Creationists and Stage Magic: A Nice Analogy

Okay, within the first 3 minutes of that video, I heard what amounts to "It's still just a bacteria", and "were you there?".

Move on. Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Good old Ken Ham, as crazy as he may be, says the same thing.

Ken says: You start with the Bible as being true. Then you put on your Bible Glasses and view the world through them.

Maybe I'm just not squinting hard enough.

*squint*

This may explain the behavior of very education-deprived creationists, for whom I have some sympathy.

But what about the more educated ones? Why would chemists, lawyers, philosophers, and so on make the pre-supposition that the Bible is literally true, and then somehow, coincidentally, all misread the Bible in exactly the same way? How is it that they all "pick and choose" what "serves their purpose", as you concede, in exactly the same way?

Why do they all always claim that only the most harsh, punitive passages, and the most metaphorical-seeming ancient myth passages, are "literally true", while blatantly ignoring the more common passages that exhort honesty, compassion, and humility?

Why do they distort even the passages that they claim to "interpret literally", for example, the common distortion of claiming that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah condemns homosexuality, when read literally, it shows God condemning gang rape (actually attempted gang rape)?

Why do they all come to harsh social and political conclusions and ally themselves with the political far right?

I offer a different hypothesis.

I hypothesize that these educated creationists are essentially sadistic authoritarians. They know they can't persuade very many people to condone their sick fantasies through reason or routine emotional appeals.

Noticing that the Christian Bible is widely regarded as a source of ethics and wisdom, they decide that it will be clever to insist that the Bible commands that everyone submit to their dystopian vision for society. Their hope is that people will hold their noses and submit if they can be tricked into believing that "God commands" the brutality which they desperately yet impotently fantasize of imposing.

My hypothesis may be controversial and difficult to test, but it offers one huge advantage.

It more completely and consistently explains the full pattern of creationist behavior.

can someone explain why i profoundly hate presuppositionist then?

id like to figure out a way i to shrug off their grandiose ideology ("I have the one true faith, the rest of the world is a test and dont actual know reality") that faith is greater then evidence. and yet they still use modern devices of science

can anyone help?
and please no "..find jesus" jokes :)

Yeah, I think you've understood the creationist mindset. It's certainly the way I was taught to think growing up, and the way my parents still think. It's sort of the equivalent of a mathematician doing a math problem but coming up with an answer that 1=2. That's obviously a bad result, and the mathematician would immediately know that some error was made *somewhere* in his calculations because 1=2 is not a correct result. Same thing with creationists (and YECs in particular). If you (as a YEC) looks at science and it tells you something that is a "known" false result (for example, that the earth is older than 6,000 years old or that the global flood didn't happen), then you immediately assume that some error was made somewhere in the science, because "the Bible is wrong" is simply an impossible result.

harold said: I hypothesize that these educated creationists are essentially sadistic authoritarians. They know they can't persuade very many people to condone their sick fantasies through reason or routine emotional appeals.

I would disagree with this. The most violent authoritarians in history have been socialist/communist and many were atheists. I know "christians" that are authoritarian and others that simply tell me that they pray for me (because I'm an atheist).

torbach,

The main reason that presupposionalists are so annoying is that they act like they are willing to have a real discussion and then they just keep up with more and more ridiculous stuff. They aren't interesting in discussion, because it is absolutely impossible that you are correct. They just want to convert you. This is far more true with presups than it is with other types.

At to the education issue: Education has disturbingly little to do with peoples actual epistemology or willingness to alter that epistemology. Never underestimate the human mind's ability to rationalize away things it finds uncomfortable. Indeed, presuppositionalism takes some of the worst cognitive biases in existence and makes them explicitly good things. It is in some ways a view that is so warped it could only have come from the modern era when we understood how bad the human mind is at reasoning.

Mnemonic, harold didn't say that the worst authoritarians were Christian fundamentalists. He said that at least some Christian fundamentalists are attracted to fundamentalism because it offers a way of expressing their authoritarian sadism and of extending their power over others. To them, Biblical fundamentalism is a means to an end, and the end, for them, is the realisation of their sadistic domination fantasies. They would not, of course, ever acknowledge this in public, or even, in most cases, to themselves.

I think he is right. Authoritarians with sadistic tendencies naturally would use what means are available to them. It might be political parties or movements on the extreme right or left. But it might also be fundamentalist dominionist religion, with its appeal to absolute unquestionable authority.

