A really infuriating interview...
Offline I just finished listening to a podcast from 'Point of Enquiry' where DJ Grothe spoke to Benjamin Wiker
Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. His books include Answering the New Atheism and Ten Books That Screwed Up The World. His Newest is The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin.
I found Grothe overly polite to this guy, I was on the point of just giving up on listening to it, and frequently found myself actually yelling out loud as one fallacious argument after another came out of Wiker's mouth.
I guess he had to be polite to be able to continue this interview and continue to be able to get access to such people to present their point of view. To be fair, he did raise most, if not all, of the objections I would have, and they probably are doing the right thing in allowing such people occasional access to defuse charges of being dogmatic atheists/sceptics. But I really found it intensely frustrating not to be able to confront such nonsense directly.
You can access info about the program here: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/benjamin_wiker_the_darwin_myth/, including the various ways you can listen to it.
I would be interested in other peoples reactions to this. It lasts about 54 minutes.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
I'm with you Bob, that's why I try to never take that excessively polite approach. It gives the appearance that the atheist perspective is being trounced.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Well, I actually commend Grothe on his "politeness", for a disbeliever he's far from polarizing, unlike a Brian Sapient who eventually creates a hole no one cares to take seriously other than some rabid fans. He generally makes his views known, but doesn't foam at the mouth, and sound like a rabid dog in the process.
And it's why his podcast is far more respected, and gets the interviews it does. It's a shame other atheist get all worked up about it, and I wonder when it comes from the RRS, if its more out of envy?
Notice how my "asshole" tone doesn't get me too far here, don't be so naive to think that it works differently when the shoe is on the other foot.
There is a difference between politeness and deference. Too many theists expect the other side to suck up to them before they deign to give opinions (it seems to increase with notoriety).
Respect is one thing but one shouldn't have to kiss tail to start a conversation.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Of course your approach doesn't get you too far here, because you go way too far in the other direction, to the point where you come across as appearing to actually defend almost everything we see as a flaw in religious theory and practice. Way further than Grothe, who just was a bit too muted in his critical comments for my taste.
He did not at any point actually express any agreement with Wiker's position, AFAICR. I already acknowledged that there is a case for being restrained in such a situation, but this can be very unsatisfying for people like myself who would like to see the problems with the position being argued pointed out more strongly. It is a balance, a matter of judgement, but I think Grothe risked offending his regular listeners more than was justified. I think it was the outrageous nature of many of Wiker's assertions that made it harder for me to stomach the polite way in which Grothe put his objections.
The next podcast I listened to form PoI (actually an earlier one on Blasphemy Day) was much more listenable.
I have listened to other programs where Grothe has spoken to people with views pretty much against the position supported at PoI, and they seemed to work fine, with reasonable discussion on points of disagreement.
It is just that Wiker's position was, to me, just so absurd, and appeared to being 'humored' way too much.
Twelve, I was expecting you would pop up in this thread, and you have made pretty much the sort of post I expected. You are becoming so predictable in your knee-jerk defense of religion.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Wow, perhaps you can explain to me how a defense of Groethe equals a defense of religion?
Well, I didn't listen to the Wiker interview till yesterday, and I'm a bit puzzled by your frustration and anger. Apparently Wiker wrote a book concerning a history of Charles Darwin and his own views on evolution (which he distinguished by referring to it as Darwinism) in contrast to our modern view of evolution (which he refers to as plain evolution), and he points out that Darwin did hold certain views in-line with certain eugenics philosophy, and uses Darwin own words to make the case.
The debate hardly was about Intelligent Design, but rather on Darwin, and his historical views of evolution, and society, and through out the discussion Groethe didn't seem like a dewey eyed receptor, but challenged a number of Wilke assumptions. I'm not too familiar with the history and thoughts of Charles Darwin, but none the claims about Darwin from my limited knowledge on the subject hinted absurdity. Can you enlighten me here?
And Groethe seemed as consistent as he's always been, I didn't see him handing out free passes.
But what needs to be kept in mind, is that Groethe has a certain style as to how he goes about his interviews, and that is he doesn't see himself as a debater, but as an informer, he leaves his emotions at home, and as a person quite weary of Sapient like drama queens, I commend him for that. He's not looking to antagonize, he doesn't seem to hold back his questions, and seems to present whatever critical questions he can pose to them.
Perhaps you like the Glenn Beck style emotionalism, I personally detest it, and have low regards for individuals desiring to inform me about religions, atheism, politics, or whatever else have you who give off the scent of women on the first days of their period.
