Bill Nye The Science Guy Booed In Texas

[Thalassa]

A few of them quietly walked out, and the woman who left with 3 children said quietly to her neighbor, "We believe in the Bible."

Ok, she said it quietly. She's allowed her free speech. It's not like she made a scene and threatened to kill someone.

 

[Beorn]

I actually agree with you for once. It was blatant trolling.

I appreciate it, but funny enough whether or not he was trolling is intent that we can't determine from the circumstances.

 

[Beorn]

His intentions? You don't know what his intentions were! Neither do I! (In fact when I pointed out your hypocrisy on the subject of 'intent' you retorted with what amounted to "I don't really care what his intentions were.") I don't know what he said exactly, and neither do you. I don't know what the context was, and neither do you. That's been my whole point all along.

Like I quoted earlier: "[This is] not just an example of this kind of conditioning that allows people to close themselves off from any contrary evidence to their views, no matter how obvious and common sensical, but how, in the Internet age, stories take on a life of their own and are more likely to catch fire because they are cast in their most sensationalistic light."

You've latched on to this, posted a link to a YouTube video that's got nothing to do with the event in Waco, blathered on incessantly about how much of an idiot Bill Nye is and how much he hates creationists, blah blah blah, and obstinately lashed out at everyone who has said anything that you could construe as remotely contrary to your views.

What you have done here is made a bunch of presumptions based on a sensationalized story from seven years ago and run with. You've done EXACTLY, exactly, what was done to this story in the first place to make it into a sensationalized piece. It has become so perverted and mutated that nobody has a fucking clue what really happened in the first place anymore.

I freely admit I've been needling you pretty much the entire time since you quoted my first post and said "Well, I don't see anything in here that contradicts my claims, wah wah wah wah wah," because that's not the point. That was never my point. The point is that you are arguing about a story that is based in half-truths and spin, and you are making it worse. You are perpetuating what the author of the first blog post I linked correctly identified as one of the biggest problems on the internet. You're continuing to distort a story that was already incredibly fucking distorted to begin with, and that's not cool.

Frankly I think you've been a colossally sanctimonious asshole throughout this thread and I'm sure you think I've been just as much of an asshole in return, and you're probably right. While I'm being honest let me tell you this: I don't give a flying fuck about you, your religious beliefs, your views on creationism, your views on the literary merits of the bible, and I don't even give a fuck about Bill Nye. What gets me fired up is you and other people continuing to perpetuate a bunch of complete horse shit by injecting an already fucked-up, horse shit story with even more horse shit. So don't. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe but if you keep running with this story you're a fucking idiot. That goes for both 'sides' of this 'argument'.

When I read the Unger interview (which, as I said, took me a while because I thought it was a bad link when I just saw a wall of text with no reference to bill... though it was actually there) my perspective did change. Unfortunately I sucked at articulating that or just felt vindicated by the fact that I still disapproved of Bill even bringing up the Bible. So here I made the mistake of saying it didn't change my opinion when it did as you can clearly see that I retreated to just attacking his general intent and stopped claiming it was a stupid statement. But, bravo, you caught me out making a mistake. Although it was Ivy that actually informed of an alternative interpretation as to why Bill would bring up the verse. Maybe this wouldn't have played out like this if you didn't bust into the thread calling everyone dumbasses, then repeatedly responding to me by stating I wasn't there and instead actually engaged in a meaningful conversation based on your very real superior knowledge as Ivy did. But, hey that would have never have been as satisfying as letting loose like you did above.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't think that one can cite their religious beliefs as an excuse for refuting any scientific fact they so well please. I certainly don't give a crap how allegedly irreverent it is for someone to state such a scientific fact. If informing someone that the moon reflects light from the sun is an attempt to change someone's world view, then so is educating a child about essentially any part of science.

They don't take the bible literally.

Nobody does that. It's a misnomer.

I think we've pretty much determined that various people take the Bible literally.

 

[Mal12345]

Yet those people have a sense of certainty that you will never have.

Besides, I know atheists with a similar sense of certainty, in fact they seem suspiciously more certain that god doesn't exist than they do about the components of human blood or how to make a fire.

Certainty is destructive of creativity.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is a hard one. I want to drop kick an idiot, but at the same time, the bible didn't say god created two independent light sources , just that he created two lights, and a reflection counts.

And, he really should have known better than to bring the bible into it in a crowd of strangers.

Right. I didn't see an actual transcript (unless one appears later in the thread), but context also matter here: Did he frame it as a reason to not believe in the Bible? I know he's not fond of the religious conservatives, bless his li'l soul....

