![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccastareyesI'm surviving without my glasses okay, though I'm getting little actual work done. Boo -- especially since I'm giving a lunch seminar next Monday and have an abstract for a conference due in about a month. Some of that is because the data isn't making sense though. I'll bounce some ideas off of our group on Thursday. Tomorrow, I'll chip away at Hyperion's spin state.
Anyway, something cool. So, I read Dr. PZ Myer's blog, Pharyngula. I don't always agree with it -- I think Dr. Myers does an excellent job blogging about evolutionary biology, and he posts pretty squid and octopus pictures every Friday, but I think he's a little too eager to link all the evils of the world to religion* and somewhat sensationalist. I did see something I liked this weekend in his open post/comments on the Oscars.
Some backstory. Some years ago, Dr. Myer was asked to be in a documentary called Crossroads about the evolution/creation debate. That particular documentary was never made, but the footage resurfaced in a documentary called Expelled, which was about how The Man was trying to oppress people who questioned evolution. (For a full take on this argument, may I steer you toward the National Center of Science Education's page on Expelled, Expelled Exposed -- I can also give you My Thoughts on Why This is Bull in the comments) And, like many documentaries claiming to be kicking the shins of The Man, when it didn't get nominated for any awards, it was obviously a Conspiracy, rather than the documentary being... not very good.
Suffice to say, there was pretty good evidence that the producers had never been intending to make a neutral documentary, which tends to change the tone of interview-ees. I know I speak differently depending on which premises my (assumed) audience accepts. For example, if I assumed my audience accepted the idea that The Solar System is Really Old, I might gloss over that, rather than go into details about how we know that. Similarly, I could imagine my alternate-universe biologist clone would give a different take on 'We think evolutionary biology is biased against change' versus 'We're studying the teaching of creationism'. Dr. Myers went on-record on his blog to say he might have done the interview anyway -- at the time. Since then, he's done several radio debates regarding the evolution/creation debate and swears he won't do more thanks to shows of bad faith by the stations. (No pun intended.)
Anyway, recently Bill Maher made a documentary arguing that 'religion is a silly thing', called Religulous (some kind of portmandu of religions and either credulous or ridiculous). And Dr. Myers called him out for making a shoddy documentary then whining about how it wasn't getting any Oscars. Dr. Myers noted that one of the reasons the people Maher was interviewing were looking bad was not just because the film editors could take the most supportive bits of an interview, and not just because Dr. Myer doesn't find many arguments for religion convincing, but also because, to use his words, 'Maher cheated'. Maher didn't tell his interview-ees what they were supposed to be arguing for exactly, making it hard for them to arrange things to make a coherent point. Someone else also noted in the comments that the working title was pretty misleading (A Spiritual Journey -- which could mean anything relating to religion or lack thereof), which leaves one with a bad taste after the shenanigans with Expelled.
I respect that. Anyone who can tell someone who is sharing an opinion that 'dude, shut up -- you're making us look bad', rather than fall into the 'It's Okay if You're One of Us' trap**.
* Not denying that a lot of shoddy thinking and evil things done in God's name. I think it's more of a human nature thing -- I've certainly seen my share of philosophies slavishly followed that lacked a god or gods. (I read political blogs, remember?) I tend to assume all of that is 'the Way of What We (or the Guys in Charge) Want to Do Anyway'. In other words, the reason there are places in the Middle East where there's horrible treatment of women has little to do with the fact the people in power belong to Islam but more to do with the fact they can use Islam to control women and maintain the status quo. (About the same way I've seen people pick out Bible verses to support positions on every part of the spectrum.) So even if everyone in the world were atheists, we'd just stop getting the 'God says this is right' excuse, and more use of other justifications.
The above doesn't mean I'm not going to fight any attempt to impose religion on me or mine. Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face. Ultimately, I want religious freedom for everyone, and that includes 'freedom from religion'. (Won't someone think of the atheists?)
