Regarding The Courtier's Reply

Back when I was newer to debating theists, I used to try to engage in arguments surrounding theology. I didn't really care much for it, but that's what I found theists wanting to argue about. I thought that I should take the argument on its own merits and went along with it.

What I found was that no matter what I argued, I was wrong. I'd never really studied the bible so maybe I was wrong, I hate it when people take things out of context so I wanted to make sure I was understanding the argument correctly. I took on-board what people were saying so that I wouldn't be wrong. Still I was wrong.

Taking the arguments on interpretations I got from others, it turned out I was still interpreting it incorrectly. Perhaps the people I had learnt about it from initially were also wrong, as well as me looking into it deeper. I wasn't a bible expert after all.

But even then I was still wrong. I just couldn't lay a glove on any theist because I just couldn't interpret it right, even when following what I was being told by theists. I came more and more to the opinion that I was categorically wrong because if I interpreted it right then I wouldn't hold the position I did. Ergo, this type of argument was futile.

The moment when it all hit home was when a theist was trying to argue about Noah's flood. He kept calling God good, and I couldn't understand how he could do that at the same time as condemning murder as evil. His excuse? God gave life so God can take it away, which doesn't actually address the problem and creates a dangerous standard where parents can kill their children.

Self-performed reductio ad absurdum, at that point I realised that I couldn't argue theology, irrationality is inherent in faith so there's little chance of reasoning with someone defending it.


But upon thinking about it more, I don't know why I bothered in the first place. I don't argue about the merits of astrology on the hits and misses of a daily horoscope. I argue that the entire premise is implausible because it relies on an intricate relationship between our relative position to other stars and planets in order to understand the affairs of individuals.

And this is what I should have been doing all along. Arguing the theological implications for God based on the story of Noah's Ark is counting pin-dancing angels. Quite simply there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, despite the many different lines of evidence that should show that such an event happened. Claims about creation are falsified by evolution, claims about a young earth and young universe are falsified by geology and astrophysics / cosmology.

My interpretation of The Courtier's Reply is that it's an Occam's razor for arguments. By arguing biblical interpretations, it's unnecessarily adding extra arguments that don't need to be there. If the underlying assumption that the bible is literal and inerrant truth is false, then what does it matter the implications of an inerrant and literal bible? My contention is over the whether the bible is literal an inerrant, not the implications for original sin.

The Courtier's Reply isn't saying anything new, it just put what we all do (either implicitly or explicitly) into a few witty sentences and gave it a label. The gift of the reply is not the sentiment, it's the presentation. A reductio ad absurdum of those who want to argue over the number of angels, what constitutes dancing, and why on a pin - all without first stopping to work out whether there are such things as angels to begin with.

Order Of Molly

Time for a little piece of self-congratulatory posting. As you may or may not know, I'm a frequent commenter over at the blog Pharyngula, and on there I've picked up the accolade of Order of Molly. With so many great posters on there, it's a really good achievement to stand out enough in order for others to recognise you.

And I beat out the inanimate carbon rod. Take that rod!

An open letter to Ken Ham

Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, the creation museum and all-around nutter. Anyone who has come across Answers in Genesis will attest to what I'm talking about. The ministry itself is a joke, they actually believe that the world is 6,000 years old, that Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs and that a global flood caused fossils! Now I'm one to think he can believe whatever he wants, but when he fills the heads of little innocent precious children with that garbage, then I start to have a problem. It's sad that thousands of children are going to walk through the doors of his "museum" and now think that science backs their faith. It'll be very disappointing in 20 years time when these children will be parents telling their kids of the flood as if it actually happened. That dinosaurs walked the earth with humans despite there not being a shred of evidence to support it. That science is something that should be shunned, despite all it gives up simply because it doesn't support the bible. And we'll have another generation, possibly in greater numbers than we have now.

