Kelly, Rook, and Sapient blog
Hershel Shanks and the Biblical Archaeology Review
I have been meaning to write an article on a few of the entries in the most recent BAR. No, not the Browning Automatic Rifle, I’m talking about the Biblical Archaeology Review. Although some of you would probably find the first more entertaining, the latter is really the more important and relevant thing to discuss, as far as I’m concerned. Especially in light of the guest appearance this Wednesday night on our show, Dr. Hector Avalos, and his fascinating book, The End of Biblical Studies.
I generally read through this periodical, not only because I find the articles compelling, but the Magazine as a whole attempts to break the chain of evangelism by presenting—and I mean it really tries hard—the most scientific articles it can find, or that have been submitted. Some are unbelievably inaccurate, and at times the Magazine editor, Hershel Shanks, will allow his Jewish-religious viewpoints to interfere with his choice of articles, and often his choice of words.
It's Christian Bashing Week!
How's that headline? Do I have everybody's attention now? Good. Because a headline like that should get your attention. Would anybody tolerate "Gay Bashing Week" or "Woman Bashing Week?" The very idea is ludicrous. Yet, Dinesh D'Souza can print an article entitled "Atheist Bashing Week" and hardly anybody bats an eyelash. There's certainly not public outrage and condemnation for such blatant bigotry. He was just joking, you say? Even in all of our stunts, which are regularly criticized by atheists (often quite vehemently), we've only dared to tell people that their god doesn't exist or encourage others to say so and post it to YouTube. Even the mind disorder controversy doesn't encourage physical harm or even allude to it. If we haven't had "Christian Bashing Week," you can bet it's because we find the notion repugnant, even in jest.
D'Souza's piece may have been tongue-in-cheek, but that is of little consequence to the typical reader who barely scans headlines and will be even subliminally influenced by this, much less those who don't have the reading comprehension to detect his almost imperceptible sarcasm. Could any of you imagine a "Muslim Bashing Week?" Even if a "Ha ha! Just kidding!" is added at the end, it is still extraordinarily offensive, and the fact that he isn't facing scorn for this piece is evidence that people are still permitted to discriminate against those evil godless heathens.
The Case Against Science?
Sorry - this is a long one. For my next blog post, I'll be taking a break from Vox so I can kick somebody else's ass and all of you who keep telling me to drop the Vox project will shut up. As to the length--I know it's taking absurdly long and I still have 13 chapters to go. I just wanted to do a critique that was so detailed that nobody would need to read the book to know what it says. I may have to go with the more concise plan, though, so I can finish this sometime, oh....before I die.
Vox Day seems to have a proclivity towards using odd anecdotal evidence gleaned from the writings of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens in order to formulate his arguments against atheism, and he continues in the same vein in chapter three. In short order, we discover that “New Atheists” harbor outright hatred for religion and that we “science fetishists” believe that science “dictates” human behavior, rather than merely describing or explaining it.
Segments from recent radio appearance
Hey folks, this is Sapient. Just wanted to get a copy of some segments we recorded of a recent interview Kelly did.
Feel free to comment right here.
ETA: The link to hear the entire interview is here.
Conversation with Jehovah's Witness [Part II]
(Name withheld),
I hope you and your family are doing well. I'm going to respond to your points paragraph at a time. I will be as direct and to the point as I can, so please do not mistake my blunt responses for rudeness. I am just short on time since I am spending so much of it on my book.
Below I will separate your paragraphs from mine. (This may seem long but I take this subject very seriously. This is, after all, what I do for a living; as a historian it is my job to correct false presuppositions and educate people on current trends in Biblical scholarship and archaeology)
<<<Rook,
The original debaptism challenge
One of the projects we've been stewing is a debaptism challenge. Ex-Priest Dr. Stephen Uhl has committed copies of his book Imagine No Superstition as prizes as we gather more info on how we want to run it. While researching the idea I came upon this video series of a Sally Jessy Raphael episode from 1988 featuring the St. Louis Rationalists and a few fundies. As for our own debaptism challenge, we're still a while away. If anyone who participated in or led a debaptism with the St. Louis Rationalists is reading this please drop me a line, I'd like to have you on our radio show.
Check out this show, I think you'll enjoy.
Book Status as of 4/16/08
Well its been a year now since I first started writing with the intent to publish a book. In that year a lot of good has happened. As many of you now know, I have been submitting my book for review with the hopes of getting published by an academic press. This good fortune has been brought about with the help of a friend, and it has allowed me to refocus my book from the original 22 chapters down to 10, significantly shortening the amount of research and time I would have otherwise needed. Initially I was expecting my book to pass around 600-700 pages. Now we're looking at a length closer to 300 including notes, bibliography and appendices.
