Bill Nye booed in Texas...

[Ink Asylum]

for saying that the moon did not generate its own light, but reflected sunlight. (http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m4d22-Just-shoot-me)

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" was booed in Waco, Texas for suggesting the Moon did not generate its own light, but reflected light from the sun.

Trouble started when the children's entertainer brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars," and pointed out that the lesser light was actually a reflector.

At this point, several people in the audience stormed out, including woman with three small children who shouted, "We believe in God!" and left.

He did kind of invite it by quoting the bible before scientifically disproving it. Still, I'm amazed there are people who would get angry over such a basic scientific fact. It's not like evolution, it's physics.

[Goronmon]

Wait a minute. You are telling me that there are people of questionable intelligence living in the US at this very moment? I am shocked! Shocked I say.

[Johan]

This has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with stupidity. There's nothing in the Bible that says the moon is a star, unless you directly interpret it that way (and one can interpret rain as dry weather, if one wants). :rolling eyes:

[Ink Asylum]

Wait a minute. You are telling me that there are people of questionable intelligence living in the US at this very moment? I am shocked! Shocked I say.

Sad to say. Be careful, you may, right this moment, be in the same room as an idiot.

[Ancalagon]

Well, they are stupid. But then again, I have to admit I dont think its too bright for him to bring up the Bible and correct it. I mean, yeah its a 2000 year old book, of course its going to be filled with scientific inaccuracies. Criticizing it in one of the most conservative and fundamentalist parts of the US probably wasnt the smartest idea.

But on the other hand, I guess someone needs to combat stupidity and misinformation. Like it or not, thats what the moon is, and if that shakes you from belief in God, then you werent a very strong Christian to begin with. Likewise with evolution.

[Johan]

I dont think its too bright for him to bring up the Bible and correct it.

Again, there is nothing in the Bible that says the moon is a star. He didn't correct the Bible, he corrected their foolish, and wrong, interpretation of it.

[menage]

Wow....the moon...really???.....Just wow.

I mean there are idiots sure, but this rams straight into the negative IQ scale.

[Voodoo]

I wonder how they explain to each other the different phases of the moon.

[Telefrog]

I lived in Texas for two years, thanks to the Army. Going to Waco to teach science sounds like an excercise in futility.

[Ancalagon]

Again, there is nothing in the Bible that says the moon is a star. He didn't correct the Bible, he corrected their foolish, and wrong, interpretation of it.

I think, for many Texans, their interpretation of it (or their pastors) and the Bible itself are the same thing.

I wonder how they explain to each other the different phases of the moon.

We dont take kindly to you scientist types 'round here, boy. Best you get moving before trouble starts.

[Johan]

I think, for many Texans, their interpretation of it (or their pastors) and the Bible itself are the same thing.

That would be a display of real stupidity as well, and goes into issues of hermeneutics, original languages vs. translations, and the like. Taking someone's word for what a biblical passage means is just as dumb as taking a scientist's word for what something means; one should always be skeptical and work to understand things for one's self.

Also, I find the whole idea that science disproves the Bible silly. The Bible doesn't comment on terribly much science, and what it does comment upon has to be examined for whether it is allegorical, literal, or the like. Evolution and faith are not incompatible, for example, and the passage regarding the moon has nothing to say about the moon being a source of its own light.

Silly. People are silly.

[Voodoo]

We dont take kindly to you scientist types 'round here, boy. Best you get moving before trouble starts.

The image shown to little boys and girls in Waco when they ask about Saturn...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w23/Nocturne_photo/Saturn-Goya1i.jpg (http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w23/Nocturne_photo/Saturn-Goya1i.jpg)

"Saturn is the devil and will eat you too!"

[Kelegacy]

I have a severely negative perception of my countrymen. Sure, it's only the idiots that the media mentions, but every time I turn on the news I have to shake my head. It's sad. Education in this country obviously needs to be improved.

[Sandman]

Bill Nye was stupid for bringing that up in Texas but the point clearly zoomed over his audience's heads. He should go back to tv. Maybe get a deal for a show with Discovery Channel and start blowing shit up for a living.

[hunterx280]

I have no problem bringing science to the masses but he basically spit in the peoples faces by insulting them. Why would they want to listen to him now? There was no need to bring the Bible into what he was doing. He could have just as easily given the science without knocking the Bible. People tend to get insulted if you start criticizing anything they believe in. This isn't exclusive to religion.

[torrefaction]

That would be a display of real stupidity as well, and goes into issues of hermeneutics, original languages vs. translations, and the like. Taking someone's word for what a biblical passage means is just as dumb as taking a scientist's word for what something means; one should always be skeptical and work to understand things for one's self.

Also, I find the whole idea that science disproves the Bible silly. The Bible doesn't comment on terribly much science, and what it does comment upon has to be examined for whether it is allegorical, literal, or the like. Evolution and faith are not incompatible, for example, and the passage regarding the moon has nothing to say about the moon being a source of its own light.

Silly. People are silly.

Wow Johan. Not for nothing...I don't know if your views have changed slightly over the years, or your ability to express them has improved through years of being attacked for your faith on forums (Yeah, I recognize it happens ;) ) , but I'm utterly impressed by your position on this. It feels like night and day from some of the older conversations we had, many MOONS ago.

