Ben Stein: Science Leads You to Killing People
Ben Stein made his perspective absolutely clear while he was being interviewed by Paul Crouch, Jr. on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
Source: The Carpetbagger Report [emphasis added]
Since Ben Stein rejects science because it is the source of killing people, I think he should immediately renounce the use of any modern medical treatments. Doctors should agree to refuse to provide him with any modern medical treatments, since that would make Stein complicit in a system that leads to killing people. So much of modern medicine is heavily dependent on the progress of modern science that there is just no justification for anyone to denounce science while still partaking in its fruits through medicine.
Ben Stein's movie Expelled is very popular with religious and political conservatives in America, and it's hard not to wonder if part of that popularity is because those conservatives agree with Stein: science is evil and only love of God will save us — even if that means we have to "love" God through political oppression and religious authoritarianism. Ironically, that's rather like how religion has been involved in terror in past centuries: if you love God enough, you'll have to be willing to destroy outsiders who refuse to follow God's orders.
Of course, it's true that the products of science can be used to kill people. There was scientific work behind the development of the gas chambers used in the Holocaust — as well as the atomic bomb, the machine gun, and the pointy stick. Science is simply a process for learning about the nature of reality. It's the most successful process we've ever had for learning about reality, so it's no surprise that it can be used to produce things that work. If you want to produce something that kills effectively, you're best bet is to use some sort of scientific procedure — the same as if your goal is to fly, to save people’s lives, to grow better rice, and so forth.
So in the space of a about a minute we've learned something that Ben Stein in all his years has failed to learn: the problem isn't science, but the people who are using science and what sorts of goals they are trying to fulfill. That, in turn, is heavily dependent upon the sort of ideology they follow. Now, if Ben Stein were to spend any time at all investigating the matter, he'd have found that the Nazis were not motivated in any way by atheism or by Darwinian evolution.
In many cases, the Nazis and other Germans were actually motivated by Christianity. European Christianity had been violently anti-Semitic for centuries, and most of the anti-Semitic measures introduced by the Nazis were only copies of medieval laws created by the Catholic Church. Germany didn't vote the Nazis into power because they ran on a platform of atheism and secularism; instead, the Nazi platform was one of restoring traditional religious and cultural values, supporting the family, and opposing secular modernity.
Comments
“So much of modern science is heavily dependent on the progress of modern science that there is just no justification for anyone to denounce science while still partaking in its fruits through medicine.”
Typo?
Is there any science involved in the movie making process, or do movies grow on trees?
So Stein is ok with killing as long as its unscientific? Like the passover?
I had some curiosity about the movie, so I thought “Well, I watch the movie after reading about it and deciding if I like the subject” So, not even looking for info about the movie I found what is it about and I’m not watching that crap. And yes, I bet that there has to have been a scientific process to invent cinematography. It is not magic, it is technology…so what is the moron of Stein using technology to make a crapy movie? And how come he goes to the doctor when he gets sick? Having good money I bet he goes to a very good doctor, not to a hospital with minimal resourses around Medicaid patients (nothing against Medicaid holders, I’m one myself) Holocaust was a horrible thing, but I think Stein is whining a little to much about it sixty something years later. Get over it idiot! If he thinks technology and science is so bad and his little god is so lovely, quit all his comfotable life and go to the poorest areas in Africa and convince those poor people that they are screwed up because of some divine reason and if they have faith they’ll go to better place…I bet very fast Stein, if you don’t care to have their bellies filled before the preaching. This much religious bullcrap annoys the live out of me.
1. Science leads to killing people.
2. Ben Stein is upset that ID isn’t accepted as science by the scientific community.
3. Should we therefore conclude that intelligent design leads to killing people?
Last night I watched a BBC documentary by Louis Theroux on the Westboro Baptists. Theroux made a very good point that these cultists weren’t able to grasp - that despite professing love, they were really peaching a gospel of hate. Their placards said it all - “God hates fags”.
It strikes me that Ben Stein is suffering from the same confusion. He claims to be motivated by love, yet he is really preaching a message of hate, in this case hatred of science.
I think the moral confusion is explainable. It is God, as described in the Bible, who comes across as the confused one. While many times he professes his “love” for humankind, God seems to be in his element when he is punishing and killing people. Of course, any sensible person can see that such a god does not really exist. Unfortunately, people like Ben Stein are not sensible enough to see the contradictions.
Wow, I can only hope this moronic quote serves to make people ignore anything else he has to say.
“Science leads to killing people” because the weapons of mass murder used in the Holocaust were, themselves, products of science? I would not expect someone who hates science to grasp even rudimentary logic, but honestly…
How does someone with such a flawed perception of reality manage to survive, let alone prosper financially?
