Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[stillthinkin]

The phrases are "evangelical a**holes" and "bullsh*t myths"
Hope that makes it through the filter.

 

[stillthinkin]

First I would say that Penn reserves his respect for people who legitimately earn it..

Ah, perhaps you mean he reserves it for skeptics, like Michael Shermer, for who Penn expresses admiration. I like Shermer's approach better, where he can speak respectfully even of people whose position he finds ludicrous. Could you clarify who else Penn respects?

Second I would say that if that is the sum total of your evidence then you are not very critical in your thinking.

I was speaking specifically of my experience of the video... that is all the evidence I have of him personally. As I watched the video I realized that this was the same fellow who had been so vulgar in his criticism of Teresa of Calcutta.

It is typical, almost expected now, in the organized skeptical movement, that when a person makes a huge contribution to society, vindictive others, who dislike their 'irrational' viewpoint, are embarassed because they haven't accomplished anywhere near as much with their 'rational' viewpoint, to come out saying that person was really a meanie, did horrible things, etc.

That seems like a plausible description of what has happened in the case of Penn/Hutchins vs Teresa of Calcutta.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, perhaps you mean he reserves it for skeptics, like Michael Shermer, for who Penn expresses admiration.

No, he reserves it for people who deserve respect. Period.

I was speaking specifically of my experience of the video... that is all the evidence I have of him personally. As I watched the video I realized that this was the same fellow who had been so vulgar in his criticism of Teresa of Calcutta.

You are entitled to an opinion. Mine is different for good reason. I am willing to be respectful or religion but I think repsect needs to be reserved for those who are sincere and who don't exploit others for personal fame or fortune. I think MT fails in that regard.

 

[RandFan]

And what positive contributions has Hitchens made? Especially when compared to Mother Teresa.

Hitchens is making an argument. The argument does not stand or fall based on a comparison of perceived or real good. Your argument is fallacious, ad hominem. FWIW, I find his contributions to humanity far outweigh MT but then I don't believe in god so all the suffering for god she promoted was for naught.

 

[RandFan]

It is typical, almost expected now, in the organized skeptical movement, that when a person makes a huge contribution to society, vindictive others, who dislike their 'irrational' viewpoint, are embarassed because they haven't accomplished anywhere near as much with their 'rational' viewpoint, to come out saying that person was really a meanie, did horrible things, etc.

We see it with Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and many others.

Actually, when it is discovered that the person did things that were wrong those things are made public. That's all. Skeptics want the whole truth. That said I'm honestly not sure what contribution to society MT made. Please to tell us?

 

[stillthinkin]

No, he reserves it for people who deserve respect. Period.

What are Penn's criteria for discerning between those who deserve respect, and those who do not?

There seems to be a large group of people, the so-called "evangelical a**holes" who deserve direct disrespect from him. Then there is the entire Christian population, who evidently deserve to see their scriptures kicked, thrown, and burned. Do all Christians of all time deserve this direct disrespectfulness?

 

[Huntster]

Tell me why we need a moral guide?

Why do we have maintenance and repair manuals for our vehicles?

Don't you know how to be moral?

I'm not the only person in consideration here. There are billions of us.

Do you really need some book?

Do we need lawbooks?

How do you even know the book is right?

I'm sure you'll let us know if it isn't.

 

[Huntster]

It is typical, almost expected now, in the organized skeptical movement, that when a person makes a huge contribution to society, vindictive others, who dislike their 'irrational' viewpoint, are embarassed because they haven't accomplished anywhere near as much with their 'rational' viewpoint, to come out saying that person was really a meanie, did horrible things, etc.

We see it with Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and many others.

Thank you.

I'm happy that I'm not the only one to notice it, and I salute your courage for posting that.

 

[qayak]

Shermer stated his position very respectfully. Penn states his position very disrespectfully.

I like Burger King's position on hamburgers better than McDonald's so if I go looking for a hamburger, I go to Burger King. If you like Shermer's position better then listen to him and ignore Penn. No matter where you go though, you will get a burger.

I prefer Shermer as well, I can only listen to people like Penn for a brief period of time and then they grate on my nerves. Of course, I feel the same way about Jim Carrie type humour. It is funny for about 15 minutes and then it is just annoying.

I don't see Shermer's and Penn's message being a whole lot different. They may not agree on every detail but they do agree on the gist. Just the delivery is different.

 

[qayak]

What are Penn's criteria for discerning between those who deserve respect, and those who do not?

There seems to be a large group of people, the so-called "evangelical a**holes" who deserve direct disrespect from him. Then there is the entire Christian population, who evidently deserve to see their scriptures kicked, thrown, and burned. Do all Christians of all time deserve this direct disrespectfulness?

So, you know that the scriptures are wrong but you don't think anyone should say anything for fear that some people might be offended? Does that about cover it?

 

[qayak]

It is typical, almost expected now, in the organized skeptical movement, that when a person makes a huge contribution to society, vindictive others, who dislike their 'irrational' viewpoint, are embarassed because they haven't accomplished anywhere near as much with their 'rational' viewpoint, to come out saying that person was really a meanie, did horrible things, etc.

We see it with Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and many others.

Have you done any research on this or do you just take the general position that Ghandi = Good, MT = Good, Many Others = Good?

If you read Ghandi, you would know where he got his passive disobedience from. He learned it from his wife. No matter how much he physically beat her, she simply refused to do certain things. He finally had to admit to himself that she was stronger than he was and realize that he should stop trying to make her do things she did not want to do. So, from your point of view, Ghandi = Good but while he was beating his wife, I bet she didn't think the same thing.