[National Kato]

I have no problem bringing science to the masses but he basically spit in the peoples faces by insulting them. Why would they want to listen to him now?

If sharing knowledge and opening minds is an insult, maybe these people need to be insulted a bit more.

[hunterx280]

If sharing knowledge and opening minds is an insult, maybe these people need to be insulted a bit more.

It was an insult to say basically say "That book you're following? It's WRONG!" He could have just as easily said that it was a common misconception that the moon is a source of light. It's actually a reflector of light.

[Goronmon]

It was an insult to say basically say "That book you're following? It's WRONG!" He could have just as easily said that it was a common misconception that the moon is a source of light. It's actually a reflector of light.Pointing out someone/something is wrong isn't an insult.

[National Kato]

But he didn't say, "That book you're following? It's WRONG!" He read the passage and then explained what it meant. Much like a teacher might do when reading a passage from Shakespeare. It's what teachers do.

If you think that's insulting, that's not Nye's problem.

[Ink Asylum]

I wonder how they explain to each other the different phases of the moon.

God's winking at us. That flirt.

[TheFlyingOrc]

If sharing knowledge and opening minds is an insult, maybe these people need to be insulted a bit more.

It's not opening minds. There's no reason to make sure to mention that the moon is a reflector after mentioning the bible passage about the "two great lights". The fact that its a reflector doesn't even slightly contradict with the imagery, and only would if the passage was trying to give a scientific explanation for how the moon functioned. Most of the people in the audience probably wouldn't have a problem with being informed that the moon was a reflector if he hadn't gone out of his way to pretend like he was correcting Geneisis.

edit: Quite frankly, anyone who reads the opening chapter of Genesis (which is a drat poem) as being written in a literal manner is being really dumb. Both Nye and the people offended were dumb here.

[National Kato]

That cheeky monkey.

[National Kato]

It's not opening minds. There's no reason to make sure to mention that the moon is a reflector after mentioning the bible passage about the "two great lights".

We'll have to disagree. You saw him as correcting the Bible. I saw him as using what I assume is a commonly known reference, in Waco, to highlight a scientific fact. Not a correction at all...just an example the audience would understand.

[TheFlyingOrc]

We'll have to disagree. You saw him as correcting the Bible. I saw him as using what I assume is a commonly known reference, in Waco, to highlight a scientific fact. Not a correction at all...just an example the audience would understand.

Well, I went back and read the whole article, and he MAY have actually been criticizing literalists, as I am. That, however is taking the journalist's word for it, because there's nothing in his statements that indicates that. I'd have to see the whole context.

[Wraith]

He should go back to tv. Maybe get a deal for a show with Discovery Channel and start blowing shit up for a living.Well he is on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire now, as the "Ask the Expert" lifeline.

Of course his knowledge is wasted when they ask him questions like "if every U.S. senator spoke for three minutes, how many total minutes would it take."

[menage]

God's winking at us. That flirt.

Now that was funny:D

[hunterx280]

But he didn't say, "That book you're following? It's WRONG!" He read the passage and then explained what it meant. Much like a teacher might do when reading a passage from Shakespeare. It's what teachers do.

If you think that's insulting, that's not Nye's problem.

That's not what he did. He brought up the passage in the Bible then explained why it was wrong, not what the passage meant. Maybe he intended to do so. Bill Nye has never come off as a jerk. All I'm saying is that maybe he could have been a bit more sensitive the the region he is in. The people overreacted but it's not their fault for being insulted.

It's like old people using terms that were considered normal when they were young but are now taken as insulting or even racist. For example, some people will take offense at the word "orientals" but older people still use it. They mean no harm (not always but the older people I've encountered usually don't) by it but it's still not something they should do. If both sides took a bit more time to understand the cultures the other comes from they could probably avoid these sorts of situations. They mean no harm by it but it's still not something they should do.

We do a lot of talk about being culturally sensitive but when it comes to religious culture we seem to leave that out. BTW, I'm not religious and I would argue to someone in that crowd who was insulted by it that it was a poor choice of words but Mr. Nye more than likely meant no harm by it and that they should stay and listen to him because he is a good guy and has done a lot of good by teaching science to kids.

[hunterx280]

We'll have to disagree. You saw him as correcting the Bible. I saw him as using what I assume is a commonly known reference, in Waco, to highlight a scientific fact. Not a correction at all...just an example the audience would understand.

I agree with you here but I think it was a poor choice. I still think Bill Nye is a great guy and I used to watch his kids science show and during reruns of Almost Live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_Live). He's done a lot of good for bringing science to people. It was a silly mistake and I hope the people of Waco will give the man a second chance.

[Shrinn]

It's entirely possible that, in his mind, the logic went like this.

"Lets connect the bible to science! God says the moon is a light, and it is! But it gets its light from the sun and reflects it, lighting up the night sky."

Maybe his intents were good. Shame he couldn't deliver on those intents were that the case.

[National Kato]

Shrinn is correct. The people who walked out, a handful of them, made the mistake because they shut off when they heard him offer up anything other than a literal translation of the Bible. These are likely people who believe God created everything in 144 hours. These people are not Nye's intended audience.

[Ink Asylum]

I still think Bill Nye is a great guy and I used to watch his kids science show and during reruns of Almost Live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_Live).