This is veering into that territory when atheists claim that the verse, "God will remove your sins as far as the east is from the west" or uses the phrases "far corners of the earth" is some kind of belief in a flat earth. They're just allusions. And for all practical purposes, the Bible saying God placed two lights in the sky is just saying they believe that God created everything, including the two lights they commonly see in the sky, it's not supposed to be a scientific exposition on the nature of the lights that appear in the sky.

....I'll skim the rest of this thread and see where it went, sorry if I'm repeating something someone already said. it's just a PitA because I see now that half of the posts here are auto-blocked via the Ignore function... ROFL!

Literalist is a poor term to use since it doesn't accurately present what they believe. Notice their focus is on historical-grammatical usage and intent. Not just taking everything literally. Jesus says if you drink of the living water you'll be saved, but none of them believe there's actual physical water they have to drink.

Actually, if we root around, I bet we'd find some that do. There's all sects out there.

Why else do you think the Lutherans and Catholics (at least, the ones who adhere to the ACTUAL specified doctrine) believe in transubstantiation? That the wine used in communion actually becomes the blood of Christ when they drink it? I had so many arguments with such people in college and just avoided the topic after -- I took Jesus saying that as a metaphor ("this is my blood, given for you; drink" etc), but they were literalists and insisted to the point of anger that it was Jesus' actual blood (through some mystical power, I guess) and that I was basically slandering Jesus by disagreeing. This wasn't just a few wackos, the fact that there's even a term for it (transubstantiation) exposes that a substantial group of people take Bible verses very literally.

I'll only give in enough to say that people choose to be literalists on this or that Biblical topic. The way to argue against this is to say, "You don't believe that the Earth is flat and rests on four pillars, why do you believe God put two lights in the sky?"

Right. I agree with that. There's still an inconsistency in the extreme literalist position.

Because the genre of the book where that statement comes from is a prophecy.
Genre, grammar, and intent matter.

So you're a step up on the Bible knowledge topic. Some aren't. Like I said, there's quite a range of belief among Christian sects and among individual Christians.

Why are you referring to the septuagint?

Or were you just not aware that the OT was written in Hebrew?

Yeah, you pretty much no credibility on this topic.

I think he gotcha there, Mal.

Point. Fifteen-love.

Wow, there's a lot of "you're wrong!"s being thrown back and forth here which is pretty ballsy for a bunch of people who weren't there and don't know what he said.

First of all this isn't a year-old story, this is a SEVEN-year-old story. And it was taken wildly out of context. See here and here.

The last sentence from that first source: "[This is] not just an example of this kind of conditioning that allows people to close themselves off from any contrary evidence to their views, no matter how obvious and common sensical, but how, in the Internet age, stories take on a life of their own and are more likely to catch fire because they are cast in their most sensationalistic light."

Thank you, I was wondering if this was what had happened. I agree with the article's suggested origins of the mutation -- the fact the original article was not available, and the story took place in Waco, etc. The Internet's a bitch sometimes, and I'm not just talking niche groups; I've seen this shit on front-page Yahoo news, which pretends to be more credible (since it runs AP stories and other large news-org stories) mixed in with a bunch of opinion pieces, and if you're not careful, it's easily possible to give more credibility to a piece of news than it deserves.

IMO he is sticking to science by hoping to keep it separate from religion. I think he was encouraging people not to use isolated verses in the Bible to disprove well-supported science, because as you said, it is not a science book. What he said in that Brian Unger podcast is that religious figures such as Jerry Falwell are not sticking to religion but instead making asinine remarks about science, and that it concerns him. And I agree with him about that.

From what I've seen Bil say over the years, I wouldn't call dump him in the militant atheist group like Hitchens et al, but he does passionately believe in educating people and has been frustrated with the impact of some religious beliefs on educating children to make more rational sense of their world. I don't think it should be a polarized issue ("either science or religion has to go!"), but definitely in the United States it has impacted how we spend our money on scientific and medical pursuits and sometimes hindered progress, as well as who people vote for and put in charge of the national budget. Nowadays, people seem to be even more apt to just believe what they want without giving a darn about how well it fits the big picture; belief is more self-indulgent, it seems, than it might have been before.

Bill's definitely put himself out there at times, in the tradition of Sagan and others. When you strike sparks, occasionally you might start a fire.

Disclaimer: yes, I admit to being a Bill groupie from his show, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" years ago. Sorry. I can't help it.

 

[Beorn]

I think we've pretty much determined that various people take the Bible literally.