This authority is in fact nominal. To Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, authority was nominally found in the writings of Marx or the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, since it was they who interpreted this, it was actually they who held absolute authority - which was always their object. The same for the extreme fundamentalist leaders (and would-be leaders). Their authority is nominally the Bible - but it is they who interpret it. Not surprisingly, they interpret it in the way most likely to enhance their own power. They're authoritarians and would-be dominators. That's what they do.

I believe that this also explains the present strong identification of fundamental Christianity with right-wing politics, but that would require a full essay, and would hardly be on-topic.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum said:

I would disagree with this. The most violent authoritarians in history have been socialist/communist and many were atheists. I know "christians" that are authoritarian and others that simply tell me that they pray for me (because I'm an atheist).

I think you are not thinking in terms of what smarter people do with religion and rhetoric. Mussolini's regime, for example, called for religious orthodoxy and used rhetoric that is nearly identical to today's "family values" discourse. This was very, very calculated. Bob Christian on the Street took all this at face value, and figured Mussolini shared his devotion to Jesus and Mary and the Family and so on, when actually it was about gaining and keeping totalitarian power. The same sort of thing went on in the Inquisition. The rhetoric of the day established a Low Other (this group included gays, hags, redheads, jews), and blamed all the social ills on them, all couched in religious rhetoric. This dehumanized the victims and made it OK to imprison and torture them. The rhetorical parallels today are quite frightening, if you examine the argumentative devices that politico-religionists are using to justify legislating their narrow, selective view of scripture. Make no mistake, it is about setting up a discourse that they'd like to be the dominant one, and using that to acquire political power. The Dominionists actually say this outright, and lay out their plan for social control. This is why it is necessary to oppose politico-religionism not only where it attempts to hijack and discredit hard science, but also where it attempts to legislate scripture in other areas as well. And people of faith should take note, too--suppose the government were to actually underwrite the current theosophy of the evangelicals--what would happen to the religious freedom of every other brand of belief?

i know this is bit OT but i hear a ton of this, some struggle trying to stack as many *ists or *ians into the "Hitler" pile to prove once and for all _insert_philosophy is worse than another

there is a palpable need to categorize faithful or atheists (mainly) as worse, when current large scale events seem to be increasingly at the whim of non denominational forces. true? has this come up anywhere ?link?

one of things im thinking about is an ascension of power around consortiums such as wall st/banks or a corp' that seem to dominate more of our lives then anything. If one is to accept the current evidence of (dramatic)climate change, humanity has (mostly as a whole) collectively created its own impending "biblical flood"(catastrophe) across many cultures/belief patterns etc

torbach said: i know this is bit OT but i hear a ton of this, some struggle trying to stack as many *ists or *ians into the "Hitler" pile to prove once and for all _insert_philosophy is worse than another

I recently did a video on Youtube on the same topic "Putting Creationism Into Perspective",
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZCGYyNHRUQ

although I tend to characterize it as "fundies see science as atheist see the bible"

Ray, that's not a good analogy. At least with most atheists I know, if there were strong evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired they'd likely believe that.

A bizarre coincidence - a few days ago a friend and I were discussing creationists and religion. I told him that when people see David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, most know that there is some trick and accept the entertainment as such, even if the trick isn't readily apparent. But the creationist mindset actually believes there may (or must) be some supernatural ability involved. Those heavily invested in religion are more open to supernatural causation, even with a magic trick. There are still many who believe Criss Angel has supernatural powers. Funny - that name - Angel.

As for why educated people can be easily duped by (and believe in) "magic", I think it's more of a general inherent ideological makeup. There appear to be those who find extraordinary comfort in groups of like-minded people, needing to "belong" to feel secure or fulfilled. The same group tends to seek authoritarian leadership - they're followers. They need rules to maintain the status quo. They're the opposite of independent thinkers, who they feel they must convert or at least control. Belief in the supernatural is their opium.

although I tend to characterize it as “fundies see science as atheist see the bible”

QED said: Belief in the supernatural is their opium.

I've heard of Presupposilitionism before. It sounded like crackpottery, an attempt to torture reality to fit your delusions. Dumb.

It isn't science and it isn't a successful way of dealing with reality.

1. The slippery slope argument is lame. The first known skeptics of Genesis as fact were the founders of the xian church. St. Augustine and several leading theologians thought it was allegory in 400 AD. Fast forward to 2009, and xianity is the largest religion on earth with 2 billion members. The data say this is totally wrong.

