So in the past few weeks there have been more tales of "atheists" converting to Christianity. Like in the overwhelming majority of such instances, they are full of shit. The brief Christianity Today piece on Charlie Mackesy is so loaded with red flags its amazing that anyone would fall for such tripe. I'll stick with the two of the more blatant bits of nonsense. Mackesy talks about two separate and quite distinct incidences that he claims "turned away from atheism and embraced Christ." Given that he only converted from atheism to Christianity once how can both stories be the turning point that brought him to Jesus? Yet, that is how he tells both stories. This is, of course, without even looking at how foolish the details of each story happen to be. The other problem with his loss of "atheism" stem from his lack of understanding of either atheism or theism. He seems to confuse his misunderstanding with what religion is in general versus specific organized religions with an actual lack of religious beliefs. He talks about why he didn't want to be Christian prior to his supposed conversion. There's not only no reason to believe he lacked any religious belief, there are plenty of reasons to assume he held a variety of them that he simply didn't want labeled in any way. Basically, he fell for, in part, the false dichotomy of religious versus spiritual. He assumed he was an "atheist" since he didn't identify with a specific organized faith.
Then there's the professional bullshitter, Mark Bauerlein. Given his role at First Things and that rags track record of highly misleading and/or outright fabrications there is no reason to trust anything the man claims. It is also notable that though prior to his supposed conversion there is plenty of writing by which he could have been labeled either liberal or libertarian there is absolutely nothing to indicate he was an atheist. The only sources that can be found on this conversion is Mark himself. And, again, given his inclination to push various ideologically driven narratives with little support it is far safer to assume he has made it up. Unlike Mackesy, he does not seem to be confused about the terminology involved or the underlying meaning(s) of each term. He is just a deceitful prick looking to push a story that advances his own current interests.
Showing posts with label False Dichotomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Dichotomy. Show all posts
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Sunday, August 21, 2016
More Mind-Body bullshit
Charles Camosy gets a few things right in a round about way in his "You are not your brain: Why a head transplant is not what you think it is." A head transplant would have limited practical application and would involve a number of medical and ethical questions. However, the basic premise he seems to be operating from is not only non-sensical crap it is demonstrably false. You are your brain. The mind is not separate. The mind is created by the brain. Though we may not fully understand how consciousness emerges it is clear that the mind is a product of the brain. With roughly a hundred years of observation, testing and experiments there is no reason to doubt the conclusion that everything we are as individuals is created by the brain. The mind-brain dichotomy is both false and willfully ignorant.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
It's a twofer!
While reading online a recently posted interview at Christian Century I could not stop laughing. The combination of two ridiculous approaches created such an absurd tapestry of nonsensical bullshit I had to laugh. David Heim's interview with Francis Spufford, "Right-brained apologetics", is so surreal I can't begin to think of how to adequately describe it. I will just state the main premise and then leave it to others to read.
Spufford insists that apologetics as a whole relies far too much on reason and rationality. He believes that injecting more emotion/sentimentality into the field is necessary. Seriously! I'm not kidding. He really believes that apologetics is based on reason.
It's fucking hilarious! Keeping in mind the title and it's allusions to the false right brain-left brain dichotomy just adds to the unintended humor. Though, I would caution readers not to apply too much reason of their own. If you think about it in any meaningful way it could lead to the opposite effect. Once I did re-read it I was a bit depressed. That people can be this idiotic is rather disheartening. So, it's better to laugh than cry. Read it once for its absurd humor and move on.
Spufford insists that apologetics as a whole relies far too much on reason and rationality. He believes that injecting more emotion/sentimentality into the field is necessary. Seriously! I'm not kidding. He really believes that apologetics is based on reason.
It's fucking hilarious! Keeping in mind the title and it's allusions to the false right brain-left brain dichotomy just adds to the unintended humor. Though, I would caution readers not to apply too much reason of their own. If you think about it in any meaningful way it could lead to the opposite effect. Once I did re-read it I was a bit depressed. That people can be this idiotic is rather disheartening. So, it's better to laugh than cry. Read it once for its absurd humor and move on.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
3 for 3, Superficially
Geoffrey Mitelman's huffpo piece "3 Major Stumbling Blocks in the Science and Religion Debate" does identify some legitimate points. He just does it in a half-assed manner. The three stumbling blocks are definitely issues but not to the degree or reasons he seems to think.
His three are; 1. We create a false dichotomy, 2. Offense makes people play defense, and 3. Strawman arguments.
