a time for meekness. The problem is knowing exactly which time it is. (Ecc. 3)
Yep, knowing when the right time to do the right thing is hard. Thank you for writing an article about that!…
Or did you write an article about people who aren’t happy no matter what you do for them? Why are we here again?
I think most of us agree that there is a time for negotiation and a time for action.
Controversial to the core, you are!
The time to have persuaded Hitler was years before WW2,
I don’t think Hitler could have been persuaded, but I get your point here.
and when it was clear that the time for persuasion was over, the pacifist Dietrich Bonhoeffer realized that to pursue justice and mercy it would mean trying to kill Hitler. Do we really think Roosevelt was being ‘unchristian’ because he went to war against Hitler? Should he have endlessly spoken in soft terms? Would we think of FDR as a great war time president if he had?
Odd question since if FDR had done so then he wouldn’t have been a wartime president. How does this fit with people not being happy again?
Atheists are going to have to make up their minds. Do they want a Jesus meek and mild? Or do they want a Jesus that administers justice? But they complain when we hear about justice being administered and likewise they complain that it was sadism for God to punish his own son.
That’s an even odder question since its Christians who want a Jesus in the first place. He’s your savior after all. All atheists want is some truth from the Christians that is self consistent, fits with what we see in the real world, and doesn’t just mean whatever someone else wants it to mean ip post facto.
But Pullman gives it all away: The truth is that there is a balance. The problem is how do we discover that balance.
That would be to make a theory, check that theory against reality, and then adjust that theory in accordance with the observations. That’s pretty much the way we discover everything.
The argument is over what world view best explains the fact that there is a balance at all.
So your idea is to start with a “world view” and explain how that view is a good idea? Okay, but you’re not going to discover much that way.
I see no reason at all to expect atheism to explain why such moral realities exist.
That’s fine. Atheism does explain why moral realities exist, but you’re free not to expect it.
I expect them only to take them for granted and use them when it suits them to judge God, Jesus, and yes, of course, Christians.
Ding! Ding!
In the red corner, we have a person who has been simply handed a set of rules and told to follow them without evidence. He does so.
In the blue corner, we have a person who spends years looking at himself and his society, deriving the reasons why people should behave in a good and decent way and why that personally works for him.
Which one is taking something for granted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)