I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
Without science, there would never have been planes to enable to 9/11 terrorists.
Without science, there would be no explosives to allow suicide bombers to do their dirty work.
Without science, religious hate-sites wouldn’t be polluting the internet
Without science, the Spanish Inquisition wouldn’t have been able to use all those nifty tools like iron maidens, thumb screws, the rack, etc…
You know… maybe Stein is onto something. Clearly science is the common denominator here.
This is also the same Ben Stein who, in the Expelled “Super Trailer” seemed to express a wish for the Untied States to become even more militaristic and interventionist than it is now - to start more ‘pre-emptive’ wars.
Killing people is a human activity. Propaganda science and military science makes it more attractive. Crookism makes it inevitable.
I suspect that Ben Stein doesn’t believe any of what he is saying. He is using the anti-science campaign as a wedge issue to push his neoconservative political agenda. This is the stuff that brings out the Republican base to vote.
Evolution rules, science proves, and the religious right fools.
-Savanthar’s Maxim
So, Kyle S, if what you say about Stein’s attitude in the “Super Trailer” is correct, that he would be pleased to see the US become even more imperialistic than it’s been and instigate more “pre-emptive” wars than ever before, I assume he’d be expecting us to be able to do this successfully because of our……what? Our deep and abiding faith in the “one true God”? Or our very advanced military technology, that “evil” product of the scientific method?
Ah, heck, I guess it’d be the faith thing, right?
I suspect that Ben Stein doesn’t believe any of what he is saying. He is using the anti-science campaign as a wedge issue to push his neoconservative political agenda. Comment by Noble Baker — May 9, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Stein is not a neoconservative — he’s a old-fashioned paleoconservative. He worked for Nixon.
He also is a very, very smart guy. I have a hard time understanding how he can hold some of the beliefs he expresses, but I have no reason to suspect that he is saying anything he doesn’t think is true.
“Very, very smart” people acting with a clear conscience on nutty notions is a scary phenomenon. I’d almost prefer a good, honest hypocrite.
“1. Science leads to killing people.
2. Ben Stein is upset that ID isn’t accepted as science by the scientific community.
3. Should we therefore conclude that intelligent design leads to killing people?”
No, he’s just upset that there isn’t an IDquisition.
“Very, very smart” people acting with a clear conscience on nutty notions is a scary phenomenon. I’d almost prefer a good, honest hypocrite. Comment by John Halloran — May 11, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Me, too.
Gotta love the hypocrisy of this.
Saying Science is Evil will almost universally get you panned, but say the same thing about religion and its perfectly okay. Thus is our “Politically Correct” world.
Personally I think everyone needs both Spirituality and Reason. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, the result is the same either way: You become a world-hating sociopath.
What bugs me is how people always act like all crime, cruelty, and inhumanity is the fault of religion, and yet historically that’s not true. Hitler was born a Christian but rejected it because he felt it promoted “weakness.” Stalin, of course, was an Atheist and he forced the rest of the country to be Atheistic too. Also, the rise of “Reason” was one of the causes of the French Revolution. Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious.
At the same time religion has been responsible for many noteworthy things that often get swept aside in favor of “Religion is the root of all evil” generalizations. For example, in Ancient Britain it was Christians who wanted to bring literacy to the masses. In early America, half the reason Slavery was opposed was on spiritual grounds.
Now about Ben Stein’s statement: Is Science Evil? By itself, yes. But when counterbalanced with an equal amount of spirituality, no. I say that because its primarily the spirit that gives us morality. Now, I’ve heard people say that you can be moral without spirituality, but I just can’t buy that. Without any sort of spirituality, all morality is based on a system of “don’t hurt them if you don’t want them to hurt you.” That kind of reasoning breaks down if you’re ever behind some kind of protection–witness the amount of jerks on the internet who act the way they do because they no longer fear retribution. Its only with spirituality that you have a reason to keep up the good work regardless of whether or not you have the upper hand.
Well, I’ve said my piece. I’ll leave it to others to present the counterpoint.
Ben Stein isn’t the only “stein” who realized the inherent dangers of science. Another, more famous stein, Albert Ein”stein”, often worried about the misuse of atomic energy by mankind, especially after he saw the devastation created in Japan at the end of WWII. But Albert, unlike Ben, was intelligent enough to realize that science doesn’t kill people, people kill people…with or without science.
Feel free to define what you mean by them and provide evidence to support your claim.
Feel free to provide evidence of this… or is it just a straw man of your own creation?
