It is amazing the effect of words and labeling. The other day, while waiting for an Oil Change, I watched some talking head on a news program make a good point:
“We see the Bush Administration utilize certain words, and the media simply picks up on it without thought as to what those words even mean. Think about the current use of the word ‘Surge’ regarding the influx of troops in Iraq. Normally, when we think of the word ‘Surge” we think of a short burst—like a surge of electricity or a surge of water—which quickly returns to the original state.
“However, what we have in Iraq is an increase in troop size with no apparent reduction in the future. This is not a ‘Surge;’ it should be called what it is—an Escalation.”
In the legal community we have seen the same clever use of words when it comes to the “War” on Drugs. See, in “war” things become acceptable which would normally be questioned. If I had an illegal gun in my house – I can be charged with illegal possession of a weapon. We would think it ludicrous to claim the Government could seize my house, simply because I had a single gun within.
Yet if I was growing one (1) plant of marijuana, because we are in a “war” on drugs, the State has the right to take my entire home!
If I get into a fistfight at a bar, the state can charge me with assault and battery. There are no driving sanctions involved—I wasn’t driving at the time. BUT, if I take a puff of pot in that same bar—I will lose my ability to drive for 30 days. No restricted license available. Why?—because we have a “war” on drugs.
I get the same sinking feeling when it comes to the theistic debate arena. As if, to many Christians, I am “the enemy.” And we all know we treat our enemies very differently than our friends. Because this is a “war”—and in times of war we do things normally considered unacceptable.
Could you imagine inviting me to your house, and discover me snooping around your computer—reading your old e-mails? How rude! Or pawing through your financial records in your cabinets? Yet when it comes to our enemies, this is acceptable behavior. We call it “spying.” In fact, we train and teach men and women to do exactly that—spy on other countries. Because they are the enemy.
When speaking to our friends, we expect the truth. But when speaking to the enemy, we actually promote the exact opposite. It becomes wrong to speak the truth; you lie to your enemies.
Many Christians believe it is not only allowable, but honorable to lie to me. Why? Because I am the enemy. The most stark quote on this can be found here “So, for war purposes (believers and unbelievers are at war), I deceived.”
Another interesting facet of people at war is how we caricature the enemy. Look at these war propaganda posters of the Japanese depicting them raping white women, or with sharpened teeth and evil stares. No matter how much a Sony DVD player goes up in price, such an editorial cartoon would be considered slanderous now. Because we are not at war.
Yet I see the same caricature depicted of non-believers. How many times have we been depicted as immoral, alcoholic, sex-crazed social deviants? Or that we are somehow bent on turning every convenience store into a strip joint and every church into a brothel.
How many times have I been told, “Try reading the Bible” when I know it better than the person telling me? Or we see the phrase, “You believe there are no absolutes.” It is a common tactic used in time of war—paint the enemy as ridiculous at times, or frightening at others.
The reason I bring this up is that I have been following the reviews of the upcoming movie with Ben Stein - Expelled. I haven’t seen the movie, and have no intention of doing so until I can free-of-charge. I will not provide financial support to the producers of this film.
But what I find fascinating is the umbrage taken by non-believers and evolutionists to the many visual comparisons of Stalin and Hitler to scientists holding to evolution. Or the concern over the falsehoods, in obtaining the interviews, in editing the interviews, in the reasons for kicking PZ Myers out, in the scientific claims made, and in the factual claims made.
Why? Don’t you get it? To them, they are in a time of war. This is behavior which is to be commended! If this movie was a complete lie, yet was the impetus for Intelligent Design being incorporated in one (1) public school—the Christians promoting this film would consider it a success! The ends most certainly are justified by the means.
To them, if a lie brings about a moral good—then the lie is no longer morally wrong. If a caricature of anyone holding to evolution being the equivalent of Stalin or Hitler convinces a single person to not investigate evolution on their own—then the caricature was morally good.
Don’t you see those complaints about falsehoods; complaints about inaccuracies; complaints about incorrect depictions will fall off them like water off a duck’s back? They don’t care; such actions are tolerable when the outcome is noble.
What if a person of Japanese decent complained of the posters and cartoons distributed in World War II? They would be equally laughed at and disregarded—the enemy complaining about being treated like the enemy? How amusing! Or a foreign country complaining we “lied” about a person in the Ambassador’s staff not being a spy. One lies to the enemy. It is right, just and fair to do so.
You are fighting with the wrong weapons on the wrong ground. Every complaint of “Lie!” is met with a solidifying of their position. Shoot—if the enemy is complaining of your lying, you must be doing something correct! ‘Cause one lies to one’s enemies.
I do think it important to point out the errors. I think websites, such as I linked, must be created to counter the falsehoods in this film. But I equally find it naïve if you think a single Christian will care—even if we prove it a lie.
I am the enemy. What I say is to be rejected outright.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteWhat you describe is the well-known phenomenon of pious fraud, but I appreciate how you tie it in with the corruption of language and the "anything goes" psychology of war.
Christians and other theists pride themselves on being moral absolutists, but I'm becoming more and more convinced they are anything but.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteChristians are people, too. The disease Dagoods exposes is everywhere.
Excellent post, btw. You reveal a very strong link between commitment to a subjective truth and war. They do go together. At some level they may be one and the same.
When we say something is "true for me" then we have stepped away from being accountable for our thoughts and decisions. In one sense it sounds OK to let someone "believe what they want to believe". However, that subjective belief in truth becomes a nightstick that they can beat others over the head with.
The idea of war fits in because we choose our side in the subjective truth game and then an escalation and even contradictions are permissible.
You are right to compare apples to apples and see the ridiculousness of taking a home for a marijuana plant. I know someone that that actually happened to.
