I have no better word than “evil” to describe the willful stupidity or active malevolence it must have taken William Dembski to report a scientist to Homeland Security. Either stupid, or malevolent. You can’t have both, and it’s absolutely clear that you gotta have one of those.
son1 said,
Well, maybe we can draw a distinction between “Dembski,” and “Christians” in this case? Dembski’s a tool, no question about it. But to paint an entire religious group with one brush, just ’cause this particular nut likes to do malevolent things…
orthoclase said,
If you’re stupid and malevolent, does that mean you’re bad at being bad?
I agree with son1 — you’re painting with a little too broad a brush. It’d be like saying all complex systems scientists are like that W guy that you’ve mentioned a few times.
Tozier said,
son1: You know, I think you might be right. And it might even be something I meant for you to say.
Have a look at the supportive comments at Dembski’s blog on the two posts he’s made. How many of them have engaged in critical debate?
You sure you don’t wanna just pat me on the back? I mean, clearly we’re on the same side here.
orthoclase said,
Ah, but Mr. Tozier, sir, I *don’t* read Dembski and have no intentions of doing so. So all irony is lost on me, I fear.
Sure sure, call me irresponsible, but I prefer to spend my online time reading stuff that doesn’t make me roll my eyes.
son1 said,
Wait, is there an argument of “irresponsibility” being made here? I know, a priori, that if I go read any of Dembski’s blogs I’ll get a series of half-formed poorly-thought-out often-insane sometimes-malevolent posts, each one followed by its own unique cacophany of adoring sycophantic “dittos” and “right ons” and “I’ve said the same thing on my blog — please take a look”s. Most of the blog-o-sphere is like this — right and left, for the most part. Celebrity blogger, whose ego is boosted by the millions of hits he gets, the cascade of agreement that follows each pronouncement. Commenters who form little mutual-affirmation societies, and who derive some kind of validation by their “regular” status on well-known websites.
Yeesh.
I know there are levels of irony in your post, Mr. T, but I’m having problems unpacking them. So I’m just writing this little blog-rant, instead.
I mean, I guess I just got a jolt when I read your post-title… there are always crazy people, but so many of the Christians I know (and was raised with) would never do anything the way Dembski does — compared to them, he might as well be from Pluto.
And in that light, no, I don’t really want to pat anyone on the back. Although yeah, we’re definitely on the same side. To the extent that there are distinct “sides,” I suppose. That’s probably debatable too.
Tozier said,
OK, OK. My irony is heavy-handed. True. Guilty as sin charged.
I’m on a deadline, here. Homework.
So I do appreciate that you’ve hit the high points in a few minutes. Deep kudos your way. Read PZ’s comments, barring Dembski’s. (a) Herd-following behavior; (b) the echo chamber; (c) insularity; (d) a tiny subpopulation of scouts heading over into “enemy” territory to make a stand; (e) the self-definition of “sides”. And events that fall into some of those letters overlap, while we’re piling on the meta-meta-observations.
Wesley R. Elsberry said,
I’m a Christian, and my article pointing out the problem is linked in your opening post. I’m just not going to be starting every post I make with “I am a Christian, and I think X”. That would be both irrelevant and inane. Here, there seems to be a point to mentioning it.
Tozier said,
Do note that the degree of heavy-handed and over-layered irony I was using was pointed out in earlier comments.
We all need to define our terms. The folks causing problems are the ones who refuse to do so, and impersonate members of categories we assume hold fast in all cases: the rational, the scientific, the Christian, the believer, the scholar.
The good, the evil.
The first layer of (sad) irony in these “debates” is that the players pick two, maybe three camps and reformulate themselves to fit them. The second, deeper layer is that in doing so, they redefine and reconfigure those very “camps”; some don’t even exist until a “debate” opens up in the first place.
The longer-term war is not over reality, pedagogy, differing philosophical approach to education or science, morality, souls or even the control of funds. It’s about identification.
It’s a war over self-identification, and the labeling of others. It’s a war of categories.
son1 said,
Or at least, it’s also a war of categories. But it may be some of those other things too — “contol of funds” seems very direct and relevant, actually.
Tozier said,
See, now that’s where I disagree. It’s gotta be one thing or the other. It surely can’t both be a war of faith vs. reason, and a war of categories and worldviews.
If that were the case, then how could anybody win? When would such a thing ever end?
Naah. The only rational interpretation is that it’s a war of interpretation. And within that firm and objective framework we will all know, rationally, when we’re done.
son1 said,
Whence this irrational need to have wars with “ends?”
Mr. Tozier, we have entered the era of the Long War of Interpretation. Many brave men and women will give their lives for their concept, before this one is through.
Tozier said,
…[W]e have entered the era of the Long War of Interpretation. Many brave men and women will give their lives for their concept, before this one is through.
My friend, I fear you’re exactly right.
I’ve spent too many months proofreading books and magazines of the 1850s and early ’60s. Those who do know history are doomed to watch it run around its cycle again….
OK. We’ve completely ironied me out: Dembski being irrational and mean doesn’t scare me. The receptiveness of a vocal subset of mainstream American citizens to such behavior does. I think that what has saved us, over the last 140 years, is the relative difficulty of organizing over large distances, the diffuse isolation of like-minded individuals in diverse local communities.
People today are able to circumvent local diversity entirely, to live “out of the world” in any of a dozen ways. That scares the shit out of me, all irony aside.
son1 said,
Everyone laughs, but “the global village” really is a very useful concept.
I admit, on some days, it’s a very scary thing. But I honestly feel less and less worried about it, each day.
I definitely remember the first time I had the actual thought (and not just heard about some else having the same idea), “this internet-thing is going to change the way I live” — when I realized that, every time I was having some trivial spat, some ornery argument with an irate roommate, that I could just go and look up the answer online.
But ultimately, I don’t have any problem with “itinerant thinkers,” so to speak, self-organizing into communities over long distances and living “out of the world.” To each his, or their, own. Culture was always an illusion, anyway — useful shorthand for something that can’t be replaced or destroyed, just … moved around.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Subscribe to posts feed