Prove it.
Prove it.
Is it possible that that’s just due to your own poverty of imagination?
Prove it.
Prove it.
Counterpoint? You haven’t actually raised any points. You’ve only made a series of unsupported assertions and allegations. Moreover, they are arguably bigoted allegations because you are denying the ability of people to be moral unless they adopt this undefined “Spirituality” you keep going on about.
>Saying Science is Evil will almost universally get you panned, but say the
same thing about religion and its perfectly okay. Thus is our “Politically Correct” world.
Which world are you referring to? I’d like to visit it. In my world there is a long tradition of crediting Religion with all that is good, even denying that good is possible without it. In my dream “factually correct” world, saying “science is evil” would be universally panned. Since Science is a process for gathering reliable knowledge about the world, to say it is evil makes absolutely no sense.
>Personally I think everyone needs both Spirituality and Reason. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, the result is the same either way: You become a world-hating sociopath.
Is it rational to be a world-hating sociopath? If not, how can reason lead to it? What could “too much…(reason)” possibly be? Please explain what you mean by Spirituality and why too much of it leads to one becoming a world-hating sociopath so I can be sure to avoid it.
>What bugs me is how people always act like all crime, cruelty, and inhumanity is the fault of religion, and yet historically that’s not true… At the same time religion has been responsible for many noteworthy things that often get swept aside in favor of “Religion is the root of all evil” generalizations.
Is this really an attempt at an argument? “People always”? “Historically”? “Swept aside”? Your terms are so vague as to render it meaningless. Nice straw man though, I particularly like the hat.
>Hitler was born a Christian but rejected it because he felt it promoted “weakness.” Stalin, of course, was an Atheist and he forced the rest of the country to be Atheistic too.
These types of statements have been refuted often enough, which you’d know if you cared, so I won’t bother.
>Also, the rise of “Reason” was one of the causes of the French Revolution.
I’m sorry; you’re going to have to define “reason” for me as well. I thought we were talking about the same thing, i.e. sound judgement, basing beliefs on evidence…
>Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious.
Check your sources again (if you actually have any).
>For example, in Ancient Britain it was Christians who wanted to bring literacy to the masses.
…and before the unification of Italy (1870) the Papal States had the lowest literacy rates of all of Western Europe.
>In early America, half the reason
Slavery was opposed was on spiritual grounds.
…but slavery was also defended of religious grounds.
>Now about Ben Stein’s statement: Is Science Evil? By itself, yes.
Science is a process carried out by people. It does not and cannot exist “by itself”.
>But when counterbalanced with an equal amount of spirituality, no.
What does this mean?
>I say that because its primarily the spirit that gives us morality.
How?
>Now, I’ve heard people say that you can be moral without spirituality, but I just can’t buy that.
Were these people immoral, or were there living , breathing refutations of your bigotry standing in front of you, desperately trying to have a conversation?
>Without any sort of spirituality, all morality is based on a system of “don’t hurt them if you don’t want them to hurt you.” That kind of reasoning breaks down if you’re ever behind some kind of protection–witness the amount of jerks on the internet who act the way they do because they no longer fear retribution. Its only with spirituality that you have a reason to keep up the good work regardless of whether or not you have the upper hand.
Will Spirituality make my teeth shiny as well?
>Well, I’ve said my piece.
Now defend it. Do try to slip some facts and logic in.
>I’ll leave it to others to present the counterpoint.
What is your point?
And now, from the grave, Einstein comments on Stein et al:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080513122249.m3ds3b6j&show_article=1&catnum=-1
Austin Cline, is an a**.. plain and simple!
When critics are reduced to profanity-laden personal insults, you know that they have run out of arguments.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS AMAZING MOVIE. I ENJOYED EVERY MINUTE OF IT AND I AM SO ASTONISHED AT THE STUPIDITY OF THESE “SUPPOSEDLY LEARNED PROFESSORS”. HOW CAN ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN NOT KNOW THAT WHEN THEY GO OUTSIDE AND SEE OUR AWESOME WORLD,THAT IT DID NOT JUST HAPPEN WITHOUT GOD OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN? I CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE THEIR DEGREES,NOR WOULD I EVER WANT TO SINK TO THEIR LEVEL OF NO FAITH AND NO BELIEF. AT LEAST THOSE OF US WITH FAITH IN GOD HAVE A HOPE AND A FUTURE. THOSE POOR PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE MISSING. THANKS AGAIN! I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN AND TAKE ALL WHO WILL GO WITH ME.
“Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious.”