There's an old saying, "There are three sides to the truth. My side, your side, and then there's the truth". I would suggest also looking at the promissory materialism, which is an a priori commitment to subjective truth, that many of the scientists have that Ben Stein exposes. It is not an isolated incident.
I agree with you 100% about the Surge not being anything of the sort after a short time. The Iraq War has been an exercise in the abuse of language by neo-conservative Christians from before it started. But the subjective truth is not pleasant when the other person disagrees...and they have the nightstick and you don't.
I feel the same way about "a woman's right to choose". It is a verifiable/objective truth that the woman is choosing to take the life of her own child in return for a better lifestyle down the road. Talk about one marijuana plant causing the seizure of a home! One human life is taken for the promise of future convenience. I think the reason people hold so dogmatically to "abortion rights" is that the thought of how awful they would look if they let go is too much to bear. I can understand their bunker mentality from that perpsective.
You are making a great point that without acknowledging objective truth, we are all in a constant state of war. Thanks for posting it.
Ben Stein and the film do not “expose.” They misrepresent. Jim Jordan, do you support such tactics if utilized to counter what scientists say?
ReplyDeleteJim Jordan, you wrote, "Robert,
ReplyDeleteChristians are people, too. The disease Dagoods exposes is everywhere."
True, but I think the difference is that in the Christian view, fraud is a virtue when it serves a higher good, while most elsewhere, it is simply an evil to be avoided and condemned.
What I find most disturbing about such behavior is the distortion of the truth. Too often, to go along with your caricature of what non-Christians are, we are told that we can keep our opinions, and they'll stick to the Truth.
ReplyDeleteYet, in demonstrating that Truth, there's a lot of subjectivity in terms of morality, redefining what the words mean, or just outright lies. Or the "Truth" is being wrought against a strawman argument.
Shouldn't the Truth be able to survive against the most rigid standards? Yet it seems as though the standards get weakened constantly, so that the Truth can become muddied -- such as the strawman idea, rather than focusing on the actual argument. Or from what I've seen in filming 'Expelled,' and how the participants approached that.
From what I see in the Bible, Christians are supposed to be consistently better than the non-Christians. Not perfect, and they will have their bad days. But we are supposed to be able to identify them immediatly based on behavior. Their goodness is suppose to shame us, and be instantly recognizable. Their "Truth" should blaze. And it doesn't. I've known hundreds of Christians in my short life. Out of those hundreds, I have only meet two whom I immediatly knew were Christian within 30 seconds of meeting them. It had nothing to do with doctrine, and everything to do with the type of presence they had.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteI have seen some interviews with Stein but not the movie. Do you mean to say that scientists are above abusing language and reason for their own purposes?
Robert,
the biblical word for what Dagoods is shining a light on is "sin".
the Christian view, fraud is a virtue when it serves a higher good, while most elsewhere, it is simply an evil to be avoided and condemned.
How so?
OSS - Out of those hundreds, I have only meet two whom I immediatly knew were Christian within 30 seconds of meeting them.
That would be the "remnant".
:-)
"using language and reason"
ReplyDeleteMeant to say "twisting language and reason for their own purposes"
Dagood: I disagree with your conclusion that explicitly calling out Christian lies (or any other kind of lies) is ineffectual or counter-productive. We're not trying to persuade the liars themselves; we're trying to persuade the audience, to whom the liars intend to take their lies as truth.
ReplyDeleteJim Jordan:
The disease Dagoods exposes is everywhere.
It's epidemic in the Christian and Islamic community; it seems very rare in scientific and skeptical communities.
You reveal a very strong link between commitment to a subjective truth and war. They do go together.
The idea that lying comes from truth-relativism is retarded. Dagood does not reveal any such link; it's an invention of your imagination. By definition, a truth-relativist cannot lie (nor can he be mistaken or ignorant); he always believes he is telling the truth. Actual truth-relativism is actually very difficult both to read and to write, and it's not a very good rhetorical or propagandistic tool in a mass market. The use of truth-relativism has been mostly used to undermine academic expertise in revealing and promoting abstract and refractory truth.
When we say something is "true for me" then we have stepped away from being accountable for our thoughts and decisions.
No, we have stepped away from our ordinary understanding of the word "truth". The idea that we are stepping away from "accountability" is important only to those who hold Christian slave morality.
The idea of war fits in because we choose our side in the subjective truth game and then an escalation and even contradictions are permissible.
Jeez, Jim, you must spend a fortune on shoehorns.
"There are three sides to the truth. My side, your side, and then there's the truth".
You appear to endorse a back-door form of truth-relativism, epistemic nihilism: this saying appears to claim that truth is unknowable.
I would suggest also looking at the promissory materialism...
Denyse O'Leary is well known as a complete moron, and "promissory materialism" is such a transparently obvious straw-man that only the most brain-dead ignorant theistard would fall for it. (If the shoe fits...)
I feel the same way about "a woman's right to choose". It is a verifiable/objective truth that the woman is choosing to take the life of her own child in return for a better lifestyle down the road.
Your feeling is stupid. You have (unsurprisingly) not only missed the point of Dagood's essay, you are illustrating precisely the form of linguistic abuse Dagood condemns.
The pro-choice movement is not using any word in a dishonest manner. The movement is about choice. It's about a choice you personally don't happen to like (not that I've seen any evidence you give one shit about any poor black baby after it's been born) but it is indeed about a choice, and we know precisely what the choices are about: whether or not to remove a fetus from a woman's body, thereby killing it. Nobody pretends that we're doing any good for the fetus.
Furthermore, by calling a fetus a "child" you are attempting to call a fetus equivalent to a sapient three-year old child, which is patently false.
scientists are above abusing language and reason for their own purposes?
Typically, yes.