Recently Mr Ham was asked to lead prayer at the pentagon. Now he's batshit insane so he can't see how maybe having fundamentalists Christians who preach the rapture in the building where the largest military on earth operates may be a little disconcerting to non-religious folk? Personally I feel very uneasy with the idea of those who believe in the 2nd coming and the apocalypse having their fingers on the button to launch global annihilation. It would be very nice if those folk would say as far away as possible from any position of military dominance, but because of fucks like Ken Ham indoctrinating children it has become not only the norm but a requirement for leaders of the "free world" to believe that nonsense themselves. We saw Bush get elected twice on the back of this notion of working for God. Now as a non-believer my opinions on the parameters of a deity are automatically invalid because I don't believe and therefore I'm wrong (according to anyone who ever has debated with me) but surely an omnipotent and omniscience entity should have no trouble at all doing things for itself. Working through humans? It's almost challenging us to say it's a load of crap. But when we do, it's faith. (again according to anyone who has ever debated me)

It came as a surprise that Ken Ham not only read PZ Myers blog on the topic, but found it apt to respond. Of course he missed the point entirely, and it's odd that he took such issue with wackaloon when there are many more nasty (yet accurate) terms to use. From this is where my letter stems:

Dear Mr Ham,

you are a despicable excuse for a human being that your accent fills me with shame that my country could have produced something as horrible as you. You have absolutely no clue about, well, anything at all. Your lack of scientific knowledge should be a sin on it's own, and your evangelising of biblical scripture as science should worry you as it breaks the 9th commandment.

But Mr Ham. As you know, you are already saved. So you can lie and lie away for Jesus without a ping of guilt. But back in the real world where what we say matters being dishonest is morally wrong, no matter the circumstances. So if I were to state that humans lived with dinosaurs, I'd be a liar. Because it's not a point of view, it's science. And in science we go with the evidence. Using a bible as evidence shows
1) your ignorance of the scientific process
and
2) your gullibility

Sorry Mr Ham, but in all due respect you aren't due any at all. You make a living out of lying and hoping that others are deceived by your lies. You push bronze aged myth as being more scientifically accurate than the last 400 years of empirical research where the only currency is being truthful; not trying to control others. It's sad that you think it's okay to brainwash children, that it's okay to lie about science in order to fuel your agenda. What you say contradicts every little thing we know about human history and the history of the world. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Maybe if you actually decided to do some research, say, on the very land the museum is built on, maybe you could learn about fossils and inform yourself. Or go to a real museum and ask the guides how certain processes work. Ask about how the grand canyon was formed by expert geologists instead of thinking you know better. Ask about what empiricism means in science. Ask about the historicity of the bible, about how it was written, about what the archaeology and geology say about it. Being all bronze-age about it may win you support and it will definitely bring in the tithes, but all it does is highlight your ignorance.

So the word wackaloon is getting off lightly... if all you can do is claim intolerance, then your position is flawed. Maybe it would have been best to do some scientific research before opening a museum that has as much scientific truth as this months copy of The Watchtower. Maybe all those suckers who paid you to reinforce their delusions deserve a refund, or at least a disclaimer "warning the following is fiction, and any resemblance to anything living or dead is purely coincidental". That way you can still have your museum, you can still take the money of gullible fools, but at least they won't walk away with your crackpot idea that it's science. Wackaloon? 9th commandment-breaking child abuser is a much more accurate way to say it. You got off lightly Mr Ham. Very lightly.

From an Aussie who is trying his best to undo the damage you have done to this country's reputation,
Kel

There, it's somewhat cathartic to get that off my chest. In no way is this blog as popular as Pharyngula, I'd be surprised if anyone read this at all; let alone Ken Ham. It is important that those of sound mind actually speak out when lunacy abounds. It's not intolerance, it's damage control. I honestly don't care what he believes, just what he preaches. Just as I don't care about what the catholic church believes, just the ramifications for those beliefs. Same goes for Islam, neopaganism, new-ageism FSMism and anything in between. They are the problem, not the belief itself. Beliefs are only a danger when they are put into practice. Like speaking out on honour-killings and female circumcision is not being intolerant of Islam, speaking out on fundies is not intolerance. They are a threat to the sanity of children. They destroy the credibility that science has taken so long to build. They push a point of view on the world that is obsessed with death and an afterlife. To sit back and take it is not tolerance, it's submission.