This is, of course, a lie. In the US, 18% of the population is non-religious, and 72% is religious. In US prisons, 99.8% are religious, and 0.2% are non religious. To carry this point farther, all nations that are less religious than the US have lower prison rates.
Correlation or causation, the link between atheism and non-criminal behaviour is as solidly proven as the link between atheism and higher education.
Q: What do you call a theist / creationist with half a brain?
A: Gifted.
Austin Cline, is an a**.. plain and simple!
Ace ?
WHAT I’M SAYING IS IMPORTANT SO I’M USING ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN HEAR ME!!!!
Saying that science is evil is, of course, a tad over-dramatic. What IS evil is a logical progression of the basic tenet of practical Darwinism (ie. eugenics): I shall not only use this lever to lift that rock, but to bash in the head of that paraplegic struggling to reach a low-hanging piece of fruit. By practical Darwinism, I mean Darwinism employed as technology; and by “technology” I mean the exploited embodiment of knowledge. Like the misuse of a lever.
What arrests this evil is clearly an undefined, unprovable, unquantifiable (though somehow qualify-able) empathy.
All of the premises that a logical argument is built on must be truth, or the conclusion of the argument is fallacious. Not only that, but every pertinent premise must be included - the premise “set” must be complete - or the conclusion is fallacious. Omissions are equivalent to falsities. This would lead Ben Stein to infer that Darwinism is either false or incomplete, since its conclusive argument coupled with self-direction (technologically-aided evolution) leads to murder, and a crumbling of the sanctity of life. Is life to be sanctified? (Prove it, you say.)
Well, it seems rather obvious that it is, since we need to be alive in order to prove or disprove anything in the first place.
And by the way, assertion without “proof” is the common method of dialogue, because it is the most efficient and simple.
Boy: I love you.
Girl: Prove it.
We do not live in a “proof-only” world.
What leads to evil is a misinterpretation of meaning. Even “there is no meaning” is quite meaningful, and can lead to some pretty darn ugly actions. All that Stein says is “If we misinterpret the findings of Science (including Darwinism), we will commit rational, logical atrocities.” I would go one step further, and say that if we misinterpret ANY information stream (including religion), we are liable to commit rational, logical atrocities. Which, of course, we all do in small ways every day.
Science is not evil - humanity is. We believe a lie to be a truth, and rely on logic to carry out the error to a false conclusion, to false action.
We all make mistakes. (No doubt you’ll prove that one.)
Except that “Darwinism” is something that exists in the mind of creationists.
Moreover, “eugenics” is applied all the time every day without evil.
No, the conclusion of the argument is simply wrong. A conclusion cannot be fallacious; fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors of fact. You can have an argument with false premises and correct reasoning and which therefore has no fallacies.
True, but this doesn’t excuse not being able to support an assertion when challenged.
Ben Stein does not say that in the quoted text. If you can find any place where he does say it, quote him. As stated, he is quite explicit that science itself is evil, not that misuse or misinterpretation of science is evil.
You’ve already done that for me.
Except that “Darwinism” is something that exists in the mind of creationists.
Could you explain that, or point me to an explanation?
Moreover, “eugenics” is applied all the time every day without evil.
The modern day meaning of eugenics, which has not been fully defined - yes.
No, the conclusion of the argument is simply wrong. A conclusion cannot be fallacious; fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors of fact. You can have an argument with false premises and correct reasoning and which therefore has no fallacies.
Okay, my bad. Substitute “wrong” for “fallacious” in my previous post.
True, but this doesn’t excuse not being able to support an assertion when challenged.
Proving everything one says, as a matter of course, just won’t happen. To expect it from every sentence someone writes or utters is kind of preposterous.
Ben Stein does not say that in the quoted text. If you can find any place where he does say it, quote him. As stated, he is quite explicit that science itself is evil, not that misuse or misinterpretation of science is evil.
Right. I’d just watched his documentary, did a Google search, and came upon your blog. So my mind was still in the movie, so to speak. He doesn’t say science is evil in the film, and I was paraphrasing what I thought the documentary was trying to get across. As to his quote about science being evil, I hope it was just to provoke conversation. (Fingers crossed.)
You already did by making several at every step of your comment.
Gee, thanks.
The idea of “Darwinism” is used by creationists in place of evolutionary theory, which is the proper name. Evolution is no more “Darwinism” than relativity is “Einsteinism” or physics is “Newtonism.”
No “modern day” about it. Eugenics is simply about “good birth,” or promoting the birth of healthier, better individuals. Eugenics can be bad or good, depending on how one goes about it, and currently it’s used every day in a variety of circumstances for a variety of reasons, but without any evil involved.