Jim Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI would like to see some examples of scientists who “twist language and reason for their own purpose” in order to understand what you are talking about. Further, how did Ben Stein “expose” these scientists in the interviews you saw?
What I suspect is happening is Christians telling other Christians, “SCIENTISTS LIE!” and then utilize this to justify their own bout of lying. The problem being—they never quite demonstrate how it is that scientists lie—they merely use it as an excuse. Because if your enemy lies; you can too…
Which brings me back to my original question to you—assuming scientists DID “twist language and reason”—does you support using tactics like misrepresentation, exclusion, and editing in this film to counter such scientists?
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDeleteIt is the constant and humorous two-step dance. When it comes to sinning, and we point out there is no difference between the Christian and the non-believer (or the Muslim or Mormon or Christian Scientist or the Roman or the Greek) we are told, “Oh, we are just like you.”
Yet when it comes to deconverts who claim they were once saved, we are greeted with righteous indignation that our conversion was nothing like their conversion, since we weren’t true Christians, or didn’t have the right faith, or something else. “We are not like you at all.”
It only becomes tragic when they don’t see the humor in it…
The Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteI should clarify. I agree with you we should point out the lies. But I think we must recognize the futility of it for the vast, vast, huge predominance. Look at the reactions of Christians. “Scientists lie, so we can too.”
Here, I’ll challenge you. Find me one (1) creationist Christian who will point out the misrepresentations used in this film and recommend other Christians not watch it because the use of falsehood is no way to promulgate the truth. One.
We can point out the lies, we can point out the untruths, we can give proofs and it does a fat lot of good.
Barefoot Bum: "We're not trying to persuade the liars themselves; we're trying to persuade the audience, to whom the liars intend to take their lies as truth."
ReplyDeleteAmen!
Barefoot,
ReplyDeleteIt seems odd that you would debate abortion. Here you said:
I'm not at all interested in arguing the underlying question. If you want to actually argue against abortion rights do it somewhere else. It's a fight, not a debate, and I know which side I'm on.
Sounds like that war mentality that Dagood was talking about. As a matter of fact, you exemplify it.
Barefoot also wrote**The idea that lying comes from truth-relativism is retarded. Dagood does not reveal any such link; it's an invention of your imagination. By definition, a truth-relativist cannot lie (nor can he be mistaken or ignorant); he always believes he is telling the truth. Actual truth-relativism is actually very difficult both to read and to write, and it's not a very good rhetorical or propagandistic tool in a mass market. The use of truth-relativism has been mostly used to undermine academic expertise in revealing and promoting abstract and refractory truth.
You left the building in bold. Getting to the bottom of what we believe or want to be truth is not seeking truth. It's seeking what's best for the "I" who's dishing the BS. Changing one's perspective on truth does not change the truth.
Dagoods showed well how the Bush administration corrupts language with their "Surge" mantra to fit it's agenda and I agree. I voted for Bush in 2004 and I suspect Dagoods did not, but we agree on this point, the Surge is not a surge [I even recall seeing a statistic showing that they had withdrawn some troops under pressure and then sent a similar quantity of troops back in calling it a Surge. It's probably best called an "Escalation of Hostilities period" but who's going to call it that?:-]
Now two people with diverging viewpoints can agree because the truth is verifiable in this case, being external and having boundaries by which we can make an informed conclusion about truth. But the way you internalize truth by changing the definition completely of what truth is leads away from any serious discussion of real truth.
I forget who said it, but my father was a history teacher and he always had us memorize: "He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a wise man, follow him". Many lessons are in that saying but the most important one about truth in my opinion is that it does not belong to us - it is external.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins states that he can't prove that God exists or not but Science will one day show that God doesn't exist. That is the mantra of many atheist scientists, and it is a declaration of war against the possibility of a divine creator.
I do not believe that scientists are liars only that we realize they are human, too. I have a link under Required Reading on my blog to Richard Feynman's lecture on the scientific method. He was an atheist scientist who I greatly respect for his honesty and brilliant work. Carl Sagan is another great scientist who I have quoted often.
Dagoods wrote**Here, I’ll challenge you. Find me one (1) creationist Christian who will point out the misrepresentations used in this film and recommend other Christians not watch it because the use of falsehood is no way to promulgate the truth. One.
Fair enough. When I watch it, I'll review it for you. It's not due out till Friday, April 18th.
What I find most problematic is that I have never seen a Christian other than myself challenging a Young Earth Creationist. YEC as a fundamental belief is not supported by Scripture itself. If you notice on Christian stations the discussion always turns from whether YEC is true to the fact that it is a "Free Speech" issue. It shifts from the truth to the good intentions of the YECers and their civil rights.
Regards.
Correction:
ReplyDelete"He who knows not and knows NOT that he knows not is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a wise man, follow him".
Dang it.
Actually, as near as I could tell, the whole thing is:
ReplyDeleteHe who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep. Awaken him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, he is wise. Follow him.
Apparently it has been attributed to a Persian proverb, an Arabic saying, a Chinese proverb and Bruce Lee (!) [Since we “knows not” where it comes from, it makes the irony delicious.]
Jim Jordan, I will ask my question a third time: Do you support using tactics like misrepresentation, exclusion and editing to counter the sayings of scientists?
Jim Jordan, I will ask my question a third time: Do you support using tactics like misrepresentation, exclusion and editing to counter the sayings of scientists?
ReplyDeleteNo because we shouldn't "use tactics like misrepresentation, exclusion and editing" Period.
Now, if you go around and look for examples where you think I've done just that [which you have done before] make sure you don't "misrepresent, exclude, or edit" as in this thread here with my John 6 reference.