On 1, it is true that the debate between science and religion is a false dichotomy but not because individuals can reconcile them in their own minds. I've commented on this aspect before. It is a false dichotomy for two reasons. People are usually talking about different things when they argue with each other about science and/or religion. Until those arguing come to a common set of definitions there can be no discussion or debate at all. The notion of a "dichotomy" is irrelevant until those involved can actually talk about the topics at hand. The other problem is the implication that the two are somehow on equal footing. They are not. Even if theists think religion is more important than science their own behaviors and manner of argument belie such a stance. Try going about your day to day life without the benefit of science. Strip away all the technological advances we rely on and never even think about making use of any medical treatment/remedies. You can't do it! You can, however, easily go about your life without any aspect of religion. Despite what people claim, they do rely on, for example, gravity working. Do they rely on prayer?
His second point is warped in some rather telling ways. Mitelman focuses on how atheists offend theists. It never seems to occur to him that this is a blatant double standard. He also fails to account for the highly subjective nature of "offense." It should also be pointed out that whether the intention is to offend another is an important element. Not to Mitelman. His own primary example makes it clear that he is not as interested in open honest discussion as he says he is. It presents the "Reason Rally" in a rather negative way. He disregards that it was for a specific set of individuals and groups. The "quote" he uses is not attributed and is actually a phrase ("mock [you], ridicule [you], in public, with contempt.") not a complete sentence. Who said it? To whom? What is the subject? What was the context? There is nothing in it but what Mitelman himself implies about it. I agree that intentionally going out of your way to offend others is pointless and stupid. That does not mean we should be concerned that others are offend as a result of legitimate criticism, discussion, or debate.
Mitelman's last point is probably the best but once again he doesn't apply what he states to his own thinking. For instance, "On the other side, religion is much more varied and nuanced than 'follow the rules handed down by an invisible Father Figure in the sky.'" This is a strawman. He seems to think that the atheists who mock believers with the silly notion of a sky daddy actually believe that all theist think of God solely in that manner. They don't. Notice he again leaves out any attribution. I am certain that if he named an individual or group I could find ample evidence that they have criticized religion in a variety of ways that go beyond that one quip.
Despite bringing up some legitimate points the piece fails miserably. I got the distinct impression that it was written more to justify his own self-righteousness than for any other purpose.
His three are; 1. We create a false dichotomy, 2. Offense makes people play defense, and 3. Strawman arguments.
On 1, it is true that the debate between science and religion is a false dichotomy but not because individuals can reconcile them in their own minds. I've commented on this aspect before. It is a false dichotomy for two reasons. People are usually talking about different things when they argue with each other about science and/or religion. Until those arguing come to a common set of definitions there can be no discussion or debate at all. The notion of a "dichotomy" is irrelevant until those involved can actually talk about the topics at hand. The other problem is the implication that the two are somehow on equal footing. They are not. Even if theists think religion is more important than science their own behaviors and manner of argument belie such a stance. Try going about your day to day life without the benefit of science. Strip away all the technological advances we rely on and never even think about making use of any medical treatment/remedies. You can't do it! You can, however, easily go about your life without any aspect of religion. Despite what people claim, they do rely on, for example, gravity working. Do they rely on prayer?
His second point is warped in some rather telling ways. Mitelman focuses on how atheists offend theists. It never seems to occur to him that this is a blatant double standard. He also fails to account for the highly subjective nature of "offense." It should also be pointed out that whether the intention is to offend another is an important element. Not to Mitelman. His own primary example makes it clear that he is not as interested in open honest discussion as he says he is. It presents the "Reason Rally" in a rather negative way. He disregards that it was for a specific set of individuals and groups. The "quote" he uses is not attributed and is actually a phrase ("mock [you], ridicule [you], in public, with contempt.") not a complete sentence. Who said it? To whom? What is the subject? What was the context? There is nothing in it but what Mitelman himself implies about it. I agree that intentionally going out of your way to offend others is pointless and stupid. That does not mean we should be concerned that others are offend as a result of legitimate criticism, discussion, or debate.
Mitelman's last point is probably the best but once again he doesn't apply what he states to his own thinking. For instance, "On the other side, religion is much more varied and nuanced than 'follow the rules handed down by an invisible Father Figure in the sky.'" This is a strawman. He seems to think that the atheists who mock believers with the silly notion of a sky daddy actually believe that all theist think of God solely in that manner. They don't. Notice he again leaves out any attribution. I am certain that if he named an individual or group I could find ample evidence that they have criticized religion in a variety of ways that go beyond that one quip.