I'll concede there's probably a handful of people somewhere out there. I think I saw a comment where someone claimed their sister believed all women had one rib because of eve. I just have never met anyone who is literally a literalist and I've met a lot of Christians with strange beliefs.

 

[Ivy]

I was taught that black people exist because Noah's son saw him naked.

 

[Ivy]

Someone, somewhere, took the passage in Genesis with all the "begats" and extrapolated a timeline of the Earth from that, which is why young Earthers believe the 6,000 year thing. How much more literal can you get? Granted I don't know anyone who believes Jesus was literally a lamb, as in a four-legged wool-covered baby mammal. But the part of the Bible that makes up "Bible stories," all that OT stuff, plenty of people believe it word-for-word with no allowance for metaphor or analogy. Some of them even think the Parables are real stories of real people, not illustrative of principles and the nature of our relationship with God, like I think it's pretty clear Jesus meant them to be.

The other puzzling thing to me, is that what is commonly referred to as "Biblical literalism" (which I guess really means taking certain passages literally) seems to require ADDING quite a bit to the Bible, IMO. Like that whole 6,000 year extrapolation- it never says how long most of those people lived, so there have to be some assumptions that aren't written on the page to make that work. Literalists don't even seem to be very good at taking things literally.

 

[Totenkindly]

The other puzzling thing to me, is that what is commonly referred to as "Biblical literalism" (which I guess really means taking certain passages literally) seems to require ADDING quite a bit to the Bible, IMO. Like that whole 6,000 year extrapolation- it never says how long most of those people lived, so there have to be some assumptions that aren't written on the page to make that work. Literalists don't even seem to be very good at taking things literally.

Good point.

The figure probably originated with Ussher in the 1600's, but has been recreated and bounced around by the YEC's ever since.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth

 

[Beorn]

Someone, somewhere, took the passage in Genesis with all the "begats" and extrapolated a timeline of the Earth from that, which is why young Earthers believe the 6,000 year thing. How much more literal can you get? Granted I don't know anyone who believes Jesus was literally a lamb, as in a four-legged wool-covered baby mammal. But the part of the Bible that makes up "Bible stories," all that OT stuff, plenty of people believe it word-for-word with no allowance for metaphor or analogy. Some of them even think the Parables are real stories of real people, not illustrative of principles and the nature of our relationship with God, like I think it's pretty clear Jesus meant them to be.

What stories do you mean?

Any that contain a miracle or certain stand-alone stories like Job or maybe Jonah that stick out from the broader history and have quirky narratives?

The other puzzling thing to me, is that what is commonly referred to as "Biblical literalism" (which I guess really means taking certain passages literally) seems to require ADDING quite a bit to the Bible, IMO. Like that whole 6,000 year extrapolation- it never says how long most of those people lived, so there have to be some assumptions that aren't written on the page to make that work. Literalists don't even seem to be very good at taking things literally.

Agreed. They're really bad about that when it comes to the dispensational rapture stuff.

Ftr, I'm not a biblical literalist or fundamentalist.

Edit: To be clear I share a lot in common with both groups it's just that they are more recent reactionary groups that focus on 3 or 4 specific doctrines while I view myself as being part of an older and broader tradition of the Reformed Faith. I mean, you never really hear anyone called a reformed fundamentalist or anything like that.

 

[Beorn]

Not unsurprisingly N.T. Wright does a much better job than me of unpacking the terms literal, abstract and concrete.

 

[Ivy]

I get frustrated with both hardcore atheists and fundamentalist Christians on this issue. When I read Genesis, I don't see "okay this definitely means the Earth is a few thousand years old, case closed" OR "okay, this says the Earth is a few thousand years old which is stupid, case closed." Maybe because I approach the Bible as literature- meaningful, maybe inspired literature, but literature. Nothing wrong with calling it what it is. If you read it non-literally, as a poem that maybe someone wrote after being given a revelation or vision of the origins of the Earth, it's not really that incompatible with science.

Now everybody on both sides is going to think (know) I'm crazy. I guess that's okay.

 

[Ivy]

What stories do you mean?

Any that contain a miracle or certain stand-alone stories like Job or maybe Jonah that stick out from the broader history and have quirky narratives?

I'm thinking of the ones that would have taken place thousands of years before anybody wrote them down, if they happened literally as written. Like thinking that Adam and Eve were literally the first humans, Eve was literally created from Adam's rib, there was a literal snake and a literal apple, etc. Or Noah's Ark- literally all the animals on earth preserved on a single boat, not to mention all that jazz about him being drunk and naked and that's why there are black people (seriously, people think that's written on the page- like I said, a lot of "literalism" requires adding to the text IMO). Tower of Babel. All that stuff.

