1. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159034 by cdhabecker on April 11, 2008 at 11:10 am

ENCOURAGE theists to put their trust in Expelled.
ENCOURAGE theists to quote Expelled at school board meetings.
ENCOURAGE theists to recommend Expelled to their friends.
ENCOURAGE theists to spend money on Expelled.
ENCOURAGE theist candidates to support Expelled publicly.

The harder theists swallow Expelled, the angrier they will be at its producers and supporters when the movie utterly fails them. Consider: if Richard Dawkins were to ridicule a hypothetical Expelled movie, the theists would cry "strawman!" But the theists are actually championing this softball and delivering it with a shiny bow on top.

Time is the enemy of Expelled. Time begets reflection and questions, and Expelled can withstand neither.

2. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #83863 by cdhabecker on October 31, 2007 at 1:49 pm

The movie "Expelled" asserts that "Big Science" is dogmatically protecting evolutionary theory and that any scientist who tries to criticize Darwinism is blackballed and so on and so on.

This new attack is a conspiracy theory with emotional appeal to fairness and fear; in other words, it's bound to become a wildly popular sentiment (no evidence necessary, of course).

I think that a devestating rebuttal would be to explain that the real situation is exactly opposite of what creationists claim; that science's big prize -- discovery and recognition -- goes to the scientist who discovers a flaw in the theory. Science is always actively working to debunk itself. However, I'm not a scientific researcher, so someone authoritative please confirm or debunk my argument.

3. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #83305 by cdhabecker on October 29, 2007 at 3:07 pm

D'Souza:
Science is based on 3 assumptions for which it can offer no explanation.
1. The universe is rational.
2. The rationality of the universe is comprehensible in the language of mathematics.
3. The rules of the universe are comprehensible to us.

He also goes on about how there was nothing in our experience or pre-Christian philosophy to give us the idea that the universe is rational or comprehensible. He finally attacks inductive reasoning.

Rebuttal:
First of all, what kind of pervasive, never-rational experience do you think humans had 2,000 years ago? Did the sun not rise and set every day, did rivers not always flow downhill instead of uphill? People have always experienced abundant, comprehensive evidence of predictability in nature; this is observable fact. Attempting to explain this predictability in detail based on more observable fact is called science. Choosing to call it divine intent rather than seeking an explanation is called religion.

As for #2, it is false to say that science insists that our mathematics are sufficient to describe nature. On the contrary, our observations lead to the invention of mathematics; thus it is not surprising that they do a good job of describing our observations. When a person observes that the sun appears overhead once every 24 hours, he is speaking in elementary mathematics. When observations of natural phenomena such as quantum mechanics surpassed our then-current mathematics, science invented improved mathematics.

#3 is similarly false: there is no scientific rule that says that science necessarily must be able to explain everything. Science aims to explain observations to the best of its ability. Science has already proven itself capable of explaining many natural phenomena to an extent that is demonstrably useful and orders of magnitude more impressive than biblical knowledge.

As for inductive reasoning, I refer to Comment #12, above, by SirMoogie. I add that science isn't trying to hide the fact that its theories have not been tested in every conceivable time and place. A look at "inductive reasoning" on wikipedia will show that this is a lively topic.

But not to worrry -- D'Souza tells us unequivocally that the universe is rational and that he knows the source of that rationality on a personal basis.

4. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #83227 by cdhabecker on October 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

D'Souza claims that Christianity has been, on the whole, a gift to the world. On this basis, he argues that Christianity is good and should continue.

Rebuttal:
Let's recall how D'Souza's father (grandfather?) was converted to Christianity. I believe the three words were "the Portuguese Inquisition." Dinesh mentioned something about bayonets and an unenthusiastic reception among his ancestors; we can easily understand that we wouldn't want to live through such a trial. Nevertheless, Dinesh tells us, the end result, conversion to Christianity, was a glorious thing.

So, if it led to such a wonderful result, does Dinesh advocate a new Portuguese Inquisition? I think not. He dare not. And of course we would not want such senseless, superstitious barbarism ever again.

Dinesh mentioned several other bad episodes in Christian history as well. I'll let you judge whether he was right to minimalize the suffering of the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials, or to ignore hundreds of years of Christian authoritarian rule. The point is that while Dinesh considered all of these means to be ultimately justified by their ends, he did recognize these episodes as bad and not to be repeated. In fact, he stated hopefully that there is "nothing in Christianity that denies or prevents moral development" (Shermer debate, video #2, 29:45).

So there you have it; we agree that Christianity, far from being a wonderful, divine intervention from a caring God, has been a messy, brutal affair, characterized by a consistent claim to divine knowledge that has, nevertheless, been repeatedly found to be lacking and in need of improvement. Of course Dinesh claimed that Christianity can allow moral development -- it needs it.

Dinesh chooses to give up Inquisitions and witch trials, but he insists on keeping the core attribute that produced them: faith; believing that he knows things that he can't possibly know -- claiming that he knows God on a personal basis, knows his detailed thoughts and desires. Believing all of this based on no concrete evidence, and in spite of much better explanations of the world.

No, we can do better than Christianity, and we owe it to ourselves and our children to get off that broken down relic.

5. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #82559 by cdhabecker on October 26, 2007 at 5:40 pm

General argument from D'Souza: Christianity was the origin of our moral framework; its introduction was a radical departure from human nature as realized in the philosophy of Athens, and Christianity has been the instigator of later (good) moral advancements (abolition, democracy, and so on).

Rebuttal (from Shermer): Society is in the midst of grinding out another moral advancement that Christianity not only didn't start, but is actively fighting. That advancement is the disappearance of homosexual persecution and prejudice, with same-sex marriage being an obvious milestone. In a couple of decades the advancement will succeed, and then people like D'Souza will claim that it was Christianity that made it all happen.

I really like this rebuttal because the gay-rights situation -- especially same-sex marriage -- is current, relevant, and obvious. I have always been in favor of same-sex marriage, but this tie-in to Christian oppression has inspired me to take this up this cause actively with this message:
- GLBTs deserve equal rights.
- It is a rational moral imperative to protect the rights of GLBTs.
- Christians have been in opposition; shame on those who still are.
- If you are a Christian who has come around, then denounce those Christians who are still in opposition, otherwise shame on you.
- (Implication) Christianity isn't a moral beacon -- you can do better.

6. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #82524 by cdhabecker on October 26, 2007 at 2:51 pm

D'Souza: "Slavery was part of the cultural fabric before Christianity." "Christianity mobilized the first movement in the world to abolish slavery. First the Quakers, then the evangelicals." (D'Souza vs. Hitchens)

Rebuttal: You are admitting that, despite controlling the most powerful nations on earth for hundreds of years, Christianity didn't mobilize an anti-slavery movement until the 1800s? Of this you boast? And isn't it interesting that this movement happened in an upstart country that was the first government of the people, by the people, and for the people?