You clearly defined something here Dagoods in your post that is threatening our very existence - the corruption of language. You say its a war mentality. I think you are on to something. Cheers.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteMy statement on Dawkins, that he admits he is certain that science will advance and disprove the existence of God "one day", is a clear example of an agenda in the mind of a scientist. For the most part I think Dawkins is an intellectually honest man and his writing is top notch but some of his ideas like the "Blind Watchmaker" are untenable and, quite frankly, silly because they are the fruit of that agenda.
BTW, “Scientists lie, so we can too.”
I do not resemble that statement and I am quite the "theistard" as Barefoot puts it...
Just to clarify a point, in the interview I heard with Ben Stein he is confronting the suppression of any scientific theory in education that does not support philosophical materialism. [As far as I know it is not a documentary on the Evolution v. Creation controversy itself but on academic free speech] Dozens of professors who have been open to the idea of Intelligent Design have been expelled and/or denied tenure because of their belief despite their contributions to their subjects [Guillermo Gonzalez and Francis Beckwith to name two not to mention the poor students who get squashed]. That sounds to me more like a church fight than an academic institution. Don't you agree? As for the movie I haven't seen it. It's, uh, not out yet. Hasta la vista.
No, Jim Jordan, I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about the Moviemakers of “Expelled.” But now you have said something which I want to be very clear about:
ReplyDeleteJim Jordan: … make sure you don't "misrepresent, exclude, or edit" as in this thread here with my John 6 reference…
Are you accusing me of misrepresenting, excluding or editing? If so, I will be happy to address it in a blog entry. If not, then perhaps you might clarify this sentence.
What I find most problematic is that I have never seen a Christian other than myself challenging a Young Earth Creationist.
ReplyDeleteThen quite frankly you haven't been paying attention. Even the Roman Catholic Church has had a go at this, but strict Creationists, whether they be of the "Young Earth" or "Intelligent Design" stripe, tend to be deaf to any opposing opinion.
Now if one were to substitute "Intelligent Design advocate" for "Christian" (the two terms are NOT interchangeable), maybe you have a point. I have never seen an "ID" advocate directly challenge a "Young Earth Creationist", other than to tell the rest of us to ignore the crazy uncle who keeps yammering on about Eve's pet brontosaurus. The result ought to be fairly predictable: "ID" thinks "YEC" is taking their faith to a silly extreme, "YEC" thinks that "ID" doesn't have a genuine faith and is just pretending.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteMore than likely that was an oversite on your part that the people fell away because, as Jesus said, "they didn't believe" which re-inforces my point. Don't take it personally.
Often in these debates the focus is shifted from the point one is making to whether they are contradicting some other point they made in the past. Quite frankly, that just wears people out and it only leads away from the issue we're discussing. I re-posted Barefoot's comment that "it's not a debate, it's a fight" because it fit your blog entry perfectly about the war mentality's effect on "truth".
That said, you recently gave me a bundle of links to look up where I supposedly contradicted my differentiation between Christ as the Word and the Bible as the "inspired" Word. You pointed out that I used the two interchangeably and in one sense you were right. Only in each context it was clear that I was talking about the written word when I dropped the "inspired" unless we are to "study Jesus" and/or spent time "in Jesus". I was just trying to steer you away from a new linkography. Again, don't take it personally.
BTW, back to the finale of your post: "I am the enemy. What I say is to be rejected outright."
Beside the fact that I'm certain to find flaws in "Expelled" when I see it, which contradicts the totality of your statement, answer this question:
What difference is it between your enemy-hood and mine when I debate a dogmatic pro-abortion advocate?
I am the enemy. I show links to photos of dead, mutilated babies as evidence and I'm told that icky pictures only makes me look like a nut job. I say the embryo will develop into a human being and not a football, and I'm told that that's irrelevant. So, I sympathize with you - why do we bother with dogmatists?
You wrote a great post. I would humbly ask that you acknowledge the fact that it's a universal problem and is not limited merely to people who don't think like you.
**and we point out there is no difference between the Christian and the non-believer (or the Muslim or Mormon or Christian Scientist or the Roman or the Greek) we are told, “Oh, we are just like you.” **
ReplyDeleteAnd what really gets me about statements like this, or that Christians are sinners too, and so you should look to Jesus is that I don't see that reasoning flying for Jesus. Or Paul, or any of the other writers in the New Testament. I would see all of them being outraged at the excuse that Christians are sinners, too, and so it's okay if they're no better than everyone else. By accepting the very mantle of the word Christian, it is a declaration that they are not like others, and their behavior is better than others.
Flycandler is right about there being many Christians challenging the YEC view. I was thinking only of my own miniscule realm of influence.
ReplyDeleteJim Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI have some ground to cover here, and if I miss anything that should be addressed, please let me know.
Richard Dawkins
It would seem my point has not been clear. It is NOT that we will have disagreements. It is NOT even that we will not have “war.” It is NOT that a Dawkins or Hitchens or a pro-Choice person will say something you do not like. It is NOT that we should suppress our opinions on a topic.
It is the tactics used that I am questioning.
Although you do not provide a citation, assume for the moment Dawkins believes one day science will disprove God. (I would like to see such a statement in context of course. But none was provided.)
So what? Is Dawkins saying creationists admit science will one day disprove God? NO! Is Dawkins lying about what other scientists say about disproving God? NO! Is Dawkins attempting to trick creationists into admitting science will one day disprove God? NO!
Scientists all the time make predictions about what future knowledge will be. And scientists understand sometimes they are right; sometimes they are wrong on such predictions. IDers predict some day they will have an experiment which will demonstrate irreducible complexity. Does their prediction (so far unrealized) show a “clear example of an agenda in a scientist”? Yep. Is their prediction a “decleration of war” against metaphysical naturalism? Yep.
Is their prediction what I am talking about here? No; a thousand times NO!