Wow. Blast from the past. I used to watch that show on Comedy Central way back when.

[Johan]

Perhaps the real lesson to be learned here is that a scientist shouldn't be offering biblical interpretations in his presentations (he's not a theologian, after all), and that at least some biblical interpretations shouldn't be held so tightly that you produce diamonds as quickly as Obama changes his mind on prosecuting officials from the previous administration over torture! :D

[Telefrog]

From everything I've ever seen or heard about Bill Nye, it's quite easy for me to believe that he was purposefully spitting on people that interpret the Bible literally. He's always been a complete bastard, that Nye. I'm actually a little surprised that he didn't actually take a dump on the Bible then explain why it was wrong. Following that performance, I'm sure he would've added, "You morons!" just as he set fire to the Texas state flag.

Seriously. It's Bill Nye. I'm sure whatever offense he gave was unintentional.

[Ink Asylum]

Following that performance, I'm sure he would've added, "You morons!" just as he set fire to the Texas state flag.

What's really cool is that he set fire to it using a mixture of chemicals you can find in your pantry! Try this at home, kids!

[TheFlyingOrc]

What's really cool is that he set fire to it using a mixture of chemicals you can find in your pantry! Try this at home, kids!

We're gonna need another Timmy.

[Sl1pstream]

It's Waco, what did anyone expect?

[hunterx280]

It's funny. One of the first things I thought was, "It's ok, Texas is planning on seceding anyway." (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-union-probably-wont/) Even now I say let them. I really think they overreacted to Bill Nye's poor choice of words but they still weren't that bad. I say give the man another chance.

[BlackPete]

God's winking at us. That flirt.

He's mooning you, not flirting with you.

Can you think of anything more insulting than someone slowly mooning you over the span of a month? :mad:

[BlackPete]

Behold a Texas politican:

pgKepHebKRc

This video was posted by Joe Barton himself. He doesn't seem to realize that he only succeeded in making himself look like a fucknut.

[Ox]

Pointing out someone/something is wrong isn't an insult.
Depends how you phrase it. "You slack-jawed, hickbilly fuck, God is DEAD! Also, the Moon is a reflector" might arguably be seen as insulting. Without knowing exactly how Nye phrased it, it's hard to say whether or not he was deliberately trying to insult his audience.

[Shrinn]

"You slack-jawed, hickbilly fuck, God is DEAD! Also, the Moon is a reflector"

I have the strongest urge to preface all of my factual statements with that sort of address.

[Goronmon]

Depends how you phrase it. "You slack-jawed, hickbilly fuck, God is DEAD! Also, the Moon is a reflector" might arguably be seen as insulting. Without knowing exactly how Nye phrased it, it's hard to say whether or not he was deliberately trying to insult his audience.In other words, if you insult someone and then show they are wrong, at some point you have insulted them. Brilliant. ;)

[pronounconnoun]

You would figure of someone was that fundamental, they would avoid anybody who calls themselves the "Science Guy."

[National Kato]

You would figure of someone was that fundamental, they would avoid anybody who calls themselves the "Science Guy."

Good point. After all, they only need one book for all the sciences.

[ClannerDelta]

Behold a Texas politican:

This video was posted by Joe Barton himself. He doesn't seem to realize that he only succeeded in making himself look like a fucknut.

Don't be snarky, that's just one theory. Many, many people believe that when God blessed Texas he also gave the Dinosaurs the know how to build an oil pipeline. Both are equally as plausible. You have no right to be condensationing.

[Kelegacy]

Dinosaur bones were put in the earth by Satan to create doubt of God's existence.

Also, one of my engineer roomates senior year in college believed man existed with dinosaur, since God created everything during in 7 days. I don't know how he ever got into college.

[National Kato]

I don't know how he ever got into college.

My instinct tells me he'd give credit for that to God.

[Bingley Joe]

I don't know how he ever got into college.

.. I thought you said he was an engineering student :p

[TheFlyingOrc]

Also, one of my engineer roomates senior year in college believed man existed with dinosaur, since God created everything during in 7 days. I don't know how he ever got into college.

Because it requires fairly technical knowledge about radiometric decay to understand why an ancient earth is not only the leading theory, but nearly unimpeachable?

[Voodoo]

Dinosaur bones were put in the earth by Satan to create doubt of God's existence.

Also, one of my engineer roomates senior year in college believed man existed with dinosaur, since God created everything during in 7 days. I don't know how he ever got into college.

You should have asked him about the chickens. :eek:

[OUX]

God is DEAD!

Off topic but does anyone else mentally fill in "God remains dead. And we have killed him," and do a little arm pump whenever you read this?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Off topic but does anyone else mentally fill in "God remains dead. And we have killed him," and do a little arm pump whenever you read this?

I'm not getting the reference.

[Generation ABXY]

I'm not getting the reference.

Are you kidding?

Nietzsche was notorious for fist pumping. In truth, I have no idea what he's going on about either.

[OUX]

Come on, killing God? That has to be a server first.

[Ancalagon]

Boom headshot!

[Narradisall]

Come on, killing God? That has to be a server first.

They'll probably argue his on a 1 second respawn time....

..and his corpse despawns so fast you can't even ninjaloot the good stuff.

[TheFlyingOrc]

They'll probably argue his on a 1 second respawn time....