Despite bringing up some legitimate points the piece fails miserably. I got the distinct impression that it was written more to justify his own self-righteousness than for any other purpose.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
A Religion onto Himself
Just recently I watched one of the most ridiculous talks I've ever seen on TED Talks. Most of the talks I've seen there are well done. Even when I strongly disagree with the speaker I am generally impressed with the presentation. Alain de Botton's "Atheism 2.0" was pathetic in every possible way. It not only was premised on old myths, misconceptions, and falsehoods it was not even presented well. de Botton actually negated most of the points he tried to make in the course of his talk within the first few minutes of the Q&A portion.
There was a brief moment at the beginning where I felt as if he might have something interesting to contribute. Opening with the statement that he had a "new way of being an atheist" certainly got my attention. Within a few minutes he set a quite different and disappointing tone. He implied, rather strongly, that in order to have a sense of morals and community and to appreciate art and literature people need religion. Utter nonsense. If this were even partially true how could atheist artists exist? And what about the fact that even though I have always been an atheist I have always had both a strong sense of personal ethics and a deep love for the arts. One of my all time favorite artists happens to be Albrecht Durer. I can't think of a single piece of Durer's that does not have religious themes and/or elements. I also have always been interested in social issues and have participated in a wide variety of community activities. No religion required.
Simply perpetuating such foolish ideas would have been bad enough but de Botton took it even further by setting up a false dichotomy.
"...seems as though you either accept the doctrines and then you can have all the nice stuff or you reject the doctrine and you are living in a spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Wal-Mart."
Seriously?! He thinks the choice is that cut and dry. He does use terms like "seems" but throughout the talk this comes across as more of quirk of his speech pattern than a qualifier. By this point I started to notice that he always references religion. Not once does he use the word God. I started to wonder if de Botton, who is trying to tell me and everyone else about being an atheist, is himself an atheist. He apparently does not believe in organized religion but that is far from being an outright atheist. It also began to stick out that he likes the term spiritual. It seems more likely that he's one of those individuals that is uncomfortable with organized religion and with the more scriptural personal conception of God.
de Botton finally got to a point I could agree with him on, sort of, when he started speaking about how we could replace scripture with culture. He insisted that this is a good idea but an idea we have somehow forgotten. He had me till the "forgotten" part. Who is the "we" the has forgotten this would be a good thing. I am by no means alone in pointing out that any given Shakespearean play contains more ethical and cultural value than the entire Bible, old and new testament. Maybe religious people have forgotten or never accepted it in the first place but the various non-religious communities certainly have not. It also does not seem to occur to him that the forces that have hampered humanism and the humanities are not the people who want to see scripture replaced by culture but by those who want religion to be a dominant force in all our lives.
He then throws in another false dichotomy when he insists, "The other thing religion knows is that we are not just brains, we are bodies..." Just brains? The brain is a pretty complex and amazing organ. Last time I checked the brain is an organ of the body so religion doesn't "know" any such thing. This is just a rehash of the foolish dualistic mind/body argument. The mind is not separate from the brain. It is a product of the brain. It is literally impossible to experience anything or to exist at all without a functioning brain. The nonsense de Botton throws around is staggering.
Then after that whopper he sets about redefining and in the most narrow terms possible what art is. I can think of any of the art majors I lived with in college who would get pissed off if they were told each of their pieces of artwork not only had to have a set message but that he also had to leave no room for any alternate interpretations. De Bottton actually comes out and states definitively that all art "should be didactic." What happened to his praising the humanities? I don't recall the humanist tradition ever favor a one-size-fits-all approach to anything let alone something as personal and subjective as art.
Earlier I mentioned that he contradicts himself in the Q&A part of the talk. He does this by saying that there is not a definitive connection between religion and art, community, and morality. What? The whole talk was about what atheists can learn, borrow, or "steal" from religion. If he concedes that as atheists we already have these things why do we need to get them from religion? In hi own mind what was the talk about? I already knew I could appreciate and learn form art and literature. I already have a strong sense of morals and community. What was I suppose to take away from his stereotype laced ramblings? Perhaps the answer lies in another one of his foolish statements where he says we, "can have spiritual moments without belief in spirit."
Did you catch that? Spiritual without Spirit. No you can't! By definition that is not possible. Notice the word "spirit" makes up not only the word but the meaning of "spiritual." Basically, I think it comes down to de Botton not knowing what he's really talking about. I think he wants to be religious but only on his own terms. he doesn't seem to get that he already is. That's both the amazing and dangerous thing about belief, you can make it into whatever you want. His need to have those around him accept it as some sort of universal thing is unnecessary and rather annoying.