I couldn’t care less if IDers want to talk about what IDers think they can prove. In fact, I encourage it. It would be nice to see them take on a burden of proof, rather than poke holes in other theories.
This is not what this blog entry is about. It is about justifying lying because it is considered a war. If you can’t see it, I know of no way to communicate it any clearer.
Guillermo Gonzalez and Francis Beckwith
Two interesting situations. Although I don’t have a problem with their being denied tenure because of their positions, as it relates to this blog entry—it makes my point nicely.
If there really are “dozens of professors who have been open to the idea of Intelligent Design have been expelled and/or denied tenure because of their belief despite their contributions to their subjects” and the point of this film is to demonstrate suppression of such ideas--why not focus on these professors?
If the filmmakers want to put across the point, “Hey—here are some professors who want to push their agenda, and the scientific community is not allowing them”—then interview these “dozens of professors,” give the facts as to the suppression. What is the need to interview a Dawkins and lie about the name of the movie? What is the need to kick PZ Myers out of a screening? What is the need to edit out Dawkins? What is the need to edit out professors who DO allow IDer’s to give lectures?
Did you know the filmmakers interviewed people who allowed IDers to give lectures? And then left those interviews on the cutting-room floor? Why? If you interview 10 people, and only show 2 or 3 which support your position, whereas the other 7 do not—is that being honest?
Is that what you would expect from a Christian? Is that an acceptable tactic to take?
Ben Stein
It has long been the battle-cry of Intelligent design that science is committed to metaphysical naturalism, and how wrong this is. What the IDers fail to demonstrate is the why this is wrong. Why is commitment to metaphysical supernaturalism more accurate to the truth? What science is looking for is reality—NOT preference. The IDers may prefer a different emphasis—but what they continually fail to demonstrate is whether that preference is accurate.
Behe said it best on the stand in the Dover Trial. The only way to re-define science to overcome this preference would entail a new definition, which would allow astrology to qualify as science! Yet where is the “free speech” of the astrologists being protected by the IDers? Where is the battle cry to allow “Madame Gypsy” in the classroom to show what it means to have Venus in the Seventh Wave?
You originally stated Ben Stein “exposed” an a priori “commitment to subjective truth” (whatever that means) and now you are saying he “…is confronting the suppression of any scientific theory in education that does not support philosophical materialism. “ Are you saying metaphysical naturalism is the same as “subjective truth”? Are you saying Ben Stein is campaigning for the rights of Astrologists, Voodoo believers, Scientologists, and New Age crystal wearers, since they are “suppressed” by those silly scientists and their metaphysical naturalism?
Or are these spin words and bullet points designed to stir up emotions in American Christians by claims of “free speech” and “suppression” while flashing pictures of Nazis?
Oversight on my part
Nope. No oversight. I saw a quote from you, countered with what appeared to be a contradictory new statement. I quoted both (and gave a link) and questioned how you aligned those two. If you felt some other comment, or an expansion of the topic was warranted, you were free to use it to explain. I even gave you the link, so you didn’t have to bother searching.
Unlike Christians, I give the source so the person can go look up where I got it from, the context, and do their own research. If you think I was misrepresenting or oversighting—why would I give the link?
Word of God
What the---? I don’t know where this came from…
I quoted the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy using the term “Word of God” when referring to the Bible. Here Apparently you were concerned about the Chicago Statement’s conflation of the term “Word of God” with Jesus, stating:
Jim Jordan: There is a difference between the inspired word of God and the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1) and the term is also used in 1 Samuel 6. God himself is the Word. But that is quite another debate than this.
No matter how convincing one is on casting doubt on the Bible, it is a skepticism of the inspired word, not the Word.
I pointed out how numerously YOU used the term “Word of God” to both refer to the Bible and refer to Jesus. Now you are saying the context of your use clearly demonstrated whether you were referring to the Bible and when you were referring to Jesus. I agree.
But then what was your complaint in Now That’s Original? Couldn’t you figure out, by use of the context, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy on the Bible was referring to…well…the Bible when it said “Word of God”?
Sometimes it is hard to keep up with the complaints.
Abortion
Jim Jordan: What difference is it between your enemy-hood and mine when I debate a dogmatic pro-abortion advocate?
I am the enemy. I show links to photos of dead, mutilated babies as evidence and I'm told that icky pictures only makes me look like a nut job. I say the embryo will develop into a human being and not a football, and I'm told that that's irrelevant. So, I sympathize with you - why do we bother with dogmatists?
Again, the point of my blog entry is being missed. Are you saying pro-choice advocates are misrepresenting your position? The point is NOT, repeat NOT that people disagree; it is the tactics which are used which I am confronting. Here, I will try to lay it out (again) as simple as possible.
1. Generally, Christians say you should not lie.
2. Creationists consider themselves at war with evolution and scientists.
3. Creationists lie, misrepresent and deliberately misconstrue what scientists say.
4. Creationists justify Statement Three, despite Statement One, because of Statement Two.
Now let’s plug this into the abortion debate to see if it fits:
1. Generally Pro-Choice says you should not lie.
2. Pro-Choice considers itself at war with Pro-Life.
3. Pro-Choice lies, misrepresents and deliberately misconstrues what Pro-Life says.
4. Pro-Choice justify Statement Three, despite Statement One, because of Statement Two.
Do you see the difference? It is at that Statement Three. THAT is the crux of this blog entry.
Again, it is not that Pro-Choice activists disagree with you. Such is life. Can you give an example, a demonstration, where the Pro-Choice person deliberately misrepresents what you say? Deliberately lies? Deliberately takes your words out of context? Deliberately leaves on the cutting-room floor positive statements you say?