..and his corpse despawns so fast you can't even ninjaloot the good stuff.

Actually, its on a 3 day timer.

[Deadend]

Actually, its on a 3 day timer.

But getting the <Godslayer> title is worth it.

[OUX]

But getting the <Godslayer> title is worth it.

That is almost impossible though considering you have to kill God, Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, the golden child, and Morgan Freeman in less than a week.

[rifter]

Pointing out someone/something is wrong isn't an insult.

I am coming late to this conversation, sorry ---
From that article, it sounds like he was insulting. How you word things, at times, means more than what you say. I am a conservative christian, but also believe in science, and understand well that the moon reflects the light of the sun. That doesn't mean I am stupid. If someone was using his presentation to say look, the bible is wrong, and here is why, I would probably be pretty offended at his stupidity. If I were going to a Bill Nye show to be entertained, I really doubt I would expect to have some anti-bible proofs come out, as part of it.

[National Kato]

How you word things, at times, means more than what you say. I am a conservative christian, but also believe in science, and understand well that the moon reflects the light of the sun. That doesn't mean I am stupid.

And yet when told that the moon reflects light, a handful of these people were offended and argued that they 'believe the Bible,' and not Nye, before walking out. Which means they believe the moon is a direct light source. Therefore, kinda stupid. :)

[Ancalagon]

That is almost impossible though considering you have to kill God, Jesus, Shiva, Buddha, the golden child, and Morgan Freeman in less than a week.

Most of those I could do, but Morgan Freeman? No way.

[Spockrocket]

I wish Bill Nye would do this more often. I find those audience members' reaction hilarious.

I mean yeah, Nye probably could have worded it differently so as not to seem like he was trying to disprove the bible, but half of the fun of public speaking is seeing how many you can insult in one go.

I had a great plan to rip my school apart at graduation, but alas, my class rank wasn't high enough to get to give a speech.

[roboninja]

The idea behind saying Nye is the problem here is what allowed these adults to be "educated" in such a way that they did not know this simple fact in the first place.

[Johan]

Scientists should stay out of theology.
Theologians should stay out of science.
Stupid people should stay in Texas.
Texas should secede. Soon.

Problem solved!

[Lint of Death]

I wonder how many people would have reacted the same way if he had mentioned the same fact without the biblical comparison. Would they realize later that he was contradicting a literal interpretation? I wonder how that would feel, to be convinced by scientific reason and then only later have it dawn on you that it goes against what your religion asserts.

[ShivaX]

I wonder how many people would have reacted the same way if he had mentioned the same fact without the biblical comparison. Would they realize later that he was contradicting a literal interpretation? I wonder how that would feel, to be convinced by scientific reason and then only later have it dawn on you that it goes against what your religion asserts.

Most people would never realize it. Look at all the modern conviences created or possible because of the things they supposedly don't believe in. We're talking about people who tend not look at things objectively. They'll claim science is false and they'll do it from their GPS satellite phone.

[National Kato]

Stupid people should stay in Texas.
Texas should secede. Soon.


And to think you once got very upset at me for disparaging South Carolina with an Anchorman joke. I guess it depends on the state you live in.

[Johan]

I guess it depends on the state you live in.

You go right ahead and exercise your freedom to crap on whatever state, religious group, or other demographic slice you like. Plenty of that going on in this thread already! :D

Also, if you actually remember inane stuff like Internet arguments, I'd say you ought to hit the delete button more often, like I have taken to doing. Wipe it away, move on, and forget it. So much more satisfying! For example, I would never have remembered what you just pointed out. Interesting...after all, your first post in here said this:

If sharing knowledge and opening minds is an insult, maybe these people need to be insulted a bit more.

You also pointed out, insultingly, that apparently these people only need one book for all the sciences.

Glass houses and all!

[TheFlyingOrc]

Most people would never realize it. Look at all the modern conviences created or possible because of the things they supposedly don't believe in. We're talking about people who tend not look at things objectively. They'll claim science is false and they'll do it from their GPS satellite phone.

A few things:

In their minds, science and technology are non-overlapping circles in the little venn diagram in their head.

They consider "SCIENCE" to be a religion. People like Dawkins (and far worse, Hitchens!) are not helping fix this problem. People like Nye usually are, but someone with his interest in science and a religious background would probably do much better - think Francis Collins, but an entertainer.

[rifter]

It boils down to this, no matter what your message, if you are an ass-hole to people, they will TREAT you like an ass-hole. WOW! What a revelation. This whole thread is based on Nye ACTING like an ass-hole.

If he was bringing food to Ethiopia, and and laughed at their living conditions, he would still be an ass hole. Just because you are doing something good, while being a dick, doesn't make you any less of a dick.

That is the entire issue here. Not saying there wasn't some ignorance in the crowd, but ultimately, he was a dick to them, and he is NOT going to get a good reaction.

[MagGnome]

Nye was a dick for pointing out that something in the Bible is wrong?

Give me a break!

The idea behind saying Nye is the problem here is what allowed these adults to be "educated" in such a way that they did not know this simple fact in the first place.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Hawkzombie]

Would THIS be a good time to use my 'people are sheep' comment? :P

And...I'm Christian (Non-Denom) but even I know there are things science can explain better than the bible, and vice-versa. Faith is one thing...outright stupidity is another.

