Generic Subject Line #353
So I'm watching Nova, going through their excellent series about evolution on google video.
Well presented, solid, backed-up, clearly explained. Even the episode entitled "What About God?"
That particular episode is calm. Its reconciliatory. It interviews a number of evangelicals, mostly students. Several attending Wheaton, even. And instead of taking the Sam Harris or Dawkins route of attacking the religion, it examines the cognitive dissonance that occurs in kids wrestling with believing in the evangelical omnimax god while being presented with the sciences.
{tangent}
When watching a show about biblical literalism, I usually feel a bit tormented. Often is the case that the entire program is made up of stubborn true believers, on both sides of the theistic fence, flinging shit at each other, rehashing the same tired arguments again and again. Its dreary. Regardless of my own personal stance on said arguments (and if you know me, you know I care a great deal about them), the fact that they don't do a lick of good in figuring the big issue out is what gets to me. Science is science, religion is religion. In the true believer form, they can't mix. Not for any inherent property the theories themselves have, but because of the adherents. Gr.
{/tangent}
These kids are in a bit of a precarious situation. The show...er...shows how they are looked upon with suspicion from their fundamentalist families as well as the modern scientific community. The kids are trying to come to terms with what their faith tells them, and what the facts tell them. Heck, even a Wheaton Provost is interviewed and says that a scientific worldview is necessary for whatever brand of christianity Wheaton spins. Definitely a different outlook than I expected, or have experienced, from Wheaton.
I'm also struck by the incredible difference in the way that the students express themselves. The skeptical students, by and large, express themselves clearly and directly. They talk like they're thinking. The true believers talk like parrots. Fiery and eloquent, but parrots. Like they don't fully comprehend what they're saying.
I think the parrots also tick me off a bit. Maybe its just the years of showing them how the old arguments are clearly wrong, in many respects, going so far as to write it out symbolically, and not seeing any spark of understanding. It isn't that I care [i]what[/i] they believe, I care [i]how[/i] they believe. If you have a belief, and when reduced down symbolically it turns out to be flawed, well, that belief has something wrong with it. It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong; maybe a premise is invalid, or the reasoning is unsound. But you've still gotta rework the argument. And the parrot type don't do that. The ontological argument for god is circular. That doesn't mean god doesn't exist, it just means that the ontological argument is invalid and can't be used as any sort of evidence. Yet the parrot type continues with the same argument, again and again and again. As though through repetition you arrive at fact. Every time it happens fideism seems like a more and more plausible.
...and to bed.
But here's the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8868710003807845640&q=NOVA+duration%3Along&total=460&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=7
Well presented, solid, backed-up, clearly explained. Even the episode entitled "What About God?"
That particular episode is calm. Its reconciliatory. It interviews a number of evangelicals, mostly students. Several attending Wheaton, even. And instead of taking the Sam Harris or Dawkins route of attacking the religion, it examines the cognitive dissonance that occurs in kids wrestling with believing in the evangelical omnimax god while being presented with the sciences.
{tangent}
When watching a show about biblical literalism, I usually feel a bit tormented. Often is the case that the entire program is made up of stubborn true believers, on both sides of the theistic fence, flinging shit at each other, rehashing the same tired arguments again and again. Its dreary. Regardless of my own personal stance on said arguments (and if you know me, you know I care a great deal about them), the fact that they don't do a lick of good in figuring the big issue out is what gets to me. Science is science, religion is religion. In the true believer form, they can't mix. Not for any inherent property the theories themselves have, but because of the adherents. Gr.
{/tangent}
These kids are in a bit of a precarious situation. The show...er...shows how they are looked upon with suspicion from their fundamentalist families as well as the modern scientific community. The kids are trying to come to terms with what their faith tells them, and what the facts tell them. Heck, even a Wheaton Provost is interviewed and says that a scientific worldview is necessary for whatever brand of christianity Wheaton spins. Definitely a different outlook than I expected, or have experienced, from Wheaton.
I'm also struck by the incredible difference in the way that the students express themselves. The skeptical students, by and large, express themselves clearly and directly. They talk like they're thinking. The true believers talk like parrots. Fiery and eloquent, but parrots. Like they don't fully comprehend what they're saying.
I think the parrots also tick me off a bit. Maybe its just the years of showing them how the old arguments are clearly wrong, in many respects, going so far as to write it out symbolically, and not seeing any spark of understanding. It isn't that I care [i]what[/i] they believe, I care [i]how[/i] they believe. If you have a belief, and when reduced down symbolically it turns out to be flawed, well, that belief has something wrong with it. It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong; maybe a premise is invalid, or the reasoning is unsound. But you've still gotta rework the argument. And the parrot type don't do that. The ontological argument for god is circular. That doesn't mean god doesn't exist, it just means that the ontological argument is invalid and can't be used as any sort of evidence. Yet the parrot type continues with the same argument, again and again and again. As though through repetition you arrive at fact. Every time it happens fideism seems like a more and more plausible.
...and to bed.
But here's the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8868710003807845640&q=NOVA+duration%3Along&total=460&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=7