Category: Skeptihumanism

30-second rants: the playlist.

3/7/2016

As I start to compile my 30-second Twitter rants into YouTube videos in order to make them easier to embed, I've started a playlist.

I don't intend on making the videos pretty in any way, but it's certainly nice to be able to embed them as a single video instead of a series of different videos.

1 Comment

Jeffrey Nordstrom: Openly Secular

1/30/2016

0 Comments

I'm not a very confrontational person and I've kept pretty quiet about faith-stuff, all in all, for the last few years. My online presence is obviously critical of religion, and I've cultivated a digital sympathy for various atheist-folks and ideas, but I've always avoided saying anything about it myself. As a teacher, I don't want to cause an unneeded ruckus, and I really don't think "what I have to say" is any different or more articulate than anybody else out in cyberspace.

However, yesterday I broke my own general rule and posted a comparatively aggressive video to Twitter:

0 Comments

On the "context" argument.

4/21/2015

0 Comments

I listen to podcasts. Today I heard the argument from context on two different shows: The Halli Casser-Jayne Show and Dogma Debate.

The Halli Casser-Jayne Show featured an interview with Mubin Shaikh, apparently a "former militant jihadi turned undercover agent" who argued that the militants in ISIS/ISIL have taken sections of Muslim holy texts out of context in order to move their Islamic State forward. Starting around the 15:00 mark, Mubin speaks,

... This is why we make the point of mistaken interpretations, because--I'll give you a perfect example-- Chapter 9, Verse 5: "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." And a lot of people who, sorry, hate Islam and Muslims, they want to believe that Islam is the reason for it, they want to avoid the reality of sociopolitics, they see that and say "Look! Here's what the verse says." And it's funny, but I used to believe the same thing until the scholar said to me, "Do you normally begin reading at Verse 5?" Right?

So If you go to verse 1 it tells you that this is in regards to polytheists who have broken the peace treaty between them. If look at verse 4 or 12, it absolves those who are not engaged in hostile acts and does not include those people in the verses that talk about fighting.

So there is a context that needs to be respected. (...)

It goes on. He insults those who "misunderstand," who do "superficial shallow readings," and "ignore contexts." It's some classic "No True Scotsman" stuff. In effect, he's saying "They get it all wrong because they hold to an ideology that doesn't respect context."

Later in the evening, while walking the dog, I was listening to Dogma Debate. A pastor claimed that we need to appreciate "context" in order to understand God's orders in order to understand the creation myth and whatnot. Starting around the 59 minute mark, the pastor says,

You gotta' take everything in context.

The important thing is to take things in context. You got to realize that The Bible isn't one book with one author... so these are lots of authors writing for different contexts and different situations writing for different reasons.

I heard arguments like this a lot growing up. "You need to take the Bible in context" is how I usually heard it, and there was never any need to have discussions like this if there wasn't some serious logical or ethical confusion. This discussion took place after reading about Yahweh's many murders and massacres and whatnot. Always, when God acted like a jerk, or humans got credit for unethical behavior, somebody would say "You have to take it in context."

There are a few problems with the argument from context.

Who delineates what the "original" context was? We have no way to fully grasp original context; we always read old context with the glasses of our own context.
Who are we to say when, how, and where the original context should be adapted, and how? To what degree are we allowed to adapt or interspose contexts?
Why is god so incompetent that he can't see that people will take his words out of context, if context is so important? Why can't he just clear it up?

Really, that's the crux of it. No god worth worshipping would leave it up to us to interpret so many layers of context. A worship-worthy god would just tell us. Gods who can't take "context" into account aren't worthy of praise.

The argument from context should always be a red flag: it always attempts to justify bad behavior or incompetence. I can't think of any other purpose for the technique.

0 Comments

Driving.

10/25/2014

0 Comments

Over at the Sociological Images Tumblr, there's a little interview with Matt Richtel who asserts that "The #1 cause of traffic fatalities isn't texting, it's driving." This is a kind-of nuts way of looking at things, but it certainly caught my attention. A few students I've taught have been killed in texting-related accidents and I do my best not to check my phone while driving. And fines for handheld use in BC have recently increased. From all accounts, texting's a big deal.

Whenever there's something evidence-based that goes against my intuition, I try to learn a bit about it. And this one certainly works against my intuition. I mean, what's worse for driving than taking your eyes off the road to do something else? How could texting not have a significant affect on driving? Isn't the evidence clear?

Well, according to this guy, the evidence actually points in a different direction.

From Sociological Images.

Only the miles and drive-to-work rates were correlated with vehicle deaths. Mobile phone subscriptions had no effect at all.

So we're driving more, and that's ultimately what's causing the accidents. Distracted driving is certainly a problem, but the fact that we're driving more than we have before is what correlates with vehicle deaths. Here a visualization of the data from the article.

What does this mean for me? Nothing, really. What it means is that I don't need to feel so bad if I change songs on my phone while it's playing through the Bluetooth speakers in the car. If I behave in a safe manner, my distracted driving on my phone should cause an equivalent amount of distraction as eating a breakfast sandwich while driving.

The other thing I take from this is that I'm not the only person who's spending too much time in the car. I often feel some guilt about the amount of time I spend driving; however, it appears I'm not alone in my iniquity.

0 Comments

Bart Ehrman's "The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old."

6/6/2014

0 Comments

Bart Ehrman's blog is a subscriber service that I'd love to subscribe to. Rarely does he post an article without having it behind a paywall. I don't know if he just forgot to make the digital fold for this one, but I appreciated this complete reflection from the fellow. He calls it, "The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old." Ehrman writes,

But here is what struck me. About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?

Would we say that our understanding of science was better then? Our understanding of biology or physics or astronomy? Were our views in 1972 better than our views now? Or how about politics? Or philosophy? Would we be better off thinking what we did when we were 16? Or what about our views of sexual relations? Or literature? Or economic investments? Or … Or anything else?

Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith – not all of them, of course; and arguably not even most of them; but certainly some of them; in fact a *lot* of them in evangelical circles – think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings as they get older in every *other* aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen year old?

I've considered this myself, but never as clearly as Ehrman does here. I can't think of anything about me that hasn't changed since when I was 16., My music taste has changed; my tolerance has changed; my hobbies and occupations have changed.

And I'm very glad that my attitude towards religion has changed since then.

0 Comments

<<Previous

30-second rants: the playlist.

Jeffrey Nordstrom: Openly Secular

On the "context" argument.

Driving.

Bart Ehrman's "The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old."

Archives

Categories

Contact Jeffrey