Thought you might want to read this again:
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing the effect of words and labeling. The other day, while waiting for an Oil Change, I watched some talking head on a news program make a good point:
“We see the Bush Administration utilize certain words, and the media simply picks up on it without thought as to what those words even mean. Think about the current use of the word ‘Surge’ regarding the influx of troops in Iraq. Normally, when we think of the word ‘Surge” we think of a short burst—like a surge of electricity or a surge of water—which quickly returns to the original state.
“However, what we have in Iraq is an increase in troop size with no apparent reduction in the future. This is not a ‘Surge;’ it should be called what it is—an Escalation.”
In the legal community we have seen the same clever use of words when it comes to the “War” on Drugs. See, in “war” things become acceptable which would normally be questioned. If I had an illegal gun in my house – I can be charged with illegal possession of a weapon. We would think it ludicrous to claim the Government could seize my house, simply because I had a single gun within.
Yet if I was growing one (1) plant of marijuana, because we are in a “war” on drugs, the State has the right to take my entire home!
If I get into a fistfight at a bar, the state can charge me with assault and battery. There are no driving sanctions involved—I wasn’t driving at the time. BUT, if I take a puff of pot in that same bar—I will lose my ability to drive for 30 days. No restricted license available. Why?—because we have a “war” on drugs.
I get the same sinking feeling when it comes to the theistic debate arena. As if, to many Christians, I am “the enemy.” And we all know we treat our enemies very differently than our friends. Because this is a “war”—and in times of war we do things normally considered unacceptable.
Could you imagine inviting me to your house, and discover me snooping around your computer—reading your old e-mails? How rude! Or pawing through your financial records in your cabinets? Yet when it comes to our enemies, this is acceptable behavior. We call it “spying.” In fact, we train and teach men and women to do exactly that—spy on other countries. Because they are the enemy.
When speaking to our friends, we expect the truth. But when speaking to the enemy, we actually promote the exact opposite. It becomes wrong to speak the truth; you lie to your enemies.
Many Christians believe it is not only allowable, but honorable to lie to me. Why? Because I am the enemy. The most stark quote on this can be found here “So, for war purposes (believers and unbelievers are at war), I deceived.”
Another interesting facet of people at war is how we caricature the enemy. Look at these war propaganda posters of the Japanese depicting them raping white women, or with sharpened teeth and evil stares. No matter how much a Sony DVD player goes up in price, such an editorial cartoon would be considered slanderous now. Because we are not at war.
Yet I see the same caricature depicted of non-believers. How many times have we been depicted as immoral, alcoholic, sex-crazed social deviants? Or that we are somehow bent on turning every convenience store into a strip joint and every church into a brothel.
How many times have I been told, “Try reading the Bible” when I know it better than the person telling me? Or we see the phrase, “You believe there are no absolutes.” It is a common tactic used in time of war—paint the enemy as ridiculous at times, or frightening at others.
The reason I bring this up is that I have been following the reviews of the upcoming movie with Ben Stein - Expelled. I haven’t seen the movie, and have no intention of doing so until I can free-of-charge. I will not provide financial support to the producers of this film.
But what I find fascinating is the umbrage taken by non-believers and evolutionists to the many visual comparisons of Stalin and Hitler to scientists holding to evolution. Or the concern over the falsehoods, in obtaining the interviews, in editing the interviews, in the reasons for kicking PZ Myers out, in the scientific claims made, and in the factual claims made.
Why? Don’t you get it? To them, they are in a time of war. This is behavior which is to be commended! If this movie was a complete lie, yet was the impetus for Intelligent Design being incorporated in one (1) public school—the Christians promoting this film would consider it a success! The ends most certainly are justified by the means.
To them, if a lie brings about a moral good—then the lie is no longer morally wrong. If a caricature of anyone holding to evolution being the equivalent of Stalin or Hitler convinces a single person to not investigate evolution on their own—then the caricature was morally good.
Don’t you see those complaints about falsehoods; complaints about inaccuracies; complaints about incorrect depictions will fall off them like water off a duck’s back? They don’t care; such actions are tolerable when the outcome is noble.
What if a person of Japanese decent complained of the posters and cartoons distributed in World War II? They would be equally laughed at and disregarded—the enemy complaining about being treated like the enemy? How amusing! Or a foreign country complaining we “lied” about a person in the Ambassador’s staff not being a spy. One lies to the enemy. It is right, just and fair to do so.
You are fighting with the wrong weapons on the wrong ground. Every complaint of “Lie!” is met with a solidifying of their position. Shoot—if the enemy is complaining of your lying, you must be doing something correct! ‘Cause one lies to one’s enemies.
I do think it important to point out the errors. I think websites, such as I linked, must be created to counter the falsehoods in this film. But I equally find it naïve if you think a single Christian will care—even if we prove it a lie.
I am the enemy. What I say is to be rejected outright.
I'll let you re-read that and I'll post a response to your last post shortly.
If you re-read your article Dagoods you'll see you started out with the euphemism "Surge" then you segued into the misrepresentations of Ben Stein in his yet-unreleased movie Expelled.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying point of your post about misrepresentations is that we use language to misrepresent the truth in the face of a common enemy, either real or imagined. That of course means we permit lying if it is against the enemy.
Compare:
The Surge - not a surge but an escalation, but as I said, who's going to call it that? By calling it the surge, we give folks the feeling we are doing something more aggressive (true) but that will last a short time (false).
"Pro-choice" says that someone is exercising a choice (true) which makes it sound like a good thing, but when we see the results of the choice, we realize what a good thing it is not.
Now "pro-life" is not a euphemism because it truly is what it says it is. If the pro-lifer wins the debate, unborn babies will get to live.
On the contrary, pro-choicers have "reproductive rights" - again, a terciary right that trumps a primary right to life. The pro-choice crowd's vocabulary is replete with euphemisms. Why? Because euphemisms misrepresent the truth...and pro-choicers must misrepresent the truth.