2. The slippery slope is lame for another reason. For every weak mind you scare into believing War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and the Earth is 6,000 years old, there are more who you scare away. Making believing in lies a litmus test works both ways. The brighter and younger just shrug their shoulders and leave the cults for a better life.

3. The slippery slope also doesn't really exist. The majority of xian sects dropped the mythology is real viewpoint about evolution, the flat earth, and geocentrism, long ago. Including the largest sect, the RCC and also some evangelicals and pentecostals. They still call themselves xians. The Death Cult fundies call them Fake Xians(tm) or the churches of satan and the antichrist. But who cares what they say?

Any idea how this woman ever got a doctorate?

Gary Hurd said: Any idea how this woman ever got a doctorate?

She has two publications on Microphthalmia Transcription Factor, neither as first author, and was apperently associated with the Department of Molecular Genetics at Ohio State University. Her chairman was Michael C. Ostrowski, who presumably knew she was insane when he awarded her degree in 2000.

Don't they have any standards?

Why would chemists, lawyers, philosophers, and so on make the pre-supposition that the Bible is literally true, and then somehow, coincidentally, all misread the Bible in exactly the same way? How is it that they all “pick and choose” what “serves their purpose”, as you concede, in exactly the same way?

— harold

Ironically, the fundamentalist presupposition here actually involves starting with the assumption that the rabbit does get out of the hat by magic, and then resisting all natural explanations; continuing to believe that the magician really does have magic powers, even when every trick and sleight of hand is explained.

Stephen Wells said: Ironically, the fundamentalist presupposition here actually involves starting with the assumption that the rabbit does get out of the hat by magic, and then resisting all natural explanations; continuing to believe that the magician really does have magic powers, even when every trick and sleight of hand is explained.

The minister at my Unitarian Universalist church here in NYC preached her evolution sermon this past Sunday. The reading she chose came from Darwin's Autobiography - here is an excerpt:

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

I don't think he's trying to create atheists, here. He just trying to point our how difficult it can be for people to give up what they were raised to believe, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary.

PZ Myers on Presuppositions

I posted this in another thread but it is relevant here. When we are asked, "What are your presuppositions?", we should respond with something like this, quoting PZ Myers, hopefully with his permission:

"It's true, I do have some presuppositions. I think that explanations should deal with as much of the evidence as possible; they should avoid contradictions, both internal and with the evidence from the physical world; they should be logical; they should make predictions that can be tested; they should have some utility in addressing new evidence. "

Read his great article here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/false_equivalence.php

Read about AIG presuppositions here:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/440/

"The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Creation Ministries International. We don’t try to ‘prove’ the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible’s propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions.
There are good reasons for accepting the axioms of Scripture as true, because it can be shown that they lead to a consistent view of physical and moral reality, which other axioms can’t provide.

Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation. Genesis, backed up by the rest of Scripture, unambiguously teaches that:

The heavens, Earth and everything in them were created in six consecutive normal days, the same as those of our working week (Exodus 20:8–11).

Earth is about 6,000 years old, since Jesus said mankind was there from the ‘beginning of creation’, not billions of years later (Mark 10:6).

...

God judged the world by a globe-covering Flood, which Jesus and Peter compared with the coming Judgment (Luke 17:26–27; 2 Peter 3:3–7). This destroyed all land vertebrate animals and people not on the ocean-liner-sized Ark.

God then judged the people by confusing their language at Babel—after they had refused to spread out and repopulate the Earth after the Flood.

...

It’s important to realize that all ‘facts’ of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework."

QED said: A bizarre coincidence - a few days ago a friend and I were discussing creationists and religion. I told him that when people see David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, most know that there is some trick and accept the entertainment as such, even if the trick isn't readily apparent. But the creationist mindset actually believes there may (or must) be some supernatural ability involved. Those heavily invested in religion are more open to supernatural causation, even with a magic trick. There are still many who believe Criss Angel has supernatural powers. Funny - that name - Angel. As for why educated people can be easily duped by (and believe in) "magic", I think it's more of a general inherent ideological makeup. There appear to be those who find extraordinary comfort in groups of like-minded people, needing to "belong" to feel secure or fulfilled. The same group tends to seek authoritarian leadership - they're followers. They need rules to maintain the status quo. They're the opposite of independent thinkers, who they feel they must convert or at least control. Belief in the supernatural is their opium.