Notice that I said “supporting,” not “proving.” Proof is warranted and necessary in some circumstances; simply having good support is sufficient in other circumstances.
Unless you can point to someone actually doing that, this is either irrelevant or a Straw Man.
Nor does he say what you attribute to him.
But I do quote him directly above: science leads you to killing people.
The idea of “Darwinism” is used by creationists in place of evolutionary theory, which is the proper name. Evolution is no more “Darwinism” than relativity is “Einsteinism” or physics is “Newtonism.”
Ah, thank you.
No “modern day” about it. Eugenics is simply about “good birth,” or promoting the birth of healthier, better individuals. Eugenics can be bad or good, depending on how one goes about it, and currently it’s used every day in a variety of circumstances for a variety of reasons, but without any evil involved.
Well, that definition of eugenics requires yet further definitions of “good” and “better”, which cannot be algorithmic. But, I suppose, a definition of evil cannot be algorithmic either, so there goes my argument.
Notice that I said “supporting,” not “proving.” Proof is warranted and necessary in some circumstances; simply having good support is sufficient in other circumstances.
Okay.
Unless you can point to someone actually doing that, this is either irrelevant or a Straw Man.
Oh, above, in your reply at post 20.
Nor does he say what you attribute to him.
I guess I shouldn’t have used quotes. I was paraphrasing the overall message of the documentary. He doesn’t actually say “If we misinterpret the findings of Science (including Darwinism), we will commit rational, logical atrocities…”, but I think it’s an accurate distillation.
But I do quote him directly above: science leads you to killing people.
Yep. I think he may want to put some qualifiers in there.
Where in post #20 do I say that I expect proof from every sentence someone writes? In post 20 I don’t even expect proof from every sentence I responded to, never mind every sentence that the person might offer. Instead, I challenged them to provide proof for strong empirical assertions of fact.
If you think that any particular challenge for proof was misplaces, feel free to point it out and explain why. Otherwise, the general objection to how many challenges for proof were made isn’t worth very much — especially so long as you ignore the context of how many strong empirical assertions of fact were made.
Does it really make sense to object to lots of requests for proof without also objecting to lots of unsupported assertions? Indeed, which is really worse: making lots of assertions of fact without offering any support or challenging those assertions and expecting the person to back up what they say?
Why, given the fact that he provides a highly inaccurate portrayal of science and evolutionary theory?
But if that’s what he really believes, then perhaps your distillation of the message of his documentary isn’t so accurate after all.
Science, with all of its wonder and horror, like religion, are all motivations of the human mind. That it. Sorry for such an unexciting reply to Stein fella.
Where in post #20 do I say that I expect proof from every sentence someone writes?
Well, that was your general reaction to the unproved assertions. Those kind of assertions about spirituality are broadly assumed to be self-evident on the part of the asserters, because the information source (the spirit) is considered absolutely trustworthy, and not subject to the same laws of proof required by the discerning mind. What this particular poster means by “spirit”, however, I don’t know.
Indeed, which is really worse: making lots of assertions of fact without offering any support or challenging those assertions and expecting the person to back up what they say?
Parents do the former with their children all the time. The interaction is based on honesty, trust, and innocence. The latter, however, is decidedly more beneficial in an environment where the three aforementioned properties are in short supply. So I see your point of view.
–I think it’s an accurate distillation.–
Why, given the fact that he provides a highly inaccurate portrayal of science and evolutionary theory?
No, I think I accurately distilled the message he was trying to get across. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Oops, chopped some off:
But if that’s what he really believes, then perhaps your distillation of the message of his documentary isn’t so accurate after all.
Well, of the documentary as a stand-alone, I think it’s accurate. And as for his quote…
“Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. ”
I would imagine, coupled with the content of the documentary, that he actually thinks that science, as the prime component in the production of meaning, leads us to killing each other. Whereas the “love of God, compassion, and empathy” as prime components do not. I have no evidence whatsoever to say he thinks this.
To those assertions. In that context.
Such assumptions are not an excuse to not be able to prove one’s assertoins.
Then a person can assert the opposite and be equally “correct,” rendering the assertions valueless.
An irrelevant relationship in this context.
Oh, I understood what you meant. My point is: why do you think he would be trying to say what you claim given that he is essentially lying about science and evolution?
Since his own quote above is contrary to that, are you asserting that you know his mind better than he does?
Such assumptions are not an excuse to not be able to prove one’s assertions.
There’s no need for proof, because trust is more elegant (in the framework of those assumptions). So they won’t give any. They’ve allowed their minds to accept, without the normal safeguards of doubt, whatever information they’ve received from their “spirit”.