Recent Discussion with Jehovah's Witness
As many of you know I work part time at a bookstore because (a) I don't make enough with RRS to support all my bills and (b) I love books and enjoy selling them to people. Well, yesterday morning as I was helping somebody in the religion section, a customer asked me for books on illnesses. I walked her over to the section and pointed out some books of interest to her, and as I was walking away she stated affirmatively that she had managed to get her son to read, and that her job was accomplished for the day even if she didn't find the book she was looking for. After suggesting that I probably read a lot of fiction because I work in a bookstore, I told her that I spent most of my time reading ancient fiction, being that my full time job was that I was a historian.
The Second Cross-Examination
Gah--this is taking so much longer than I thought. I’m going to attempt to keep this brief and only address major points so that I can move on to chapter 3. I already have people bitching that I should just “ignore Vox,” but I have no intentions of doing so. His fan-boys would only claim victory, so plod along with me here. (Pretty please?)
Quote:It is perfectly understandable, but unfortunate, that Kelly is so wedded to an oppositional context that she tends to blindly fall into applying hostile and incorrect interpretations to various parts of the text in which no opposition is required. This does not appear to be a problem of basic reading comprehension, but rather, the result of reading with a critical filter that causes her to react rather than think through her response to what she is reading. This filter, combined with her failure to read the entire book before beginning the chapter-by-chapter review, leads her into a number of completely unnecessary errors in her critique of this chapter.
Carnival of the Godless #89
I am honored to be hosting the 89th Carnival of the Godless, but before we begin, I need to tell the readers something.
All of the following people are bad representatives of atheism.
At least in somebody's opinion. Every person here adheres to a particular viewpoint, methodology, or philosophy with which some other atheist disagrees. Every single one of them. Yet, here they are, spewing their ideas all over the internet with impunity. The horror! What kind of arrogance would compel these people to voice their ill-informed opinions as if they speak for all atheists? You know, they're doing more harm than good.
At least, that's what we're told. That's what "they" (cue spooky music) want us to believe. But how much truth lies in those accusations? Are those statements not also an opinion that may offend somebody else, likely the person at whom they are directed? Might not that also be perceived as detrimental to "the cause?"
Carnival of the Godless and more Vox
I am officially announcing that the next Carnival of the Godless will be hosted here, on my blog, beginning April 13. Be on the lookout for that. I have gotten a bunch of good submissions already.
The following is a "response" from a Vox Day fan. It is relatively devoid of anything intelligent, but I address it because everybody cries if I don't.
Quote:I have some agreement with your comment. However we are not talking proof here, just a suggestion. Correlation implies causation. It is hypothesis generating.
No, correlation does not imply causation, and a hypothesis should be generated before any experimentation is undertaken. The hypothesis comes from pure observation, and is then proven or not by experimentation. Perhaps you should study the scientific method.
Quote:But a brief survey with biases may still be hypothesis generating, it is the more detailed study that confirms or rejects this. And my comment about the onus being on the person denying it is because no matter how good a study is there will always be flaws, and your suggestion allows people to continually say that correlation does not equal causation.
The (ir)Rational Atheist--More Vox Day
Starting off chapter two, which is entitled “Defining Science,” is a brief description of the Jim Rose Circus Sideshow, unknown to most, but a troupe of traveling masochists (or so it seems) who represent his caricature of science. These little side stories can have more of an effect than the reader understands, though. Right off the bat, science is seen as either freakish or trivial due to the association with that particular experience of his. Because of this, I find it necessary to give you the actual definition of “science”:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation…
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. (from dictionary.com)
Response to Vox
Alright - I had posted this as a comment under my previous blog post, but it's too damn long to not make it separate. So, without further ado...my response to his response to my response to The Irrational Atheist.
Quote:Actually, we're only supposed to make sure you have heard the Gospel, if you're not inclined to listen, we're permitted to shake the dust from our sandals and move on in good conscience. Moreoever, I never claimed to be a particularly good Christian, the reason I'm less annoying than the door-knocking fundamentalist who wants to talk to you about Jesus is because I care less about your fate. My libertarianism pretty much goes to the bone.
I prefer your more subdued form of proselytization, but I think that the bible clearly indicates that as one of the “elect,” you should in fact feel sorrow for the fate of our heathen souls. People like Paul even wept for the lost. At any rate, this is a trivial point that is not written out plainly as a command, so I won’t press it further.