Robin said: How in the world did I not end up buying into the Megachurch message?

Robin said: Oh the irony!! I admit it: I'm a true fantasy geek - I read the Lord of the Rings just about once a year, I played D&D as though it were a vocation back in the 70s and 80s (and even into the 90s), I did fantasy CRPG reviews for an online game mag for a year, I play Lord of the Rings Online MMO now, I even got to know D&D's creator Gary Gygax and we became good friends (wasn't that hard...he lived about 15 minutes away from my inlaws) - I was born and raised to believe in magic and fantasy, and yet all that remains 'fantasy' the moment I step away. The world I know has none of that supernatural interaction - it is solely a rational place. How in the world did I not end up buying into the Megachurch message?

Matters not an authoritarian jot what flavor of creationist delusion a bunny will promote...cos tis usually the one that appeals uniquely to their own prejudices anyway...but it is the common goal of eradication that is important...that is why differences b'twixt 'n' b'tween the various brands are inconsequential rendering it a mute point of very little moment... the commonality of mission by and large out weighs their glaring theological juxtapositions!

The goal of eradication is, of course, the despised enemy doctrine of Evolutionary theory!

That is and always has been the one science they must destroy completely...and they are still trying...this is not 18th century apologetic naivete this is as real as it gets!

It has doodly squat to do with Atheism or moral imperative or the dozen or so other trite and insulting nonsense claims they dream up to accuse atheism of ...cos by and large if folks what to go to hell that is their party...if other Christians are bothered let them do the evangelizing...it is just the abject fear that Evolutionary theory will sweep away the dogma and the need in a god...of any stripe style or hue...

They see already their precious god jammed into the gaps left in natural phenomena explanations ...and it appears he is getting a damn good crushing as they watch necessitating a jump to other gaps every now and then to breath...they fear that one day all the gaps will be filled with science fueled in some esoteric way by evolutionary theory!

So get rid of evolution and their omnipotent all powerful all omniscient all singing all dancing god can get his dignity back!

And thus save their blushes for being naive and ignorant plebs for believing in a pathetic mythology to start with let alone a brand of delusion so disparate and desperate as to having to ditch all rationalism to actually achieve functionality!

Matters not an authoritarian jot what flavor of creationist delusion a bunny will promote.

— Strangebrew

KCFS recommends similar strategies whenever creationists try to confuse the public. Don’t answer non-science with science. However convincing your argument might be to someone fully trained in your field, you won’t win with a general audience.

To use a biblical analogy, fundie faith should be like the "house built on sand." The winds and waves of evidence should bring it crashing down in splinters. This happened to me and set me free.

Instead they choose to build their faith on a "solid" foundation of the inerrancy of the bible. Now they think they are on firm ground but the house is one of cards. You can't shake the foundation but they must constantly keep things balanced by proclaiming that the foundation is enough.

If one single card, idea or concept, can be shown to be in error, the whole thing crashes down. So they don't allow that to happen by shouting down conflicting ideas, sending up their praises and plugging their ears, keeping their house intact.♠

Gary Hurd said: She has two publications on Microphthalmia Transcription Factor, neither as first author, and was apperently associated with the Department of Molecular Genetics at Ohio State University. Her chairman was Michael C. Ostrowski, who presumably knew she was insane when he awarded her degree in 2000. Don't they have any standards?

As someone once said in an article, YECs are gradually redefining what a Christian actually is. Dr. Purdum again said it on this interview "you can be a Christian and accept mainstream science BUT", and that BUT appears slowly but surely to be getting bigger and bigger. Sooner or later they're going to let it slip that unless a someone believes in a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (in other words reject most, if not all, of mainstream science), then that person cannot really be a Christian at all. Personally, I feel we are well past the point were the YECs have a completely different way of looking art Christianity.

Again the old question of the Mt St. Helens' false dates came up (Steve Austin's nonsense) and I thought Shermen should have been in a position to refute this often repeated YEC claim(if I had a pound for every time I heard that one, Yawn). Dr Shermen should also have raised distances to astronomical objects at this stage which is testable and repeatable science and which unequivocally shows the Universe to be a lot older than 6,000 years.

Another YEC claim that is becoming more commonplace is that you can do biology (even in a biology lab) and not even touch on evolution. I've heard British YEC Sylvia Baker (who also worked in a biology lab for a number of years say much the same thing recently (one for the Talkorigins guys to work on).