Then a person can assert the opposite and be equally “correct,” rendering the assertions valueless.
Yep. You’d have a way of discerning for yourself whether or not their spiritual “information source” is, in fact, trustworthy.
An irrelevant relationship in this context.
Not at all. Communication, truth, and information are relevant in every context, no matter the expressed relation.
Since his own quote above is contrary to that, are you asserting that you know his mind better than he does?
I’m offering you an alternative viewpoint. Of course I don’t know his mind better than he does (though I think it’s possible to do this with friends and family). A regular conversation is comprised of one or more natural languages - it is not formalized, like mathematics, or logic. We are therefore not able to analyze such conversations in a formal manner. One comment can mean several different things, and increasingly so when isolated from the complete content of all the thoughts of the information source. Granted, I do not know his complete mind, but neither do you - so if my assessment is improbable based on a 90 minute documentary coupled with the above quote, then your assessment is all the more invalid because it is only based on the quote alone.
But, I don’t think either of our assessments are invalid.
Maybe not when they are sitting at home, contemplating the perfect circularity of their ideology. When they go out into the world and assert the truth of their ideology, however, they are in for a rude awakening. I won’t cease to demand support or proof for their assertions simply because they cannot conceive of anyone not immediately trusting their infallible word.
It’s 100% irrelevant because I”m not a child being instructed by a parent.
Of course you are. What I wonder, though, is whether that viewpoint has any sound foundation. If you cannot offer one - and that appears to be the case - I must conclude not.
Except that I’m not working based on the quote alone. It’s interesting that you would assume so, even though you had evidence to the contrary.
Before this two-person debate gets too dry to swallow anymore, I would like to point out something about the “Darwinism” mentioned earlier. Mr. Cline was correct when he asserted that “Darwinism” is something of a fabrication, but he seems to treat it as if it was merely a semantic issue. “Darwinism” in American society is a much bigger problem than semantics. I have taught science in high school and it has become abundantly clear that few people have even a basic grasp of what the theory of evolution by natural selection is about. The misconceptions are quite astounding. Raise your hand if you think that Darwin said our ancestors were monkeys, or that evolution leads to progress and advancement! Most of the ideas we have about evolution do not come from Darwin at all. originally they came from an American named Herbert Spencer who wanted to use Darwin’s theory to promote the robber barons of 19th century Capitalism. Many of the objections to evolution that people have would be resolved if they actually understood it, rather than relying on the misrepresentations that have been going around for more than a century.
Maybe not when they are sitting at home, contemplating the perfect circularity of their ideology. When they go out into the world and assert the truth of their ideology, however, they are in for a rude awakening. I won’t cease to demand support or proof for their assertions simply because they cannot conceive of anyone not immediately trusting their infallible word.
Right.
It’s 100% irrelevant because I”m not a child being instructed by a parent.
Right. But a trusting person will not only accept many things without proof, but also offer statements without thinking that they need to prove them. I was illustrating this point. The person above, going on about their “spirit”, doesn’t require it, and so doesn’t offer it. Asking for it doesn’t make sense, because they won’t even know where to start.
Of course you are. What I wonder, though, is whether that viewpoint has any sound foundation. If you cannot offer one - and that appears to be the case - I must conclude not.
Very well.
Except that I’m not working based on the quote alone. It’s interesting that you would assume so, even though you had evidence to the contrary.
It is that single quote that you keep wielding, so I was putting it back into a larger pool of information - namely, the documentary.
Before this two-person debate gets too dry to swallow anymore, I would like to point out something about the “Darwinism” mentioned earlier.
I think such misconceptions are rampant. And inevitable. And sorry to bore you!
I guess I’ll bow out now. Thanks for replying to my posts, Austin. I appreciate it.
I doubt they would simply “trust” me if I asserted the opposite. So, I challenged your characterization of them as a “trusting person.” At best, they are simply trusting of whatever they hear that agrees with them, which isn’t a very interesting observation as that describes how most people are much of the time.
What I think is far more likely is that many people are completely unaccustomed to being asked to support any of their assertions. They spend too much time with like-minded people who simply nod their heads in agreement when they hear their own views parroted back to them. Faced with people who sincerely disagree, have challenging questions, and contrary facts, many just freeze up, get defensive, and/or leave. It’s too uncomfortable for some to be faced with having to defend, justify, and support opinions taken for granted by themselves and others they know.
It’s thus less a question “trust” and more a question of intellectual immaturity.
