You don't have to accept his answers. But he sure makes those kids stop and think, doesn't he? I just like the way he phrases his questions. I can imagine the Pharisees having a conversation about Jesus along these lines, telling others that his teachings were 'ridiculous' and calling him 'the mother of fools'. Everyone is entitled to their view.
Yep. But lack of sophistication in a view held is the realm of children and charlatans. Ray is just about smart enough to realise he's not debating God, but actually using simple sales techniques. That he can edit a video to ensure it only includes kids unable to frame a coherent response, or that any coherence is edited out is hardly to his credit.
You can compare Ray to Jesus if you like. I wouldn't.
Hmmmm, shame about that. Future scientists should begin their college studies with a little more than simply a conviction that they are atheists, don't you think? Most of them had no idea how to respond and yet the illustration wasn't rocket science.
Yeah, because I've never met a Christian college student who lacked depth to their beliefs...ahem...
(Not sure where they idea that they're 'future scientists' came from, but it doesn't really matter. Even believers can be scientists. Said with my tongue in my cheek.)
He began by getting them to confirm their atheistic beliefs. Identifying yourself as an atheist should at least be backed up by some knowledge of why you take that position....don't you think?
Personally? Sure. But there is no set of rules. People make their own choices. Ask Christians to explain the trinity in a sound-byte fashion.
It isn't enough to be taught about evolution in school or to watch a Dawkins video and assume that he must be telling the truth. It is his view but it needn't be shared as if he was some kind of an evangelist preaching the way to slavation.
Hmmm...
It isn't enough to be taught about God in church, or to read an approved tract and assume it must be telling the truth. Those people have their views, but they needn't be shared like it's some kind of 'Truth'.
You're right......I withdraw the proviso your Honor.
Thanks!
How torturous for you....
I am humbled by your obedience.
Meh, not obedience, certainly. But if one is wanting to participate in a thread, I think it behooves them to play along with the OP and it's intent to whatever degree is reasonable, and your request was reasonable, if a little lacking in 'fun' for me personally.
Since it is scientists themselves who call the volumes containing the mapping of the human genome "the Book of Life", I think it is quite fair to use the book analogy. Just as any book with complex scientific information has to be written by someone with enough intelligence to understand what they are talking about, so it is logical to assume that intelligence was behind the information contained in the sequencing of the human genome itself.
Logic doesn't really work that way. I know how we use the term colloquially, but, yeah...
Anyhow, I don't have to agree with people who describe genome mapping as the 'Book of Life', you know, right?
Incidentally, based purely on Ray's argument, why would anyone assume a single Watchmaker. Or Author.
He has interviewed scientists before with exactly the same response. Even the professors struggled with the simple questions. Ask them something requiring a deep explanation for a mechanical function in some biological system and they will spout off jargon for half an hour without taking a breath, but ask them the simple things and they are at a loss for words.
No, they are at a loss for a soundbyte answer. Some things are more complex than Ray's dumbing down process allows for. I am constantly dumbing down things for people in my job, but there is a limit. Some things take literally years to understand, and giving a soundbyte answer...it just doesn't work.
Still, ultimately, I think the truth is that we just don't know everything To whit, ask a scientist to explain 'consciousness' in a simple to understand soundbyte. Because a human can't frame certainty and evidence in 2 sentences, that should lead us to believe in a Christian God, of some certain flavour? The premise is severely flawed and self-serving.
Isn't it sad that 'dumbing things down' for people shows up their level of intelligence like nothing else?
I think people can be reluctant to admit ignorance. I see that all the time, and it certainly makes my job more difficult.
And they end up realizing that he has a point. He has opened up that gap and planted a seed of doubt....and hopefully they will think about what he has told them instead of swallowing the stuff that is shoved down their throats from High School and on into college, and made to feel like proper idiots if they question anything.
If this is your honest opinion on teaching, I wish you had better teachers. Some of mine were half-witted imbeciles, certainly, but they're soon forgotten. I had some others whose impact on me remains. And universally they were about empowering me and my curiousity, something I took very seriously when I was a teacher.
I'm sure I've mentioned to you before, I was the teacher in the room for 'Religious Education' when I was a public school teacher, since I knew the most about religion. Lucky me. I got to watch public school kids get inflicted with literal interpretations of the Bible, with the kicker being that even in their literalism they were flawed. (Jonah and the whale/fish was a fun test for me to help kids with).
I'm not particularly proud or happy that I played my role in that whole joke of a process, but I did. I swallowed down my personal opinions hard enough that the kids would have just assumed I was a Christian, and my credibility, established over long months of hard work with a class was implicitly leant to a bunch of evangelical volunteers who had permission to 'teach kids about religion'. Religion, my arse.
Anyway, suffice to say I get a little prickly when there is this assumption that all the 'lefty atheist teachers' are ramming godlessness down kids throats, or something.
Giving scientists the opportunity to dazzle with scientific jargon is not what he was after. The KISS principle works brilliantly I think.
It exposes an underbelly not often seen on campuses.
Actually, based on my time both as a student, and as a university lecturer, that's not true. KISS works well. The thing is, KISS doesn't mean explaining the human genome in 2 easy sentences. That's not KISS.
I like to get to the bottom of things and if something doesn't ring true for me, I am like a dog with a bone. I won't put it down until I understand. I knew there was a Creator but his purpose escaped me when I was a church member. I didn't understand anything and it was frustrating me to no end. Studying the Bible with JW's opened up a lot of doors and windows for me. (no pun intended) It filled in all the gaps until I had a big picture that made perfect sense. It may not be that way for others, but that is how it was for me.
I don't mean this to sound personal, so I apologize in advance. I mean only to be honest in this comment. What you are saying doesn't actually sound like you want to understand everything. Such a thing is not possible, and anyone who wants to walk the path of knowledge is pretty much resigning themselves to be permanently frustrated confused and adjusting their views.
It sounds much more like you are talking about cognitive dissonance. It sounds to me like you are saying you are not willing to rest when something doesn't sit right, and that you're willing to invest thought and effort until you get a picture that does sit right.
That's common to all people, to a degree, but increased knowledge and understanding commonly don't lead to a reduction in cognitive dissonance in the longer term.
I know science doesn't think....that is my complaint. Strawmen think more logically than they do IMO.
Science is a process. It doesn't think. Scientists are people. They think. Not all alike, and their areas of expertise varies greatly.
Heck, there are a lot of things I don't know too...but finding out is so worth the effort. Getting questions answered that have been rattling around in your head for decades is extremely satisfying. Having a personal relationship with the Creator is not something you can explain to someone...it has to be experienced. This is how you "know"....not just "think" you know.
This still sounds like cognitive dissonance.
