| Evicerating idiots |
[Mar. 11th, 2008|01:30 am] |
I haven't posted a good anti-fundy post in a long time. I don't know if this one's going to be an actual "good" one, but it's just some stuff that I've had on my mind, so you may enjoy these little anecdotes.
1. Presuppositionalists Don't Care About Science
God damn, Christian presuppositionalism sucks. Presuppositionalism went from being what I believed to be the most competent defense of religion to being one of the most basically stupid, and I think even some of the theists I know would agree. See, the average Christian in this country would not find it very palletable, which is why you tend not to find presuppositionalism as prevelant as, say, intelligent design.
A presuppositionalist apologetic is designed exclusively to defend an extreme Biblical literalist point-of-view. That means that if you're a moderate, you're getting thrown under the bus and being classed an atheist. Yeah, it's that nutty. But, don't worry, because the entire premise is based on a false dichotomy between two worldviews, the atheist and the Christian, and the atheist one is a strawman, anyway. Believe me. I'm an atheist, and I know when someone's just making shit up about my worldview.
The jist of the argument is that the fundamentalist, Bible-literal Christian worldview is internally consistant and objective while the "materialist atheist" one is purely arbitrary. He then tries to suggest that the use of cognative faculties, such as logic, reason, and science, can only follow from the internally consistant worldview. Since the presupper has (incorrectly) assumed that the atheist worldview is arbitrary, he objects to any appeal to science or reason.
The error is that the presuppositionalist assumes that worldviews are based on authority, so he tries to make it a head-to-head contest between the mind of God and the mind of man. Of course, most sane people don't appeal to authority when using logic and reason. They appeal to the real world. He also makes the same basic blunder as the creationist by assuming that you somehow have to know the origin of the universe and all its constances in order to infer things logically, but there's absolutely no reason to assume this. After all, the whole point of employing logic and science is to find out what we don't know. It's like the presuppositionalist is blaming the non-believers and moderates for not having omniscience enough to have a complete understanding of how his world works.
And that is basically why presuppositionalism is wrong.
So now that I've given you a refresher, I had a thought that kind of amused me. See, the argument of the presuppositionalist is basically a way to monopolize the ability to appeal to logic, reason, and science. He'll insist that he can do it with his worldview, but the rest of us can't. So I started to think, why doesn't he do that, then?
Seriously, if the fundamentalist Bible-thumping presupper really has such a monopoly on science and reason, then he should be able to apply it within the context of his worldview and demonstrate how the fundy worldview actually works when using evidence to reach a conclusion. For example, there ought be a really simple way to explain why the fossil record is really just rubbish. In fact, he should have no trouble at all, aside from funding and man power (i.e., lame excuses! When has religion ever had a problem with funding?!), to go out to Montana and show that dinosaurs and mastadons can, in fact, be found in the same rock beds together. If the stratification of geography actually happened in the flood, then he should be able to embrace the so-called "sciences" of creationism or intelligent design and demonstrate their validity without much effort.
...But he doesn't do that. Despite claiming to have a worldview from which science and reason follow, I've never seen a presupper actually apply reason and science in any demonstratable way. And yes, I'm making a materialistic demand, but goddammit, he ought to be able to do it! What a coo that would be to actually demonstrate the alleged interal consistency of the fundy Christian worldview.
But not only do they not do it, they go well out of their way to avoid doing so. And you know why? It's because they know they're full of shit, and they know that their pitifully archaic fundamentalist beliefs won't reaffirm themselves in scientific experiments. They attempt to monopolize science and reason so that they can put it in a cookie jar and store it up on a high shelf where they think nobody else can reach. As long as they assume that they have the rest of us at an epistemological checkmate, they won't worry about whether or not science actually works in a fundamentalist Christian worldview.
...because they know they're wrong, but they don't care.
2. New Sins! ...says the Vatican!
Did you hear about this? Apparently, the Vatican has decided that the Bible actually can be dated, which I find hilarious. So much for the Bible being a cutting edge science book that's supposedly always been years ahead of human progress. The Vatican seems to believe that they need to add some new 21-century sins to the traditional ten. Where'd these extra commandments come from? I don't know. Did God send Pope Eggs Benedict a memo that there are some new mortal sins he wanted to try out?
Or maybe these "new" ones are every bit as eternal, but they were lost somehow. Maybe this is what happened to them...
Anyway, pollution is one of the new ones. Rather appropriate, because just like all the other sins, it's absolutely impossible to avoid doing it. I mean, unless you live somewhere that doesn't use electricity or natural gas, you're pretty much doing this 24/7.
Even if we overlook that, could imagine the influx of confessions at Catholic churches? "Forgive me father for I have sinned. I drove my SUV to work this week, and nobody was car pooling with me." "That'll be twenty hail Maries and ride your bike from now on, ya jerk!"
Another new sin is genetic manipulation. Fuck! There goes our aggriculture!
And naturally, drugs are in there, too. I'm sure they'll be happy to arbitrarily differentiate which drugs they're talking about. They're only talking about those mind-altering ones that you buy in the street, and not those prescription ones that you take for your depression. ...oh wait. Of course, I'm sure you'll still be allowed to drink your wine with your wafer, so don't worry about that one, either.
I'm noticing that this list is particularly leaning toward the left, which is refreshing in a way, but still kind of annoying. I'm surprised there isn't a gun control sin.
Oh well, at least evolution wasn't in there, for once.
Here's a rather amusing article about it: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/79254/
3. Making Intelligent Design People Cry
So, you know that the "Expelled" movie is being released soon. Of course, I've had to smack around these idiots who are like, "You can't say anything bad about this movie until you actually see it!". What a stupid thing to say. Of course I can say bad stuff about it. For one thing, if the premise of the movie wrong, then I'm certainly allowed to sweep the rug right out from underneith it without so much as having to see a minute of actual film.
The premise of the film is that "Big Science" is being intollerant and suppressive of new ideas. Obviously rubbish, because we live in a society where anyone can pretty much publish anything these days. The advent of the blog has made it quite simple for people of all ilk to share new ideas. There's nothing a scientist or a group of scientists could do to stop this information exchange.
The problem is that intelligent design is not science, and ID people don't like hearing that. Ben Stein complains in this new movie that the scientific establishment is not being accepting of intelligent design, as if being critical and skeptical are such bad things. If you've seen the poster for the movie, then you've seen Ben Stein decked out in school garb, ala Angus Young, with the tag line that innovations in science are lead by rebels.
If you encounter anyone who attempts to use this reasoning on you, simply point out to them that the rebels Ben Stein is referring to (Einstein, e.g.) didn't have to cheat by making a political demonstration out of the whole issue. In fact, politely remind this person that visciously attacking new ideas is what science is supposed to do. If intelligent design was given a free pass of acceptance, then it would be tremendously UNfair to every other theory of science, including those that intelligent design advocates allegedly support.
Basically, the entire premise of Ben Stein's new movie is that science is being a great big bully by not granting credence to naked assertions. Ben Stein believes that naked assertions should be given credibility. Ben Stein is wrong. |
|
|