IMHO, the one that's doing the shouting usually looks like the south end of a north bound donkey...
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
There is a pretty broad spectrum of responses between the excessively polite and shouting. A bit more time spent by the host pointing out and explaining the flaws, making it somewhat clearer just how much the guests views were contradicted by a lot of evidence, was what I would have wished for, at least.
Nowhere was I suggesting a raw shouting match, that would almost certainly have been have been counter-productive.
But sometimes a clearer indication from the interviewer of strong feelings coupled with a clear logical objection can emphasize just how absurd the views being presented appear, from his point of view. Otherwise the confident tone of people like Wiker can dominate the lasting perceptions of the listener, as compared to the occasional polite objection from Grothe.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
2 of the clearer heads on the site are Bob and Ubuntu so I'm not sure what you're on.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yes, and that's why Bob is a high level donor, of a sight founded by an individual who wants to put his mom in an insane asylum. Brian Sapient, and the RRS are the queens of rabid emotionalism among atheist, the members are known for their dramatics, not for their contemplative thoughts and reflections, and this is the site Bob financially contributes too.
Perhaps Bob is not as rabid as they are, but he's sure fond of it.
Something about glass houses and stones...
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Interestingly I listened to the next episode of that podcast, where DJ was speaking to Paul Kurtz, who is 'one of ours', actually founder and chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry itself.
Here the situation was somewhat reversed, in that Kurtz was arguing against the more confrontational type of skeptic/atheist, while DJ was arguing that a more aggressive approach was justifiable at times. NOTE, Twelve, nobody was talking about rabid shouting matches, so none of your stupid exaggeration of what Brian and the rest of us actually do.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Well, Glenn Beck doesnt engange much in shouting matches, yet he's highly emotional. I don't exaggerate this forum, the rrs, or even your fondness for it. I'd wager outside of frequent atheist of this forum, atheist and theist alike would equate the enviroment here to be one of a "circus". Other atheist sites make it a point to disassociate themselves with this site, because the rabid, and deluded passions that fume here. The last post I read here, was of some atheist talking about this great war, and how atheism is going to save humanity, and win out, and make us more peaceful, and moral---pure theatrics, that gave the fans of this site, a hard on.
But perhaps you still have trouble facing this reality?
I may not consider you personally, to be less emotional than the rest of the lot, but you sure have no problem supporting it financially.
I'm curious though, do you wish the Center for Inquiry took the Brian Sapient, RRS approach, and if they did, do you think it would have been succesful for them, that they would still have the respectablity, and wide audience that they do, and get the interviews of prominent atheist and theist as they do? Or would they have ended up like the dying animal this organization has become?
I want to hear an honest and reflective response.
You're sort of like an individual who purschases stock in a company that's gone bad, yet your investement advice to a company doing quite well, is that they mimic the qualities of the failed one. Some people learn from mistakes, others are doomed to repeat them. Well, at least you do so with a smile on your face.
Note: i have asked you what else you felt DJ should have questioned Wilke about you still haven't responded. He confronted his assumptions a number of times, so I'm not sure what else you wanted out of DJ, other than some piss and vinegar.
You continue to way over-state the reality, with your use of words like 'fuming' and 'rabid'. It seems to me you are more guilty of such an approach in your attacks on this site that we are on others.
I cannot recall now what points I would have liked Grothe to address that he didn't, I already expressed uncertainty on whether there were things he missed, and it would have been more a matter of different angles on the basic objections, which were covered. This was not the main point of my OP anyway.
It was not so much the un-asked questions, I just thought he could have pursued them a bit more, to try and get Wiker to either provide a better answer rather than a dodge, or make clearer the point of disagreement. It maybe that Grothe judged that it would be unlikely to be productive with this guy, within the time constraints of the interview, and he was in a better position to judge the best overall strategy.
I already acknowledged that Grothe "confronted his assumptions a number of times", but you are determined to misread what we write to support your fixation on portraying this site and other outspoken atheists as 'rabid' and 'fuming'.
It seems to me those characteristics are far more evident among the religious, as with the RC now Mormon Glenn Beck.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Link please.
Unless you only posted this as theatrics to try and make drama.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
And, this is the problem. I've seen the interview after my first post, and after hearing it, i'm baffled by your response. You found "yourself yelling out loud", over "one fallacious argument over another", than you go on to claim that Groethe "raised most, if not all, of the objections" you would had.