1. It happens to be the subject of the post you are commenting on.
2. I also happen to have brought up more than once how he misrepresents both science and evolution.
Just read the comments from someone else called Nate about Austin being an ass.
For the record Austin, it wasn’t me. “Ace” probably would fit more precisely. Thanks for speaking up for the non-religious.
go **** ur slef
Gotta love the hypocrisy of this.>
The ‘hypocrisy’ here is that proponents of intelligent design (whatever that is, exactly, I am not entirely sure, but I know that it’s a brand of creationism, the newest to develop, and that it was first formulated by an American lawyer named Philip Johnson) and other anti-evolutionist creationists, particularly in the U.S, are always whining about their views on the origin of species etc not being taught in school science classes, giving the illusion that they actually care about science education, that they genuinely think that their views amount to valid scientific theories and that hence, by trying to inject their views into the school science curriculum, they have the best interests of science education at heart. Here, however, we see one of their number in his true colours, openly expressing disdain for science. Lest any atheists (or anyone else, for that matter) needed a less equivocal indication that what the anti-evolutionists are really interested in is not science education, but the promotion of their religious ideology in science classes, this is it.
Maybe in the U.S.A. this is one of the characteristics that distinguish a palaeo-conservative from a neo-conservative. Expressing hatred for science outright is something that has kind of gone out of fashion among religious and political conservatives in recent decades (at least in the West) in favour of dressing religious superstition up as science. Palaeo-conservatives have become accustomed to employing this latter tactic alongside neo-conservatives, as Ben Stein’s support for the I.D. movement shows, but are perhaps not as tuned into it as their neo counterparts and thus more likely to revert to the old-school habit of explicitly denouncing science.
Then again, that’s just my hypothetical opinion.
Saying Science is Evil will almost universally get you panned, but say the same thing about religion and its perfectly okay. Thus is our “Politically Correct” world.>
Jimmy, you’re obviously from another planet, probably in a parallel universe. In my world, it is criticism of religion and saying that religion is a source of evil that is not politically correct, whereas one can most probably get away with denouncing science as evil. In many parts of this world (though, thankfully, not in my home country, Britain, at least not at large, anyway), so much as professing a lack of belief in the existence of gods opens one up to persecution and discrimination, unofficial and sometimes even official. This is at least part because of the association of atheism with criticism of and opposition to religion, which continues to enjoy a position of privilege in society, to the extent that it is treated as immune from the sort of criticism we apply to just about everything else in life.
Hitler was born a Christian but rejected it because he felt it promoted “weakness.”>
1) Everyone is born without a belief in the existence of any gods and is thus an atheist at birth, so no, Hitler was not born a Christian.
2) Hitler was apparently never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and not only remained a Christian throughout his rule, but in fact used his religion as a justification for the persecution he carried out, not least the persecution of the Jews. Whatever quotes from him that led you to belief that Hitler regarded Christianity as promoting weakness were perhaps referring to forms of Christianity that he didn’t approve of, those that he felt promoted ‘Bolshevism’.
Not to mention, most drug lords, gangsters, and everyday criminals tend to be nonreligious>
Jimmy, I have to say once again that you must come from some other planet. You don’t come the U.S. That’s for sure. Over there, the overwhelming majority of the prison population are apparently Christians.
Without any sort of spirituality, all morality is based on a system of “don’t hurt them if you don’t want them to hurt you.”>
Excuse me, but ‘Do to others as you would have done by’, otherwise known as ‘the Golden Rule’, is found in the very book that this Jimmy person probably professes to be the ultimate source of his moral guidance. (I am not sure, by the way, that Jimmy is a Christian, since there is nothing in his comment to explicitly suggest so. However, given that I have read and heard the word ’spirituality’ used more by conservative Christians than anyone else, my guess is that he is). The Golden Rule did not actually originate in the Bible; rather, it originated in far Eastern religions (or so I am told). Nonetheless, it is found in the Bible, is it not? Yet here we have this guy, who most probably is a Christian, and likely a conservative one at that, and thus doubtlessly one who likes to give an impression of being obsessed with the authority of the Bible, alluding to the Golden Rule in a sentence in which he effectively says that it results from a lack of spirituality. This, in turn, is in the context of a comment in which he suggests that there is a necessary link between morality and spirituality. This suggests that he dismisses the Golden rule, which is found in his own Bible, as not being legitimate morality! How ironic! So much for absolute authority of the Bible!