[ShivaX]

Faith is one thing...outright stupidity is another.

This pretty much sums up my views on religion and science.

[Johan]

Nye was a dick for pointing out that something in the Bible is wrong?

MASSIVE :facepalm:

Feel free to challenge the Bible, but let's at least stick to facts when doing so. The Bible doesn't say that the moon is a source of light, and anyone interpreting the passage in question as giving a scientific explanation of the moon or the light reflecting off of the moon is, as in the case of some in the crowd listening to Nye on this occasion, poorly informed at best.

Nye didn't correct the Bible. He corrected people's wrong interpretation of what the Bible says.

[MagGnome]

Yes, I got Johan to facepalm!

Mission Accomplished. :D

[Johan]

Yes, I got Johan to facepalm!

I was gumming my food from my hand. ;)

[MagGnome]

I was gumming my food from my hand. ;)

Be careful! You'll damage those new gums of yours.

[Ancalagon]

A few things:

In their minds, science and technology are non-overlapping circles in the little venn diagram in their head.

They consider "SCIENCE" to be a religion. People like Dawkins (and far worse, Hitchens!) are not helping fix this problem. People like Nye usually are, but someone with his interest in science and a religious background would probably do much better - think Francis Collins, but an entertainer.

I dont think any scientist really considers science to be a religion, but it seems common that science provides explanations for things previously thought to be mystical, like the case of the moon. But if that alone is enough to challenge your faith, you never were a strong Christian anyway. IANAC (I am not a Christian) but my understanding is that Jesus' message of loving God and loving yourself and your neighbours, and tolerance and respect etc, is more important than whether the moon reflects light or not.

Dawkins and Hitchens are against religion because science has rigorously proven answer for things like evolution and the moon, and because they view religions themselves as bad. They dont confuse science with religion at all.

I also think its lame that people think science threatens their religion and are thus against it. I'm sorry people, the world has gone all scientifical right under your noses for the past few centuries. Get used to it. If you cant reconcile that with your faith, consider what your faith was based upon in the first place.

[Ox]

I dont think any scientist really considers science to be a religion
My aunt believes crystals have healing powers, but she's convinced she's not religious.

[Ancalagon]

My aunt believes crystals have healing powers, but she's convinced she's not religious.

Um..... I dont see how that relates. Thats pseudoscience or mysticism anyway.

If she believes they "work" because of science, then she misunderstands science. If not, its neither religion nor science.

[Ox]

My point is that, just because you claim your beliefset is a "religion", doesn't mean you're right. Science is predicated on empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism), which is a philosophical school just as much based on unprovable metaphysical assumptions as any other. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) article provides greater explanation.

I agree that science and Christianity are compatible, but I don't see them as necessarily fundamentally different things.

[Ink Asylum]

I wouldn't call believing in healing crystals, astrology, fortune telling, or the like "religious." Perhaps they fit the technical definition, but not the mainstream usage. I would group those under "spiritual."

[Ancalagon]

My point is that, just because you claim your beliefset is a "religion", doesn't mean you're right. Science is predicated on empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism), which is a philosophical school just as much based on unprovable metaphysical assumptions as any other. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) article provides greater explanation.

I agree that science and Christianity are compatible, but I don't see them as necessarily fundamentally different things.

No, I explicitly claim my beliefset is not a religion and has nothing to do with religion. Thats my point, the two are separate.

[Bone]

Waco gives Texas a bad name. There are many places in Texas where education and religion aren't one and the same, and people actually have an open mind.

Those places are called Austin.

[National Kato]

Those places are called Austin.

Yes, but you also have vampire bats that fly out from under a bridge, attacking tourists and draining them of blood, so...you know, it balances out.

;)

[Bone]

Those bats are harmless, unless they give you rabies or something :)

Come to think of it, I'd still consider this the best place to live even if there were vampire bats. Maybe even moreso.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Dawkins and Hitchens are against religion because science has rigorously proven answer for things like evolution and the moon, and because they view religions themselves as bad. They dont confuse science with religion at all.

I wouldn't entirely agree about the last statement, as I consider anything that defines what your "purpose" (or alternatively, any claims that life is devoid of purpose) to fall under the big umbrella of "religion", while not necessarily being "a religion", if you understand my meaning.

I'd argue that Dawkins/Hitchens and their ilk do answer a number of Big Why Questions with "Because Science!" Obviously it's more nuanced than that, but I think they use the pursuit of knowledge as part of their self-definition.

However, that's not what I'm getting at in my earlier post. The way in which the "New Atheists" (common nomenclature, not mine) are attacking religion as scientists, and using their scientific ideas as a basis for doing so, makes certain types of people think of "SCIENCE!!!" as a large, collective, opposing religion.

[Ancalagon]

I wouldn't entirely agree about the last statement, as I consider anything that defines what your "purpose" (or alternatively, any claims that life is devoid of purpose) to fall under the big umbrella of "religion", while not necessarily being "a religion", if you understand my meaning.

I'd argue that Dawkins/Hitchens and their ilk do answer a number of Big Why Questions with "Because Science!" Obviously it's more nuanced than that, but I think they use the pursuit of knowledge as part of their self-definition.

