I recently complained (To who? Not sure.) that most of the things I want to blog about lately are too complicated to get into. Not that you guys wouldn't understand them, but that there's a great deal of explanation required to set the context, and that it's 1) too much work for me to go to, since 2) you guys don't really care. That said, this one is good enough to be worth the trouble, I think.
Very briefly: some film makers put together a documentary about the issues of science/biology education vs. Creationism, a "debate" that exists only in the US, amongst Western nations. The reason it only exists here is fairly clear; there's no scientific value to Creationism. In fact, it's reverse science. Rather than objectively (as best humans can) evaluating the evidence and coming to conclusions based on that, Creationists began with a conclusion, that God made the world (in 6 days, 6000 years ago) with His magic powers. They then worked at sifting through and cherry pick from sciences such as biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc, to find "evidence" to back up their pre-conclusion. They've not been very successful, for fairly obvious reasons (they're wrong).
The people behind
Expelled are funded by Creationist groups, but they initially hid that fact and presented themselves as independent film makers while conducting interviews with leading theologians, scientists, biologists, etc. Furthermore, they weren't making a documentary about the issue, but were producing a propaganda piece to argue that science was discriminating against the teaching of Intelligent Design, and that university professors were being persecuted, denied tenure, fired, etc, for their religious beliefs. Once word leaked about this, many of the scientists reacted angrily, since they'd been interviewed under false pretenses, and since they feared (with good reason) that their words would be presented out of context and edited misleadingly.
There's no definitive word on that yet, since the film is not yet showing publicly; just privately, to select, primarily religious groups. Which brings me to...
this amusing blog post. It's by PZ Myers, one of the more prominent science/atheist bloggers. He was interviewed by the
Expelled people, he's been one of the most voluble complainers about the process and the ideological aims of the film, and it's gotten him attention; to the point that when he tried to attend a screening Friday night in Minneapolis, he was expelled from the line. The producers recognized him, barred him from the screening, and kicked him out of the theater entirely.
The punchline, as he gets to at the end of his post, was who they didn't kick out. His friend and guest, Richard Dawkins. Yes, that
Richard Dawkins, author of numerous scientific best sellers, world-renowned lecturer, and the world's best known (except in Minnesota movie theaters, apparently) and most influential atheist. Dawkins they let in without any idea who he was, but PZ, kicked to the curb.
I'm not sure if I enjoy the irony, or the amusement at the ignorance of some assholes, or just the thought of PZ having bragging rights over Dawkins. Whatever the cause, I laughed my ass off at the event in question.
Since one of my posts wouldn't be complete without bitching about something, I'll add that the comments thread, which shot up over 1000 posts in less than 8 hours, depressed me. Most of the people just enjoyed the humor of the event, but a fair number did the usual clueless, "How can they kick you out of a theater, this is America, land of the free?" I see this exact same thing in online forums, where people (usually younger ones) get banned or deleted and say that's illegal, and that they have constitutional rights to be trolls without recourse by the ownership.
I'm not sure how the message implicit behind the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs they've surely seen in hundreds of businesses hasn't sunk in? Private businesses can ban service to people they don't want to serve, within fairly broad parameters. There are constitutional amendments barring discrimination against entire classes or races of people, such as blacks, women, handicapped individuals, etc. But that doesn't mean a movie theater can't kick out someone, for any or no reason, at their own discretion. Just because most businesses don't choose to do this doesn't mean it's not their right. And the same goes for websites and online forums, but much more so, since there's no local jurisdiction to involve, and it's much harder to make a legal argument about an implicit right to access a website.
I always assume these arguments are coming from young, middle or upper class white people, who have never had anything denied to them, and therefore don't even really grasp the concept that something could be denied to them. "How can you not let me have what I want? It's my right!" College professors I've spoken with perpetually lament this issue, as 18 and 19 y/os who breezed through the farce that is the American public school system arrive in college, put forth their usual half-assed effort on a paper or test, and then stare in shock at the first C- they've ever received in their academic career. "How can I not get an A? I deserve an A. I've always gotten A's!"
To construct a parallel to the initial issue of this post; I think the "I'm an American; it's my right!" mindset is essentially identical to the "I'm a Christian (or whatever) and my religion is true and good." The people who say these things are almost certainly the ones least qualified to offer any factual statements about American law, or religious theory. They grew up in the respective systems, and they know something about them via cultural osmosis, but they have only a very vague understanding, not having studied the core documents of either system, and certainly never having ingested any critical analysis.
One of the most common laments by atheists who attempt to engage religious laymen in debates is that it's like wrestling a jellyfish. There's nothing to seize hold of since every religious person has assembled a different tray of beliefs from their cafeteria system of faith, and most of the faithful have no idea what their faith actually states or requires of believers. Nor do they know more than the vaguest caricature of the theory of evolution, the formation of the universe, or other scientific arguments that have almost entirely superseded the ancient superstition explanations.
Hence you get people who call themselves devout (for instance) Catholics while using birth control, supporting capital punishment and abortion, and lacking the ability to name more than 3 or 4 of the ten commandments. How do you argue with such a person about faith or reason? They're entirely lacking in internal consistency, they probably disbelieve most of the core tenants of their own faith, they've never read any theology, and yet they consider themselves faithful, and say their religion is important to them.
I took a class on Sexual Morality last semester, and in one early lecture the very analytical, probably-atheistic professor was talking about various religious interpretations of belief systems, and how people applied rules to others they didn't apply to themselves. He pointed out how silly it was for people to say they were a member of religion A or B or C when they didn't actually follow any/many of the precepts of that religion, and before we could move on one student interjected. She said she was strongly Catholic, and just because she was very socially liberal and thought most of what the Pope said was bullshit didn't make that any less so. The prof kind of chuckled, and said, "Then you're not really a Catholic." The girl looked stunned, and fell silent, and when the break came a few minutes later she stormed out.
I got a snack and walked around the building during the break, and wasn't entirely surprised to find the girl sitting on the steps outside one door, wide-eyed, red-eyed, and trembling. She was very bright, but very tense and intense, and since she was the only person in the class (besides me) who ever had anything to say during discussion, I hoped her freak out wasn't going to go to the point of her dropping the class, since I didn't want to have to carry all the commenting load. So I talked to her for a bit, but mostly listened, since she wasn't available for rational discussion. She was basically livid, red in the face and literally shaking, that the prof could say she wasn't a Catholic. I didn't have much to say about that, since after all... the prof was correct.
Being a member of a religion isn't entirely self-defined. You can be a Christian without following any set doctrines, though you've pretty well got to believe in the divinity of Christ and follow his teachings (
Sherri Shepherd aside). But if you want to be a specific type of Christian, such as a Catholic, you have to believe what that sect lists as their official rules. In fact, the Catholic Church is
kind of picky about that, and fairly specific in
enumerating said rules.
Admittedly, no religion is exactly eager to divest itself of a member, since most realize they remain viable only so long as people are convinced that other people believe in them. Even excommunicated individuals technically remain Catholics, since baptism is forever. They're just denied sacrament and the other perks, and are sure to go to hell.
So technically, the intense girl in my class was right. She was a Catholic, and the prof was wrong to say she wasn't one. She just wasn't a good one, and it was logically absurd for her to say she was one, when as a med student she knew better than most of the foundational and operational mythology, and didn't agree with the theology or political applications of those beliefs. But, as I should have learned long ago, since when does logic or reason factor into anyone's core belief system?
Happily, she remained in the class and continued doing most of the talking, which helped make the rather meticulous lectures somewhat more enjoyable than the dry, technical reading we had to do to support them.
Labels: atheism, religion