And that is the same as misrepresenting what someone else says. To a pro-choice person I am anti-choice. They don't even have to say it. Now because I am pro-life, does that mean I'm accusing the opposition of being pro-death? Well...yeah. Are they pro-death? Yes.
But they lie because they have to in order to keep going and so they tell me I don't care about children after they're born [as if that would mean..what?]. But that is a total lie, or should I say "egregious f-ing BS".
Now does Ben Stein do this misrepresenting in the movie? IDK. Blessings.
To make sure I'm understanding DagoodS position -- you are questioning the tactics employed by one group opposing another.
ReplyDeleteIf I say that theft is wrong, and we shouldn't do it, and yet I steal from my opponents in order to win the fight, I would justify that, and say that the theft isn't wrong in this case, because the other group is wrong.
And I think that's what you're getting at in terms of the abortion discussion. Does the Pro-Choice movement deliberatly misconstrue the Pro-Life position in order to win an argument,even if a Pro-Choicer says that misconstruing is wrong? If a Pro-Lifer said that s/he uses birth control, and the Pro-Choicer took that and said that the Pro-Lifer is lying about it's position because Pro-Life should mean no interference in the conception at all, that is employing the tactics DagoodS condemns.
That is different than saying that the Pro-Choicers lie about everything. If Pro-Choicers say that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer, or reproductive rights are good, and the Pro-Life says the opposite about both, how is the Pro-Choice side misconstruing or lying about what the Pro-Lifers said? How are the Pro-Choicers twisting what the Pro-Life says in order to win the argument? Twisting it like my birth control example?
Or another example would be Richard Dawkins review of the movie, where he was asked under what circumstances he thought Intelligent Design could occur. He gave his best example, and he says it ended with Stein saying that Dawkins believes in ID, which is very much not what Dawkins said. That is misrepresenting what the other side says, in order to win an argument.
(I think Dawkins example involved aliens, which also prompted Stein to say that Dawkins believed in aliens).
Whether you agree with her or not, from what I know about her I've always considered Denyse O'Leary to be a very intelligent person.
ReplyDeletePeace to all
OSS wrote**How are the Pro-Choicers twisting what the Pro-Life says in order to win the argument? **
ReplyDeleteUh, pro-choice itself sends the message that the opposition is anti-choice. Did you read what I wrote?
Where did you see the Dawkins spot?
Martin, Denise O'Leary is definitely a brilliant person. The blogger who attacked her credibility is the one who most exemplifies the "common enemy" mentality that Dagoods exposed in his post.
Jim,
ReplyDelete**pro-choice itself sends the message that the opposition is anti-choice. Did you read what I wrote?**
So anytime a person chooses to define themselves using the word "Pro" or "For" something, they are deliberatly lying or misconstruing what the other side says? Look at my birth control example. Or my Dawkins example. It's taking what the other side says, and lying/twisting it in order to win the argument. Do they take what you personally say, and then use that to make a claim that you never made?
The Dawkins example is here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Thank you, OneSmallStep (and others) for confirming I am communicating effectively. You got it spot on.
ReplyDeleteJim Jordan,
You are correct the term “pro-choice” implies the opponent is “anti-choice.” Likewise, “pro-life” implies the opponent is “anti-life.” Neither is correct. Both are political euphemisms designed to bolster one’s own position.
Ironically, the very thing you dislike (the fact you think you are being called “anti-choice” when you are not) is the very thing you embrace and employ when using the exact same tactic against your enemy. You think you are justified in using the term “pro-life” because the opponent IS “anti-life” in your opinion. But you don’t like it when they use the term “pro-choice” because, in their opinion you ARE “anti-choice.”
If you don’t like it, why use the same method? I have said before, and I will say it again—Christians are horrible at The Golden Rule. Why not treat others they way YOU want to be treated?
I also note you use the euphemism ”Darwinist” which is considered derogatory. Yet I’ll bet my bottom dollar you will justify using the term, just like you justify using the term “Pro-Life.”
If you are complaining about the use of (what you consider) derogatory euphemisms in others, you might want to clean your own house first.
Look, I partly agree with you and partly disagree with you when it comes to the terminology of people in the realm of abortion. I am actually old enough to remember when the terms “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-Abortion” were used. In my opinion, these are very fine terms that adequately explained the person’s position.
For some inexplicable reason, those who were anti-abortion didn’t like the term. Inexplicable because abortion is equated with murder, and genocide and killing. I would think anyone who was against an act in a similar vein would be happy to be labeled “anti-.” Just like I am happy to be labeled, “anti-genocide.”
Be that as it may; they didn’t like the term. So “Pro-Life” becomes invented. Now, is the person who is Pro-Abortion “anti-life”? Of course not! (I know you think that, but we have to re-define the term “life” in order to include a non-viable fetus. Like or spike, such is the reality.) And, not wanting to be labeled, “anti-life,” the Pro-Abortion crowd picks up the term “Pro-Choice.”
Hey, outside of the connotations of abortion, doesn’t everybody want to be “Pro-Choice”? Don’t we all like our choices between McDonalds, Burger King, and Taco Bell? And isn’t everyone “Pro-Life”? No one is “pro-death”! And each lob their words against the other.
Where I disagree with you is that such terms have now become part of our culture. And if we are to communicate, we are stuck with them. I would prefer the old “Pro-Abortion” and “Anti-abortion” but I don’t see any rallying to my cause. In order to define where a person stands, these terms are now utilized.
It’s funny, you don’t like the term “deconvert” so you re-define it in a way in which YOU like, even though the rest of the world does not use it that way. You don’t like the term “Pro-Choice,” so you want to re-define it such a way as YOU like, despite what that term has come to mean. And then you complain about the post modern use of terms of language being subservient to the person speaking.