However, that's not what I'm getting at in my earlier post. The way in which the "New Atheists" (common nomenclature, not mine) are attacking religion as scientists, and using their scientific ideas as a basis for doing so, makes certain types of people think of "SCIENCE!!!" as a large, collective, opposing religion.

Science has nothing to do with defining my purpose or how I fit into this world. I would think that would be true of any scientist. Science says nothing about loving neighbours or observing the sabbath, it only attempts to explain things and understand them.

I think your post illustrates a common misunderstanding though.

First, there are two broad ways in which one can refute religion. One is on a scientific basis - ie evolution, the moon, the age of the universe etc. It is quite possible that people can "accept" science and still believe in religion. Indeed, there are many that do. Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive, because science is not religion.

The other way is socially - based on the harm which it brings, based on inaccuraces in the Bible, etc etc all of those other arguments. Dawkins (for the most part) and Hitchens fall into this category (Dawkins fits into the first category because he also refutes arguments against evolution).

Scientists can only ever attack scientific inaccuracies propounded by religion, such as their stance on evolution. It does not and cannot say anything about the social impact of it. A lot of people who arent religious accept science, and so attack religion from both angles, but many religious people can also accept science. The point I'm trying to make is that science and religion are not the same, science is not a replacement for religion or philosophy, and discarding science because your religion tells you to is plain ignorance.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Scientists can only ever attack scientific inaccuracies propounded by religion, such as their stance on evolution. It does not and cannot say anything about the social impact of it. A lot of people who arent religious accept science, and so attack religion from both angles, but many religious people can also accept science. The point I'm trying to make is that science and religion are not the same, science is not a replacement for religion or philosophy, and discarding science because your religion tells you to is plain ignorance.

I am not disagreeing with your statement here. However, being a scientist does not mean you are not a GOOD scientist, and many, many people use a vague idea of "science" as their religion. I have even specifically seen an anti-religious website that specifically said "Now that we've convinced you that religion is false, you probably need something to fill that void. We recommend science!"

[Ancalagon]

I am not disagreeing with your statement here. However, being a scientist does not mean you are not a GOOD scientist, and many, many people use a vague idea of "science" as their religion. I have even specifically seen an anti-religious website that specifically said "Now that we've convinced you that religion is false, you probably need something to fill that void. We recommend science!"

Oh, well in that case I would consider the anti religious people a bit stupid in their recommendation, unless they were recommending science to fill the time or something. Which, obviously, they were not.

The only... situation in which I could see that having value is if the anti religious people had just convinced someone of the uselessness of religion, and then mentioned science as a way of explaining things previously explained by religion - like the moon (which of course some people couldnt care at all about). But as a moral guide it has no value.

[ShivaX]

But as a moral guide it has no value.

If anything as a moral guide science has a negative value. Without some sort of morals behind it, science can lead to all sorts of horrific things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation)

[OUX]

If anything as a moral guide science has a negative value. Without some sort of morals behind it, science can lead to all sorts of horrific things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation)

Only if you choose to ignore the entire part of biology about homeostasis, natural balance and community relationships. Then again, if you are just going to ignore parts of things nothing has any real moral value. ... I am not sure what my point was.

[alienmastermind]

Dinosaur bones were put in the earth by Satan to create doubt of God's existence.

Also, one of my engineer roomates senior year in college believed man existed with dinosaur, since God created everything during in 7 days. I don't know how he ever got into college.

You know, if it wasn't for my horse, I never would have finished college.

[alienmastermind]

If anything as a moral guide science has a negative value. Without some sort of morals behind it, science can lead to all sorts of horrific things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation)

Watch out! He's dropping the truth bomb.

I would also say that treating a sector of the society as less than human factored into the abuses in those days. To the Nazis, the Jewish and less desirables were like animals.

[ShivaX]

Watch out! He's dropping the truth bomb.

I would also say that treating a sector of the society as less than human factored into the abuses in those days. To the Nazis, the Jewish and less desirables were like animals.

Well sure, but they still considered them human otherwise the experiments would've been useless. From a science aspect they wanted to know the effects of certain things on human beings.

And its not like it was just the Nazis who did it. I mean the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) might have thought everyone wasn't human. Or maybe Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments) thought that the residents of the Marshall Islands weren't human.

[alienmastermind]

You also pointed out, insultingly, that apparently these people only need one book for all the sciences.

Glass houses and all!

Elementary school kids only use the one book until they grasp the basics.

I think it's fitting if one is ignorant, to learn in that way.

[alienmastermind]

Well sure, but they still considered them human otherwise the experiments would've been useless. From a science aspect they wanted to know the effects of certain things on human beings.

And its not like it was just the Nazis who did it. I mean the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) might have thought everyone wasn't human. Or maybe Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radiation_experiments) thought that the residents of the Marshall Islands weren't human.

I'm not familiar with the Marshall Islands thing. Did we irradiate people just to see what would happen? Or did we take volunteers and irradiate them?

Or was it supposed to be secret, like the Tuskegee Airmen?

[ShivaX]

I'm not familiar with the Marshall Islands thing. Did we irradiate people just to see what would happen? Or did we take volunteers and irradiate them?

Or was it supposed to be secret, like the Tuskegee Airmen?

Most sources I've read said it was fairly questionable. They knew there was a high risk of fallout irradiation, but went and did it anyway.