All in all I thought Dr. Shermen let her off lightly (maybe it was the venue).

raven said: 1. The slippery slope argument is lame... 2. The slippery slope is lame for another reason... 3. The slippery slope also doesn't really exist...

Excellent crystallizations of creationists' mind.
It explains for ex why they seem to so dependent of us-creationist interpretators (AiG et al) even here in Finland.

From AIG: Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation.

neo-anti-luddite said:

Robin said: How in the world did I not end up buying into the Megachurch message?

Because the Bible dosen't have elves in it. ;)

I’m not sure what, if any, the connection might be, but while listening to Bobby Jindal’s “Republican Response” to the State of the Union address the other day, it occurred to me that there might be a reason Jindal is thought of as “charismatic” in the Republican Party at the moment.

My though was that the constituents to whom he panders are apparently what he considers to be the norm in our society. It might explain his signing of the creationist legislation in his state recently.

The people who love him are basically pre-adolescent children in adult bodies.

Aagcobb said: Everyone knows D&D is a tool Satan uses to lead people away from Christ!

Sooner or later they’re going to let it slip that unless a someone believes in a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (in other words reject most, if not all, of mainstream science), then that person cannot really be a Christian at all.

— Peter Henderson

What is it about YEC that makes most “Darwinists” (sometimes I feel like the only exception) get “amnesia” about all the other forms of creationism???

But they don’t misread the Bible in exactly the same way. Some interpret it as old-earth-young-life, others as old-earth-old-life, and some, like Michael Behe, even concede that it is not to be taken literally. Of course they all still “pick and choose” what “serves their purpose” of promoting uneasonable doubt of evolution. And they increasingly dismiss their irreconcilable differences as “insignificant”, even though that alone demolishes any pretense that what they are doing is “following the evidence where it leads.”

But what about the more educated ones? Why would chemists, lawyers, philosophers, and so on make the pre-supposition that the Bible is literally true, and then somehow, coincidentally, all misread the Bible in exactly the same way? How is it that they all “pick and choose” what “serves their purpose”, as you concede, in exactly the same way? Why do they all always claim that only the most harsh, punitive passages, and the most metaphorical-seeming ancient myth passages, are “literally true”, while blatantly ignoring the more common passages that exhort honesty, compassion, and humility?

Now, in the first place, “OEC” and the like are tiny minority views among creationists.

— harold

A few observations:

1) To follow up on Gary and RBH's points, the fact that people like Georgia Purdom, Marcus Ross, Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, David DeWitt, Hugh Ross, and Jonathan Wells have been awarded legitimate science PhDs truly strains the credibility of a Global Darwinist Conspiracy™. We're just not doing our job well enough, people!

2) I think there is a clear divide between historical exceptionalism, for want of a better term (divinity of and miracles by a specific person), and rejection of entire bodies of knowledge (flat-earthism, geocentrism, creationism), and given the number of religious denominations that have no problem with evolution, the all-or-nothing domino effect doesn't seen to be so common, though of course it does happen.

3) To quote Darwin himself, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist."

Sooner or later they’re going to let it slip that unless a someone believes in a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (in other words reject most, if not all, of mainstream science), then that person cannot really be a Christian at all.

Mike said: Odd, isn't it, that even while Jews have their own fundamentalists, and a wide range of disagreements on just about everything, the people who actually use Hebrew have, for the most part, given up long ago the notion that Genesis is a modern history and science text.

From AIG: Genesis contains a number of Hebrew grammatical features that show it was intended to teach a straightforward history of the world from its creation.

" ... that once a Christian moves away from the scriptures in one area (the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, etc) then it is a slippery slope to using the same kind of logic about Mary being a virgin and giving birth or Jesus rising from the dead. "
...
"In fact, Dr. Purdom’s point is one used by many former Christians (now atheists) who wonder why some Christians believe some of the stuff in the bible, but ignore other aspects of it."

Sigh. I think it helps to be from a Christian tradition (Eastern Orthodox, in my case) that remembers that the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky fully intact. It's a compilation of separate writings written by different people at different times that were later compiled together by Jews (in the case of what the Christians call "The Old Testament") and by the early Christians. The final decisions as to what was "in" and "not in" in the "New Testament" didn't occur until nearly 300 years after the time of Christ and it involved a lot of reference to a cumulation of oral tradition and consensus.