But isn’t that what you are doing? Are you part of the solution; or part of the problem?
Finally, to demonstrate (again) the point of this blog let me give you two (2) scenarios (using your example), and see if you can tell the difference:
Scenario One:
Person: Jim Jordan doesn’t care about children after they are born.
Jim Jordan: Yes I do, and I will now give the reasons for why I do.
Scenario Two:
Person: Jim Jordan said, “I don’t care…about children after they are born.”
Jim Jordan: If you read what I actually said, it was “I don’t care what you say; it’s all about children after they are born.”
Do you see the difference and the problem?
On the issue of abortion, I am pro-life and the opposition is anti-life. This is objectively true period. There is no euphemism in pro-life because THERE IS NO NEED FOR A EUPHEMISM.
ReplyDeleteThis is a waste of time. You made some good points initially in your post, Dagoods, but your need to justify your own worldview has taken over. Since this is your blog you get to hold the night stick of language abuse. I'll let you have the last word but I'm done with this thread. Later.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI really feel like you do not try to put yourselves in the oppositions' shoes very often, at least when it relates to the issue of abortion. I think you would benefit from sincerely asking yourself why someone might think differently from you on this issue and then researching it. You will almost certainly still disagree with them, but from reading your blog posts and comments, it does not seem that you try to understand where they are coming from at all. I think you could reach a better understanding of the opposition if you did not automatically assume that pro-choice people are evil and unrepentant.
**On the issue of abortion, I am pro-life and the opposition is anti-life. This is objectively true period. There is no euphemism in pro-life because THERE IS NO NEED FOR A EUPHEMISM.**
A pro-choice person could replace all the instances of "life" in that comment with "choice" and it would be just as true.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDagoodS --
ReplyDeleteA question, though. How do we distinguish between those who distort what is said (in the sense that they know what the other side really said, but lie about it), and those who sincerely believe that the enemy is like that?
What if the person is not aware that they misconstrue "the enemy," but simply interprets what the "enemy" says through a lens?
Hi Jumping
ReplyDeletePro-choice folks are confused and in denial in my opinion. Now, to follow your rule. Replace life with choice and it is just as true.
**On the issue of abortion, I am pro-choice and the opposition is anti-choice. This is objectively true period. There is no euphemism in pro-choice because THERE IS NO NEED FOR A EUPHEMISM.**
Does that make sense to you? "Life" can be a euphemism for anti-abortion only if someone wants to believe that the fetus/baby is not alive. Everyone knows it has life. Everyone even knows it's a baby. Obama didn't say that he didn't want his daughter punished with a fetus, he said he didn't want her "punished with a baby".
What is "choice" then? It's the right to choose to abort your baby. Does "choice" say anything about the abortion procedure itself? No. It's therefore a euphemism. "Life" is not a euphemism.
The pro-choice moniker deliberately misrepresents the subject matter while the pro-life moniker is appropriate.
So my point that pro-life is not a euphemism and pro-choice is in fact a euphemism is beyond any reasonable doubt in my opinion.
Jumping---I think you would benefit from sincerely asking yourself why someone might think differently from you on this issue and then researching it.
Been there, done that. I used to think it was a "necessary evil" many moons ago. A child is a scary proposition to a person who doesn't have the means to support it. But that doesn't change what "terminating" the child's life really means one iota. I'm sorry if my advocacy hurts people's sensibilities. I didn't create the subject matter. It is what it is, regardless of how many people say it isn't. They are guilty of the same kind of two-dimensional thinking that Dagoods complained about in his post.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWhen "life" is replaced by "choice" there, it still holds the same truth value. It is true that a pro-choice person is in favor of allowing the potential mother a choice of going through with the pregnancy or having an abortion. The pro-life opposition does not want the woman to have a choice, so they would therefore be anti-choice. That is why I found your previous comment off-putting.
**The pro-choice moniker deliberately misrepresents the subject matter while the pro-life moniker is appropriate.**
Once again, I think this strongly implies that pro-choicers are evil. I don't see how it deliberately misrepresents anything any more than pro-life does. Both terms fit in certain circumstances, but have their limits, and they are just politically-charged terms at the end of the day.
Once again, I think this strongly implies that pro-choicers are evil.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you call it? Is it evil to want to keep abortion legal?
"Choice" by the way also misrepresents the choice that is taken from the baby by pretending it does not have life.
You ask a qood question, OneSmallStep. How do we tell the difference between a genuine misunderstanding of the facts and a deliberate lie? I would note, though, in my entry I cite a situation in which the person embraced lying as a legitimate tactic, since we are at “war.”
ReplyDeleteIn the end we use the same method we do in life—common sense. For instance, the producers of the movie informed Dawkins and Myers they were being interviewed for the movie “Crossroads.” Yet it turns out (of course) the name of the movie was “Expelled.” Dawkins and Myers may have questioned the name, and who was being “expelled” and from what. Rather than what “crossroads” (creationism vs. evolution) meant.
Now the producers claimed the working title was “Crossroads” which eventually changed to “Expelled.” Possible—movies often have working titles which change over the course of time. Was this a lie or a genuine misunderstanding?
But now we learn the website “Expelled – the Movie” was reserved before the interviews of Dawkins and Myers. That no website “Crossroads – the Movie” or any variation thereof was reserved by the producers. It seems reasonable to presume, at least by the time the producers interviewed Dawkins and Myers the movie title was known to be “Expelled.”
So what does your common sense say? A misunderstanding? Or a Lie?
Creationists may also need to note they have a very poor history of not telling the truth. This should cause they to be even more careful- but sadly it does not. It is pretty bad when even creationist sites have to warn other creationists as to untruths being promulgated!