Thats really just one example, if you want to look at purely intentional stuff that same link talks about the Plutonium experiments where they just poisoned sick people and "feeble-minded" boys and the like.

[Inspector Fowler]

I also think its lame that people think science threatens their religion and are thus against it. I'm sorry people, the world has gone all scientifical right under your noses for the past few centuries. Get used to it. If you cant reconcile that with your faith, consider what your faith was based upon in the first place.

I think the problem many have is that there is a near constant flood of people who insist on screaming, as loudly as possible, that science trumps religion. This is obviously irritating to people of many faiths.

Being a huge fan of science (I walked around in a daze when I figured out the eeeety beeeeety bit of the LHC I can actually comprehend), and also a Christian, I have no trouble reconciling my observations of the world around me with my faith.

But when non-religious people ridicule people of faith by saying, "Science says X, Y, and Z, so your faith is bullshit", you just make them circle the wagons and put their fingers in their ears more. When I was still a teenage atheist, my (very modestly dressed) girlfriend and I were approached by some Catholics handing out little tracts that essentially said, "Stop dressing like a whore." By insulting me, it only served to make me shut out their message as firmly as I could. For years I would accost and enrage every Christian I could.

If Nye really gave a shit about "educating" them, he would present the message in a way that didn't attack their faith, because he would know that attacking them guarantees that they will ignore him and not learn a damn thing.

[Johan]

I have no trouble reconciling my observations of the world around me with my faith.

People who declare that science disproves religious faith are closeminded.
People who declare that religious faith disproves science are closeminded.

Nobody can ultimately answer, with objective, empirical evidence, how matter and the universe came into being, whether by natural or supernatural means.

Also, theologians shouldn't try to be scientists, and scientists (like Nye) shouldn't try to be theologians. That was his fundamental error. He's there to talk about science. Talk about it. Leave the theology to the theologians, or go get a degree in the field first.

[National Kato]

Leave the theology to the theologians, or go get a degree in the field first.

Wait, now you have to get a degree to makes a passing mention to something? How many degrees do you hold? I mean, that's just silly.

[Johan]

Wait, now you have to get a degree to makes a passing mention to something? How many degrees do you hold? I mean, that's just silly.

No...if you're going to wrongly make a passing mention at supposedly disproving something the Bible doesn't even say, then you have proven you need a degree in the field before speaking on the topic, and should therefore shut the hell up and stick to your area of expertise, to avoid unnecessary stupidity and offense.

Anyone dumb enough to think the passage in question indicates the moon is a source of light is too ignorant to make public comments on the topic at a session supposedly on the topic of science, not religion/theology.

Stick to what you know, to what you've advertised you will present, and you'll do very well.

Also, I have a helluva lot of degrees, including in theology. :D

[National Kato]

Also, I have a helluva lot of degrees, including in theology.

Well, just as long as you have one for every topic you opine about on this forum, I suppose you're following your own rigid guideline.

As for Nye, it's quite obvious, even to those of us without a stack of degrees, that he wasn't trying to disprove the Bible. He may have made a poor choice of reference in his presentation (as far as the small handful of individuals who were upset are concerned) but to say that he must stick to discussing only what he has a degree in, as if understanding the Bible now requires a theology degree, is pretty nearsighted.

[Johan]

Well, just as long as you have one for every topic you opine about on this forum, I suppose you're following your own rigid guideline.

I don't believe you understand my point. Context for what Nye was taking part in:

Nye was taking part in McLennan Community College's Distinguished Lecture Series, giving talks on global warming, Mars exploration, and energy consumption, but it was the moon thing that got them.

He's at a lecture series, as an individual of scientific expertise, to lecture in his area of expertise. I wouldn't attend a lecture at Notre Dame on a given topic (say, home schooling) and pretend to know of, or try to tell them anything about, Catholic theology.

He strayed into an area he is not an expert in, at an event where he was billed as an expert in science.

He screwed up.

...as if understanding the Bible now requires a theology degree...

It helps, just as understanding any other complicated subject requires study. Theology is quite complicated. If you don't think study helps one's understanding of theology and hermeneutics, then I'd say your understanding could broaden/deepen.

[Ancalagon]

People who declare that science disproves religious faith are closeminded.


Thats true, but with a caveat.

Science can and does disprove religious claims about the way things work. For a very basic example, the universe was thought to be geocentric for ages (I think even the Bible states that everything revolves around the Earth). This is plain wrong. That kinda stuff, I'm afraid science has the last word. Its not that it disproves religion itself (which is a social phenomenon more than a physical or even metaphysical one), its that it disproves claims made by religion with regard to physical stuff. Like the age of the earth and how genetic diversity came to be what it is.

However, on matters of morals and principles, I dont think science even tries to go there (although it depends on whether you consider philosophy itself a science).

[Johan]

I think even the Bible states that everything revolves around the Earth

This is untrue.

The Catholic church said that, for centuries, but not the Bible. Protestations to the contrary, the Pope is not the living embodiment of Biblical truth. At least, not for many hundreds of millions of Christians who are not Catholic.

[alienmastermind]

Thats true, but with a caveat.

Science can and does disprove religious claims about the way things work.

Also see: Bats are birds according to the Bible. Huh.

[Johan]

You'll forgive me, I hope, for not taking too seriously the biblical interpretations of people who have little or no education in theology, and an obvious disdain for the veracity of the object which they hold in disrepute, while doing so in ways that are so elementally incorrect in their assertions.