Note: As I started thinking about what to pick from this smorgasbord of idiocy I noticed other were already starting to blog on it. I particularly like what PZ Meyers picked out to ridicule. His observations on de Botton's claim that religion gets education right is great. There are other points and statements made by de Botton I could have focussed on but I prefer to keep these posts short.
There was a brief moment at the beginning where I felt as if he might have something interesting to contribute. Opening with the statement that he had a "new way of being an atheist" certainly got my attention. Within a few minutes he set a quite different and disappointing tone. He implied, rather strongly, that in order to have a sense of morals and community and to appreciate art and literature people need religion. Utter nonsense. If this were even partially true how could atheist artists exist? And what about the fact that even though I have always been an atheist I have always had both a strong sense of personal ethics and a deep love for the arts. One of my all time favorite artists happens to be Albrecht Durer. I can't think of a single piece of Durer's that does not have religious themes and/or elements. I also have always been interested in social issues and have participated in a wide variety of community activities. No religion required.
Simply perpetuating such foolish ideas would have been bad enough but de Botton took it even further by setting up a false dichotomy.
"...seems as though you either accept the doctrines and then you can have all the nice stuff or you reject the doctrine and you are living in a spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Wal-Mart."
Seriously?! He thinks the choice is that cut and dry. He does use terms like "seems" but throughout the talk this comes across as more of quirk of his speech pattern than a qualifier. By this point I started to notice that he always references religion. Not once does he use the word God. I started to wonder if de Botton, who is trying to tell me and everyone else about being an atheist, is himself an atheist. He apparently does not believe in organized religion but that is far from being an outright atheist. It also began to stick out that he likes the term spiritual. It seems more likely that he's one of those individuals that is uncomfortable with organized religion and with the more scriptural personal conception of God.
de Botton finally got to a point I could agree with him on, sort of, when he started speaking about how we could replace scripture with culture. He insisted that this is a good idea but an idea we have somehow forgotten. He had me till the "forgotten" part. Who is the "we" the has forgotten this would be a good thing. I am by no means alone in pointing out that any given Shakespearean play contains more ethical and cultural value than the entire Bible, old and new testament. Maybe religious people have forgotten or never accepted it in the first place but the various non-religious communities certainly have not. It also does not seem to occur to him that the forces that have hampered humanism and the humanities are not the people who want to see scripture replaced by culture but by those who want religion to be a dominant force in all our lives.
He then throws in another false dichotomy when he insists, "The other thing religion knows is that we are not just brains, we are bodies..." Just brains? The brain is a pretty complex and amazing organ. Last time I checked the brain is an organ of the body so religion doesn't "know" any such thing. This is just a rehash of the foolish dualistic mind/body argument. The mind is not separate from the brain. It is a product of the brain. It is literally impossible to experience anything or to exist at all without a functioning brain. The nonsense de Botton throws around is staggering.
Then after that whopper he sets about redefining and in the most narrow terms possible what art is. I can think of any of the art majors I lived with in college who would get pissed off if they were told each of their pieces of artwork not only had to have a set message but that he also had to leave no room for any alternate interpretations. De Bottton actually comes out and states definitively that all art "should be didactic." What happened to his praising the humanities? I don't recall the humanist tradition ever favor a one-size-fits-all approach to anything let alone something as personal and subjective as art.
Earlier I mentioned that he contradicts himself in the Q&A part of the talk. He does this by saying that there is not a definitive connection between religion and art, community, and morality. What? The whole talk was about what atheists can learn, borrow, or "steal" from religion. If he concedes that as atheists we already have these things why do we need to get them from religion? In hi own mind what was the talk about? I already knew I could appreciate and learn form art and literature. I already have a strong sense of morals and community. What was I suppose to take away from his stereotype laced ramblings? Perhaps the answer lies in another one of his foolish statements where he says we, "can have spiritual moments without belief in spirit."
Did you catch that? Spiritual without Spirit. No you can't! By definition that is not possible. Notice the word "spirit" makes up not only the word but the meaning of "spiritual." Basically, I think it comes down to de Botton not knowing what he's really talking about. I think he wants to be religious but only on his own terms. he doesn't seem to get that he already is. That's both the amazing and dangerous thing about belief, you can make it into whatever you want. His need to have those around him accept it as some sort of universal thing is unnecessary and rather annoying.
Note: As I started thinking about what to pick from this smorgasbord of idiocy I noticed other were already starting to blog on it. I particularly like what PZ Meyers picked out to ridicule. His observations on de Botton's claim that religion gets education right is great. There are other points and statements made by de Botton I could have focussed on but I prefer to keep these posts short.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)