Your anger here seems rather bizzare to me, and I'm having trouble making sense of it, other than assuming you desired Groethe to be more "emotional" and "hostile", supposedly he raised nearly all the objections you would have had, and yet you're so angry, "yelling out loud" and shit.
The bulk of the interview wasn't even about science, or some erroneous understanding of it, but rather on Wilke's book about the person of Darwin, and his views on evolution. Everytime Wilke said something about Darwins worldview, and personality, he made sure to refrence it, letting us seeing how he came to his conclusions.
I've asked you numerous time, what more did you want from Groethe, if it's not "emotionalism", or more objections to Wilke's claims, than what is it? You still have not provided this. So perhaps you can provide a clear idea, referencing the actual interview, about what you are complaining about.
What did Wilke dodge? What clearer points of disagreement would you have made? I want to know if you had a chance to interview Wilke about his book on Darwin, how would you interviewed him differently?
A link to what?
Atheists forums where individuals consider the rrs a circus show? well I won't provide the link for that, because the last i remember you get banned for that here, but you can go check RD.net, and there are few threads on the RRS there.
If you're look for a link to the thread here, about a great war, and etc..
Here I wanna highlight parts of it first:
///////
"What I see in the world today is the emerging of THE GREAT WAR!!!. The great war between the largely outnumbered independent minded rationalists, and the people who want to hold on to arrogant, immoral, and so obviously ridiculous beliefs. "
" Our winning of this battle inevitable, that to us is obvious. Its just a matter of how long the growing snowball of rationalism will take to spread to all the corners of the earth "
We rationalists are ahead of the evolutionary curve of the common man, we can see it coming, we know this shift in global enlightenment in inevitable
"This global enlightenment in inevitable with time, it’s just a matter of how long its takes us."
"SAVE THE WORLD, ONE MIND AT A TIME!!!"
////
And what did Sapient do :
"(post cleaned up then featured on Homepage, Digg, and Stumbleupon by Brian Sapient)
Tell me, Clockcat, do you agree that atheist is deluded, and is trapped in his own magical beliefs? And what does it say about the RRS if it's adverstising this shit on its front page?
Here's a link to the thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18590?page=1
Okay, I'll agree that it sounds nutty. I don't know about any magical beliefs claimed in that exactly, but the post does sound a bit frothing-at-the-mouth.
I don't have any explanation for why Brian put it on the first page. However, to judge an entire forum because of someone's post that joined 8 days ago is a little bit much.
I'll reserve my judgement of someone that just joined for a while. I don't think that one, or even a few posts are necessarily revealing of a personality. For all that I know, he could of been drunk, or just really excited to find a place with atheists to talk to and forgot to take his medication that day. I'm going to go with he probably got carried away, because I like to give people leeway so they don't make a likely incorrect first impression on me.
To apply the words of a new poster on the forums to everyone here is more than heavy-handed though.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
indeed richarddawkins.net does have a thread dedicated to critising the RRS. i stoped in there a month ago, they are funny. The funniest part is the amount of work they have put into diging up dirt on the RRS.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Link? I am curious now. I don't see why anyone would care.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Why don't you just google it, its rather easy to find. But i'd be weary of posting the link here, you're likely to get banned if you do.
hmm. Never mind the link I registered and did a search. Finding several threads. It seems to mostly be things posted by a panda and a Matt Shizzle accusing Brian and Kelly of using money donated to the site personally, as well as something about CDs and recorded shows.
I think there was some kind of drama about Matt Shizzle right as I signed on here. I don't really care. I have no investment here but my time and lovable personality.
The only problem I really have with this forum is the number of sections devoted to moderators who are never here. That is mostly just areas named for people that I have never seen.
Otherwise, I think it is fine for the most part. Whatever someone does in their private life has no effect on me. Short of the forums being shut down whatever Brian says or does doesn't make any difference to me. He could turn christian, and as long as the forums were intact I'd be content.
Frankly, I don't know Brian. I tend to take rumors with a large grain of salt though, especially when they seem to be coming from a few people with a strange fixation that repeatedly make the same posts.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I have already told you, in general terms, how I think Grothe should have done it differently.
There was some science content, specifically he attacked 'evolution by natural selection'. He regards it more as an ideology specifically intended to explain evolution while excluding God. He also attacked modern neuroscience and the deficiencies of 'materialistic' scientists.
And it is purely your assumption that I was objecting only to the scientific content. It was his continual attacks on Darwin's motives and character that offended me as much as anything else.
Wiker claimed Darwin had a specifically anti-religious agenda from the beginning, which conflicts with many other accounts I have heard.
