Tuesday, July 11

Inconvenient Stuff

Creationists love to wrestle quotes out of context to support their contention that evolution is debunked. They take a scientist, someone competent to assess evolutionary biology, and try to "argue" by putting quote marks around something he/she's said which looks devastatingly affirmative that somehow, someway, these creationists are correct. Time for "tit for tat". A good quote for these dishonest creationists, and some good writing for both them and anti-scientific persons of all sorts, whether climate change deniers or stem cell research critics:
It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17

Along those same lines, I was reading a review of Al Gore's new movie, (HT: PZ) and also a post which sets the historical record straight about George Washington's lack of Christian faith, (HT: Ed Brayton) contrary to what D. James Kennedy wants you to think, and says from behind his pulpit. I found some of the Whiskey Bar's comments particularly relevant to all of these topics in dealing with people who want to have irrational notions reinforced:
...there is something tragic, even a little pathetic, about Gore's stubborn faith in the ability of facts and reasoned argument to save the world...

...to me it only highlighted the long odds against what Gore is trying to do, which is to speak the language of reason to an increasingly irrational, post-Enlightenment world...

...There’s always been a powerful current of anti-intellectualism in American politics, just as there is in American life. It’s the dark side of democracy: The pressure to accept what the majority, or the most vocal minority, thinks is true as truth – even when the evidence is entirely on the other side. When Henry Ford said history was bunk, he wasn’t taking about the past but about the present, and his ire wasn’t directed at historians per se but at the revisionist historians of the Progressive Era, who were telling him and his fellow know nothings inconvenient facts they didn’t want to hear. Pump Henry full of Hillbilly Heroin and put him on the radio, and you’ve got Rush Limbaugh, still making the same point.

The difference between Ford’s time and Limbaugh’s is that the political presumption against rationality is now shared, or at least pandered to, even at the top of the political and cultural pyramid. It’s curious that people who are paid to think and write for a living, and who, like Gore, attended the “best” schools, are now nearly as susceptible to the politics of ignorance as your average conservative talk show host, but then the elite media ain’t what it used to be. Like academia, it’s fighting a losing rear-guard action against the spirit of the times and the angry, irrational prejudices that go with it...

...In my darker moments, it sometimes seems as if the entire world is in the middle of a fierce backlash against the Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the ideological challenges they posed to the old belief systems. The forces of fundamentalism and obscurantism appear to be on the march everywhere – even as the moral and technological challenges posed by a global industrial civilization grow steadily more complex.
These aren't my darker moments. These are my more common moments. Is America being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Age of Reason? I'm afraid to answer in the affirmative, no matter how hopeful I am that it's true.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , ,

9 comments:

  1. Why are you quoting Flew? You know he became a theist, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you really read the Bible? Or do you merely mine it for percieved errors? Tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have a lot of strange ideas about the enlightement. Check out this book for an excellent corrective:

    For the Glory of God : How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery
    by Rodney Stark

    ReplyDelete
  4. Golly, a learned individual that talks about God. I heard that he likes to sleep with farm animals. I am sure his wife has tried to change him but chemicals in his lab might have changed his DNA. Do you still turn into a green monster?

    ReplyDelete
  5. One other question do you still play with dolls? Mr. Smithers and you have a lot in common. Did they find the garden of eve yet? Guess who?

    ReplyDelete
  6. To be fair, Lincoln was a theist, if a very unusual one (he wouldn't join any Church because they had extra-Biblical membership standards). Flew, as a deist, believes in a God. Both are therefore theists. Neither were Chrisitians. Does that help?

    I'd like to raise the tone here, which seems to have descended to the playground (anonymous 'You're gay'; yourself: 'you're gayer'). I assume you were answering a fool according to his folly.

    Me, I prefer the quote from 'Pin-up Girl', 'If you let someone believe something that isn't so, that's lying!' (said by Grable's female co-star).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hiraeth,

    I know this "anonymous" fellow and he's just having fun with me.

    Anyway, sure, Lincoln believed in a God. Did you read the link I gave you about Flew, though? That's much more tenuous. Besides, I said I read and write about what theists say all the time. It's not like I'd not quote one.

    It's just that in this particular case, Flew is NOT a theist. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I guessed it was people being silly, but I had to make the playground analogy because it's funny.

    On quotations. I was not denying your right to quote Lincoln when his argument serves you. I realise I might have appeared to be arguing this. I assure you, I don't. After all, it would mean I couldn't quote Churchill (believer in fate), or Chamerlain (Unitarian), or Betty Grable (probably practical atheist), or Saunders Lewis (RC).

    But I'm intrigued by 'in this particular case, Flew is Not a theist.' What do you mean by this? That he's not a creationist? Or that Flew only believes in a God on some occasions.

    From the link, it seems that Flew is what I'd understood him to be now, namely a deist, belieing in a remote, possibly non-personal god. While I'd say that was no god at all, and you'd probably agree, although from the other end, it does seem to me that that makes him a theist, albeit a weak one.

    ReplyDelete