** The classic one sees is the It's Okay if You're a Republican, to contrast things like the Republican behavior towards people like Elliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton versus someone like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard. I'd imagine the same kind of thing exists with Democrats not attacking people they would attack if they were Republicans.
Anyway, something cool. So, I read Dr. PZ Myer's blog, Pharyngula. I don't always agree with it -- I think Dr. Myers does an excellent job blogging about evolutionary biology, and he posts pretty squid and octopus pictures every Friday, but I think he's a little too eager to link all the evils of the world to religion* and somewhat sensationalist. I did see something I liked this weekend in his open post/comments on the Oscars.
Some backstory. Some years ago, Dr. Myer was asked to be in a documentary called Crossroads about the evolution/creation debate. That particular documentary was never made, but the footage resurfaced in a documentary called Expelled, which was about how The Man was trying to oppress people who questioned evolution. (For a full take on this argument, may I steer you toward the National Center of Science Education's page on Expelled, Expelled Exposed -- I can also give you My Thoughts on Why This is Bull in the comments) And, like many documentaries claiming to be kicking the shins of The Man, when it didn't get nominated for any awards, it was obviously a Conspiracy, rather than the documentary being... not very good.
Suffice to say, there was pretty good evidence that the producers had never been intending to make a neutral documentary, which tends to change the tone of interview-ees. I know I speak differently depending on which premises my (assumed) audience accepts. For example, if I assumed my audience accepted the idea that The Solar System is Really Old, I might gloss over that, rather than go into details about how we know that. Similarly, I could imagine my alternate-universe biologist clone would give a different take on 'We think evolutionary biology is biased against change' versus 'We're studying the teaching of creationism'. Dr. Myers went on-record on his blog to say he might have done the interview anyway -- at the time. Since then, he's done several radio debates regarding the evolution/creation debate and swears he won't do more thanks to shows of bad faith by the stations. (No pun intended.)
Anyway, recently Bill Maher made a documentary arguing that 'religion is a silly thing', called Religulous (some kind of portmandu of religions and either credulous or ridiculous). And Dr. Myers called him out for making a shoddy documentary then whining about how it wasn't getting any Oscars. Dr. Myers noted that one of the reasons the people Maher was interviewing were looking bad was not just because the film editors could take the most supportive bits of an interview, and not just because Dr. Myer doesn't find many arguments for religion convincing, but also because, to use his words, 'Maher cheated'. Maher didn't tell his interview-ees what they were supposed to be arguing for exactly, making it hard for them to arrange things to make a coherent point. Someone else also noted in the comments that the working title was pretty misleading (A Spiritual Journey -- which could mean anything relating to religion or lack thereof), which leaves one with a bad taste after the shenanigans with Expelled.
I respect that. Anyone who can tell someone who is sharing an opinion that 'dude, shut up -- you're making us look bad', rather than fall into the 'It's Okay if You're One of Us' trap**.
* Not denying that a lot of shoddy thinking and evil things done in God's name. I think it's more of a human nature thing -- I've certainly seen my share of philosophies slavishly followed that lacked a god or gods. (I read political blogs, remember?) I tend to assume all of that is 'the Way of What We (or the Guys in Charge) Want to Do Anyway'. In other words, the reason there are places in the Middle East where there's horrible treatment of women has little to do with the fact the people in power belong to Islam but more to do with the fact they can use Islam to control women and maintain the status quo. (About the same way I've seen people pick out Bible verses to support positions on every part of the spectrum.) So even if everyone in the world were atheists, we'd just stop getting the 'God says this is right' excuse, and more use of other justifications.
The above doesn't mean I'm not going to fight any attempt to impose religion on me or mine. Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face. Ultimately, I want religious freedom for everyone, and that includes 'freedom from religion'. (Won't someone think of the atheists?)
** The classic one sees is the It's Okay if You're a Republican, to contrast things like the Republican behavior towards people like Elliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton versus someone like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard. I'd imagine the same kind of thing exists with Democrats not attacking people they would attack if they were Republicans.