So, first you comment on our hypocrisy for criticising Ben Stein’s statement that ’science leads you to killing people’ while saying same thing about certain brands of religion, when in fact the real hypocrisy is that this very same moron is among the fanatical conservative Christian nuts in the U.S.A. seeking to inject religion into science classes under the banner of acting in the best interests science education. Then, you suggest that saying science is evil is not considered socially acceptable, whereas saying the same about religion isn’t, when, if anything, it is the other way round. You suggest that criminals tend to be infidels (those without any religious affiliation), when in the U.S at least, the overwhelming majority of the prison population are Christians. Finally, you implicitly suggest the Golden Rule is not true morality, when it is found your very own Bible, the very book you presumably claim to be your ultimate, absolute and final authority!
Wow, Jimmy! I for one would damned hard-pressed to fit more irony into one comment! Congratulations!
Here we are once again arguing over who has the “all encompassing answer” to explain the phenomena of “life”. The funny thing here is that Atheism in this blog is being presented as something superior than other beliefs - wow, isn’t that how wars start? Atheism by definition, is a religion just as much as Islam, Christianity or Hinduism is. This blog is nothing more than peddlers of ideas, peddling their ideas. Whether Atheist or believer in a higher power, neither -in my peddling- adequately explains our existence at this point in time.
In relation to the film -which has got Austin’s thong in a wad- he completely missed the point. If you don’t know what the point is, I pity you.
Really? If so, you should be able to point to an atheist here doing so.
Since I explicitly deny that atheism is a belief at all, that would be impossible. Feel free, though, to actually point to where you think I am doing what you accuse me of. You can support your accusation, right?
Oh, and because atheism is not a proper noun, it should not be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
Atheism, by definition, is the absence of belief in gods. It may be compatible with some belief systems (like Objectivism) and even some religions (like Buddhism), but all by itself it is no more a religion than theism all by itself.
You make it sound bad to have ideas and talk about them.
Given your misunderstandings about atheism, I have trouble crediting you with much understanding of the “point” of the film, either. You’re welcome to prove me wrong, though.
My understanding of science is that it is a method by which we develop understanding of our environment. A scientist has an idea about how neurons are affected by cocaine and he/she develops a procedure to test that hypothesis to determine it’s validity. Scietific advancement in our understanding of the complexity of cellular biology has precipitated legitimate questions regarding the validity of the theory of evolution. When institutional dogma (darwinism) replaces intellectual curiosity then that dogma for all intents and purposes becomes a religion. Darwinism isn’t a truth, it is a theory and as such it should be questioned and tested.
Whoever told you that was misleading you.
Except for the fact that Darwinism isn’t dogma or religion any more than Plate Tectonics.
Do you understand what “theory” means in science?
After watching Expelled, it seems that Ben Stein is seeking to not expel God from science and it appears to beg the question why has the debate for intelligent design been taken off the table. It is a question for debate.
What role would a “God” have to play in science and why?
Intelligent Design has been “taken off the table” for the same reason that astrology has: it’s not science.
If you disagree and think that it qualifies as genuine science, you’re more than welcome to make a case for that. Otherwise, there really isn’t anything to debate, is there?
Most of the comments are assuming that Mr. Stein is seeking a certain outcome. The issue is a refusal to allow any dialog which challenges the current dogma. This is funny because the Darwinist can not scientifically explain the first cell, thus rely upon faith, the issue raised by opponents to Intelligent Design.
Automatic dismissal of theory without review, or acceptance, creates the potential for abuse, a fundamental problem with Darwinism. Opponents of ID need to explain their conduct, not their favorite theory, in terms which is other than a dismissal to the gulag, because conduct is the issue.
The implications of the discussion extend deeply into our present culture. This discussion will continue for years to come until mystery is removed by science, answer the how, replicate the how, and maybe this discussion will approach conclusion.
The origin of the first cell isn’t addressed by evolutionary theory. Anyone who actually understands evolutionary theory already knows this.
And one of the fundamental problems of Intelligent Design is that it isn’t a scientific theory. Dismissing it therefore leads to no more abuse than dismissing astrology.
Evolution “Orign of the Species” or “Transmutation of the Species” is IN NO WAY A SCIENTIFIC THEORY; IT IS PURE AND UNADULTERATED IMPOSSIBLE RANTING! And this “Chief Scientist” will debate and beat in the first “Affirmative/Negative” go-around any evolutionary scientist — including Richard Dawkings — who has the guts to debate it publically. COWARDS!
Can you explain how and why it fails to fulfill the conditions necessary for a theory to be scientific?
You can’t even get Dawkins’ name right.
Maybe after you demonstrate that you know enough about science to be worth taking seriously, someone will consider the possibility of debating you. Until then, you’re the only one “ranting” here - just look at all the invective, insults, and inappropriate use of all-caps as proof.