Many of his claims are simple assumptions, like the fact that he read his Grandfather's book somehow 'proves' he followed his Grandfather's beliefs.
He conflates Darwin knowing of these other beliefs with him actually accepting them.
He conflates Darwin's ideas on the the natural evolution of morality with him affirming the 'is-ought' fallacy.
And so on...
His arguments are full of such claims based purely on associations rather that actual logical argument. He is continually hammering his claim that Darwin was consciously trying to exclude God, based on almost entirely circumstantial 'evidence'.
Listening again, having got over my initial reaction to the outrageous claims of Wiker, I acknowledge that Grothe did make more substantive objections than I may have given him credit for.
Wiker's whole 'argument' style is riddled with such fallacious and straw-man arguments, and listening again just reinforces my initial reaction, further reinforced by now listening to Grothe's objections more carefully.
I can understand you taking Wiker's side to some extent, you share some of the same style of argument.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Bob, thank you for the link, a very interesting podcast.
I think DJ Grothe was correct in being polite to Dr Wiker, in that I think this helps greatly, in placing Dr. Wiker and
his views on the fringe of reasonable and rational thought.
I looked further to see what conclusions Dr Wiker had drawn from his research on Darwin and found that like most theoligists
he had read further into the life of the naturlist , than was necessary , almost to point where he concludes that Darwin was in fact more influenced by others opinions when drawing up his scientific conclusions regarding Natural Selection.
I think Dr. Wiker makes the typical mistake of those that do not study Science , in that there must always be some underlying motive
to publish rather than the desire study the Science itself.
It is interesting to note that , Dr Wiker in his books asserts that Darwin's publication on Evolution resulted in subsequent wars, immorality and Eugenics. Coming from someone who is also affiliated with "The Discovery Institute"
I will leave the members of this site to comment on the validity of Dr. Wiker's statement
I personally found Dr Wiker's conclusions irrational, and not very scientific.
we should award him an Irrational Medal of some kind..
Can you point on what claims he made about Darwin that were irrational?
Wiker claimed Darwin's views aligned with social Darwinism, and he points to his writings in the Descent of Man, suggesting limiting the breeding of inferior groups of people, and clearly Darwins cousins, Francis Galton, and nearly every reader of Darwins in that period, read his work as such. Nearly all of western civilization devoured social Darwinism, until Hitler made it passe.
Either they didn't know how to read Darwin, or we don't. Notice Wiker wasn't making a Ken Ham claim that evolution leads to social Darwinism, but that he was pointing out the notion that Darwin's view where not aligned to social Darwinism philosophies of the time, that sprung up from devotees of his work, is a myth.
I think he made a persuasive, and reasonable case, he may be wrong, but its a stretch to call his views irrational.
Another argument Wiker makes is that Darwin was disingenuous, his own claims of being a serous believer, was just him trying to pander to his readers, that in reality he came from a lineage of disbelievers, told his wife prior to marriage that he wasn't a believer, and there were not these multiple Darwins. We can disagree with his argument, but let's not lie to ourselves and say he didn't make reasonable cases for them.
I hope this answers your question:-
Dr Wiker states after reading Darwin's Biography (hard to say if he actually read his autobiography), makes the assertion that Darwin was merely following in the radical enlightenment movement of the time.. and that from the very beginning Darwin had planned to write an anti-theist paper.
It is this statement and thus the conclusion he draws regarding what Darwin believed or was planning, that I find totally irrational.
Darwin was a renowned Scientist first and foremost, and for Dr. Wiker, to claim that Darwin was operating under different "modus operandi " than purely a scientific one shows a complete disregard for Darwin's scientific peers. (as if they wouldn't see this )
My point is that , it is almost impossible to determine for certainty especially when reading cross-culturally.
what an individual Scientist 150 years ago was actually thinking and to state that he had an ulterior motive is just plain presumptuous.
I certainly do not believe he (Dr. Wiker ) makes any case regarding Charles Darwin (and I am very suspicious of any thing he says ) after all he is a member of the Discovery Institute , a body of people who's aim is to undermine the very works of scientists like Darwin, Miller, Dawking.
To be honest I only listened to the "Point of Inquiry podcast" by way of Bob's recommendation, Dr Wiker's books are not something I would normally read or even comment on.
But I would say that there seems to be a tremendous amount of effort being expended, in casting doubts on Scientific work, which over the years has
again and again proven itself to be robust and for the most part irrefutable. All of this coming from "so called academics" sources which I can only describe as third rate.
kinds regards
Pete