Once you get to Abraham I'm thinking things get slightly more historically valid, though I hesitate to consider the Bible a reliable history text any moreso than it is a reliable science text.

 

[En Gallop]

I get frustrated with both hardcore atheists and fundamentalist Christians on this issue. When I read Genesis, I don't see "okay this definitely means the Earth is a few thousand years old, case closed" OR "okay, this says the Earth is a few thousand years old which is stupid, case closed." Maybe because I approach the Bible as literature- meaningful, maybe inspired literature, but literature. Nothing wrong with calling it what it is. If you read it non-literally, as a poem that maybe someone wrote after being given a revelation or vision of the origins of the Earth, it's not really that incompatible with science.

Now everybody on both sides is going to think (know) I'm crazy. I guess that's okay.

I agree with your post - other than the bolded part, which is the only irrational part I can see. But if by revelation/vision you mean "Using their imagination to come up with an interesting story, like any modern storyteller" then I agree with you.

The idea of taking the Bible seriously as a guide to understanding the objective world, is something I think was almost certainly unintended by the original thinkers. It isn't meant as a scientific or historical textbook, but as a set of ideas that attempt to give people's lives a meaning and purpose, and make them feel significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm thinking of the ones that would have taken place thousands of years before anybody wrote them down, if they happened literally as written. Like thinking that Adam and Eve were literally the first humans, Eve was literally created from Adam's rib, there was a literal snake and a literal apple, etc. Or Noah's Ark- literally all the animals on earth preserved on a single boat, not to mention all that jazz about him being drunk and naked and that's why there are black people (seriously, people think that's written on the page- like I said, a lot of "literalism" requires adding to the text IMO). Tower of Babel. All that stuff.

Once you get to Abraham I'm thinking things get slightly more historically valid, though I hesitate to consider the Bible a reliable history text any moreso than it is a reliable science text.

Well, if it matters, I'm kinda in your court on this one. So I'll take half the tomatoes, you can take the other half.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The other puzzling thing to me, is that what is commonly referred to as "Biblical literalism" (which I guess really means taking certain passages literally) seems to require ADDING quite a bit to the Bible, IMO. Like that whole 6,000 year extrapolation- it never says how long most of those people lived, so there have to be some assumptions that aren't written on the page to make that work. Literalists don't even seem to be very good at taking things literally.

This is best exhibited by the literalist's usual take on homosexuality. They have to pack a ton of stuff into the Bible for that.

 

[Ivy]

I agree with your post - other than the bolded part, which is the only irrational part I can see. But if by revelation/vision you mean "Using their imagination to come up with an interesting story, like any modern storyteller" then I agree with you.

You didn't bold the "maybe" and that, to me, is the most important part of that part of the sentence. I can't rule out revelation/vision and I don't think it's irrational to remain open to things like that. Saying it's definitely a revelation or vision would be irrational because there's no evidence of it, but I didn't say it definitely was. I say what I mean and I typically avoid certainty like the plague if there's any room for open-endedness or fence-sitting. That's one thing I agree with Mal+ on- certainty is the enemy of creativity and discovery. (I don't know that I've seen Mal+ demonstrate a lack of certainty in his posts, though.)

 

[En Gallop]

You didn't bold the "maybe" and that, to me, is the most important part of that part of the sentence. I can't rule out revelation/vision and I don't think it's irrational to remain open to things like that. Saying it's definitely a revelation or vision would be irrational because there's no evidence of it, but I didn't say it definitely was. I say what I mean and I typically avoid certainty like the plague if there's any room for open-endedness or fence-sitting. That's one thing I agree with Mal+ on- certainty is the enemy of creativity and discovery. (I don't know that I've seen Mal+ demonstrate a lack of certainty in his posts, though.)

I guess it depends just how "open" you are being. Anything is theoretically possible, but some things are more likely than others. For something like God-given visions I think 1/10 (2/10 at the most) is a reasonable amount of openness, as there are many, many difficult questions to answer in order for it to even be possible.

 

[Ivy]

I guess it depends just how "open" you are being. Anything is theoretically possible, but some things are more likely than others. For something like God-given visions I think 1/10 (2/10 at the most) is a reasonable amount of openness, as there are many, many difficult questions to answer in order for it to even be possible.

And those questions will never be definitively, objectively answered, so I don't bother putting how open I am on a scale of 1-10. It's a toggle switch. Open or not open.