So, understanding that, I have no problem confidently stating, for example, that the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of the first chapters of Genesis and the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are two very different issues. Indeed, a Christian should be far more concerned about the truth of the latter event than the former.

Rigid YEC and IDism are an easy road to atheism for someone genuinely serious about finding the truth. And besides, if there really is a slippery slope, then belief in the non-Bible endorsed helio-centric solar system started us down the slide 300 years ago!

raven said: But reading Genesis makes it obvious that it was meant as mythology. There are two creation stories that conflict with each other in the first 2 pages. Cain and Abel get married but the source of their wives isn't mentioned. Cain is ordered to wander around forever by god. Who puts a mark on him so other people won't kill him. Hello, where did these people come from? He wanders around, meets some babe, and then founds a city!! So much for following god's orders. Then there are two Ark stories that conflict with each other. The writers had 4,000 years to notice the obvious contradictions and logical nonsense and edit it. They didn't even bother, most likely because it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Check with FL, he presents himself as the source of biblical contradiction resolution.

Steve Early said: Rigid YEC and IDism are an easy road to atheism for someone genuinely serious about finding the truth. And besides, if there really is a slippery slope, then belief in the non-Bible endorsed helio-centric solar system started us down the slide 300 years ago!

Excuse me, that should've read "four corners..." D'oh!

raven said: There has been a minor uptick in anti-Catholic bigotry because they officially don't have a problem with evolution. Ray Comfort said that the other day.

eric said: Excuse me, that should've read "four corners..." D'oh!

You’re probably aware that some religious right factions detest Catholics for lots of reasons,

raven said:

You’re probably aware that some religious right factions detest Catholics for lots of reasons,

Yes. The WELS, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutherans (Michelle Bachmann's church), have it on their website that the Pope is the antichrist. Hagee is famous for his anticatholic rants. The uptick was from an already significant level. In Northern Ireland it is still a major feature. They stopped killing each other a whole 9 years ago.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Ray, that's not a good analogy. At least with most atheists I know, if there were strong evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired they'd likely believe that.

Creationism is heritable!

"Beyond a certain age, I think the neural pathways set up permanently, and all that CAN remain is the need to decide which evidence doesn’t count."

All the more reason they want to feed it to the kids in High School Science class.

Mike Elzinga said: I’m not sure what, if any, the connection might be, but while listening to Bobby Jindal’s “Republican Response” to the State of the Union address the other day, it occurred to me that there might be a reason Jindal is thought of as “charismatic” in the Republican Party at the moment. My though was that the constituents to whom he panders are apparently what he considers to be the norm in our society. It might explain his signing of the creationist legislation in his state recently. The people who love him are basically pre-adolescent children in adult bodies.

MememicBottleneck said: The most violent authoritarians in history have been socialist/communist and many were atheists.

I feel a desperate need to scrub myself clean after watching that ignorant woman.

gypsytag said: I feel a desperate need to scrub myself clean after watching that ignorant woman.

She’s extremely clever, with a PhD in molecular biology (no mean feat in educational terms) which makes the thing even sadder.

This thread is old, but the attempted analogy in the post is so wrong, and I seem to see no refutation when quickly browsing the comments, that I have to comment briefly.

Of course no empiricist have to take the naive philosophy road of "epistemology" in lieu of entertaining facts. There are ample of physical (and social) reasons why magic has disappeared as a viable hypothesis; it is debunked long since. Which of course is why we normally speak of illusionists instead of 'magicians'.

Perhaps Joe Hern is another of many 'recovered' hard core creationists, that observably has decided to junk a belief for another putatively in order to merely get rid of the more obvious cognitive dissonance?

I believe that this also explains the present strong identification of fundamental Christianity with right-wing politics, but that would require a full essay, and would hardly be on-topic.

Well, as I see it, in order to make the analogy really work it would be necessary to also posit that in all of the history of magic shows there has never been a case of proven trickery, slight of hand, misdirection or chicanery. It would have to be the case that every careful and rigorous examination of a magic show would have concluded that true magic had taken place. It would also have to be the case that every time an investigation had shown that there was no Magic that the investigator was either very sloppy or intentionally fraudulent. Not only would those assumptions have to be granted, you would also have to assume that Magic was part and parcel of everyday life, each and every thing in the world would perform some type of Magic to accomplish each and every action. The analogy only maps to our universe if Magic is the normal state of affairs and Naturalistic processes are completely unobserved and discredited.