[Ancalagon]

This is untrue.

The Catholic church said that, for centuries, but not the Bible. Protestations to the contrary, the Pope is not the living embodiment of Biblical truth. At least, not for many hundreds of millions of Christians who are not Catholic.

Fair enough, but the Catholic Church did influence Christians of all kinds in their thinking. Besides, even if they didnt, the point is that it was a physical claim made by a religion that was proved false by science. And there was initially much opposition (Galileo?). See also pi = 3 not 3.14, and alienmastermind's example of bats being birds.

[Johan]

...the point is that it was a physical claim made by a religion that was proved false by science.

Actually, the point is it was a claim made by people who were incorrectly interpreting, or not even reading, the Bible.

That's the point. People make assertions, and build interpretations, based upon hearsay and ridiculously, patently incorrect declarative statements regarding a topic they know little or nothing of (Biblical theology).

[Ancalagon]

Actually, the point is it was a claim made by people who were incorrectly interpreting, or not even reading, the Bible.

That's the point. People make assertions, and build interpretations, based upon hearsay and ridiculously, patently incorrect declarative statements regarding a topic they know little or nothing of (Biblical theology).

It doesnt make a difference what the REASON for them being wrong was. Whether they interpreted it badly or some material was lost during reproduction, the fact is that it was accepted as fact. If you challenged them back in the day, that could lead to derision at best or burning at the stake at worst.

[Johan]

It doesnt make a difference what the REASON for them being wrong was.

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world, between whether the Bible is wrong, or the people are wrong as they interpret the Bible.

That's a rather tremendously important distinction that far too many people willfully ignore, or sadly don't even recognize.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world, between whether the Bible is wrong, or the people are wrong as they interpret the Bible.

That's a rather tremendously important distinction that far too many people willfully ignore, or sadly don't even recognize.

The Bible is not the sum total of the Christian religion. Nor is the Koran the sum total of the Islamic religion. You well know that there is more to each religion than their respective holy books, and as you say that something is interpretation (as well as tradition etc). I hope you agree that interpretation is a highly personal thing, and sometimes cannot be wrong or right (homosexuality, the age of the earth, abortion, all the classic disputes). I hope you dont claim to have the One Right Interpretation and Everyone Else is Wrong?

And as such, you might define a person's religion as their interpretation. The Bible itself, as you noted, can sometimes be irrelevant to what a particular person believes to be true. Does the Bible explicitly state that the Moon is a source of light? I'll take your word for it that it does not. Yet these people believe that it is a source of light. That may not be from the Bible but it sure is part of their religion. Go and tell them their interpretation is wrong, you'll get a similar reaction to Bill Nye. So Bill Nye criticizes their interpretation of religion, as you can see from their reaction, for all intents and purposes he was criticizing their religion. I would argue there is no difference between what you hold to be your personal religion, and your interpretation.

[Slack3r78]

Depends how you phrase it. "You slack-jawed, hickbilly fuck, God is DEAD! Also, the Moon is a reflector" might arguably be seen as insulting. Without knowing exactly how Nye phrased it, it's hard to say whether or not he was deliberately trying to insult his audience.
Listen, you motherfucking ambulance chasing cocksucker, what the fuck do you know about rhetoric and why the fuck would I listen to you in the first place?

[National Kato]

Actually, the point is it was a claim made by people who were incorrectly interpreting...the Bible.

This is an interesting statement. I would assume the interpretation of biblical texts continues to this day to be a subject of lively interest and debate. I'm not directly referring to the 'bat' issue, specifically, but more to the point of one knowing precisely what the Bible means.

Whether it's Daniel pondering over the prophecies of Jeremiah or the Second Letter of Peter, the Bible itself understands that interpretation can be difficult. These problems are accentuated with the passing of time, as readers today have to project themselves back almost 20 or 30 centuries. Progress made in the human sciences adds to this challenge. In addition, do we interpret the texts as the Word of God, as historical document, folklore, or midrash? Or all four?

The very soul of theology is the study of the Bible, according to the Second Vatican Council, and this study is never finished. Surely, as you state that these interpretations are incorrect, you realize that you as well may be incorrect, theology degree or not.

EDIT: Ancalagon makes some great points.

[Johan]

Does the Bible explicitly state that the Moon is a source of light? I'll take your word for it that it does not.

I find it a highly debatable stance, from an intellectual standpoint, for you to discuss something you haven't read.

Go and tell them their interpretation is wrong, you'll get a similar reaction to Bill Nye.

I doubt the reaction would be the same. They didn't go to hear him speak for a lesson on why their religious stance is wrong. They went to hear about science.

Also, I'm an 'insider' that would approach them from a position respecting and sharing many of their beliefs. As such, criticism and correction would be much more acceptable and palatable, as it would be for any individual criticized by someone from within whatever group they are a part of, as opposed to an outsider.

Surely, as you state that these interpretations are incorrect, you realize that you as well may be incorrect, theology degree or not.


Of course. I would hope, however, that intelligent individuals of some learning would understand that there is a continuum of plausibility for particular interpretations and positions, and that studying within a particular field will, hopefully with any success at all, prepare one to be more inclined toward a supportable position than not.