The fact is, everyone has the capacity to commit both good and evil acts. Ghandi did not view himself as anything other than human. He did not think that Ghandi = Good like many others seem to. In fact, he recognized that the things he did to his wife were the things the British were doing to his people and he used her technique to change things. Ghandi's wife deserves a lot of credit for the changes.

 

[davefoc]

And what positive contributions has Hitchens made? Especially when compared to Mother Teresa.

A comparison of the contributions to society made by Hitchens (a pundit) and MT given their disparate professions would be difficult, but if you have something to say about it, I'd be interested.

But you might consider starting with the actual subject of this sub topic, which I see as: What was the real nature of the MT's charitable endeavors? To what degree did they genuinely help people? How did her charitable efforts compare with the work of other charities with similar resources? And what was the net effect of her support for powerful, corrupt individuals like Papa Doc in Haiti on her good works?

On the other hand you might just consider that what you already believe about MT is definitive and it is impossible that this could be wrong and then you could just make another factless, pointless comment to indicate that.

 

[stillthinkin]

"What's interesting is that we can actually track the evolution of morals, laws (the legal codification of morals) and ethics just like you said only we didn't need a guide or a god. We figured it out all on our own.

"Exactly"? I'm not sure how much has been figured out exactly.

I personally am astonished at the variety of ideas across cultures and among peoples within the same culture. There is endless argument.
The laws are not fixed, and never will be... there is continual argument about what the law should be, so we cant appeal to the law as a source of knowledge. That said, there seems to me to be a lot of wisdom in legal philosophy. Not in legal positivism.

If I have been too presumptuous and you are familiar with much or most of the work and history of morality then please accept my apology and get me up to speed with your current understanding and I will try and answer your question.

I have university degrees in mathematics (minor in physics) and in philosophy (minor is classics), but from 20 years ago. I am familiar with the authors you mention. I much prefer Plato and even more, Aristotle. B.F. Skinner, for example, I find quite shallow. Have you read A.J. Ayer. You would probably like him too.

 

[qayak]

I have only watched the one video, and I find him quite the opposite of respectful. Thats all the evidence I have. Shermer was respectful.

Penn's job is to provide entertainment for a wide audience. Anger and outrage work well. It worked for Dennis Miller and Andy Rooney.

Have you ever complained about this with a fire and brimstone preacher? Isn't that what fire and brimstone really is, anger and outrage aimed at perceived sinners?

So now the skeptic movement has its own fire and brimstone. Religious people can see how annoying they have been for the past 2000 years.

 

[RandFan]

Why do we have maintenance and repair manuals for our vehicles?

Because someone using logic has figured out how to repair something and it will save us a lot of time if we do.

I'm not the only person in consideration here. There are billions of us.

Is there something intrinsic to human nature that would require them to need such a guide? Are you intrinsically different than the rest?

Do we need lawbooks?

Good question. Because humans have competing wants and goals and because to live in a cohesive society we need to decide ahead of time what the rules are in any given situation.

I'm sure you'll let us know if it isn't.

Non responsive.

In any event, how would I know?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why do we have maintenance and repair manuals for our vehicles?

Because someone using logic has figured out how to repair something and it will save us a lot of time if we do.

So why doesn't that also apply to morality, especially for those who struggle with it?

Lots of mechanics don't need the manuals. Your average shadetree mechanic needs them.

Quote:
I'm not the only person in consideration here. There are billions of us.

Is there something intrinsic to human nature that would require them to need such a guide?

Yes. Some of us call it "sin."

Are you intrinsically different than the rest?

No, however I'm culturally, intellectually, psychologically, religiously, politcally, economically, and attitudinally different than many. My life experiences, education, and age all play a factor in my moral journey.

The same is true of all of us.

Quote:
Do we need lawbooks?

Good question. Because humans have competing wants and goals and because to live in a cohesive society we need to decide ahead of time what the rules are in any given situation.

How is that different than morality, especially since law is commonly believed to be rooted in morality?

Quote:
I'm sure you'll let us know if it isn't.

Non responsive.

Responsive

1. responding esp. readily and sympathetically to appeals, efforts, influences, etc.: a responsive government.
2. Physiology. acting in response, as to some stimulus.
3. characterized by the use of responses: responsive worship.

Sorry. I responded. It is not "non-responsive."

It's just a response that you don't like.

In any event, how would I know?

That is precisely my point.

How do you know that the Bible shouldn't be used as a moral guide, like you have been propounding on this thread?

 

[RandFan]

I personally am astonished at the variety of ideas across cultures and among peoples within the same culture. There is endless argument.
The laws are not fixed, and never will be... there is continual argument about what the law should be, so we cant appeal to the law as a source of knowledge. That said, there seems to me to be a lot of wisdom in legal philosophy. Not in legal positivism.

There does not seem to be anything natural or absolute about morals. If there is I haven't seen it. There does seem to be a near universal desire to live, be free of pain, to seek happiness and to feel empathy for others as well other emotions and desires. It seems that while these are good foundations to create moral philosophy the application of that philosophy is where things get tricky.

I have university degrees in mathematics (minor in physics) and in philosophy (minor is classics), but from 20 years ago. I am familiar with the authors you mention. I much prefer Plato and even more, Aristotle. B.F. Skinner, for example, I find quite shallow. Have you read A.J. Ayer. You would probably like him too.

I applaud your degree. I only attended the University full time for 2 years and part time for another. I never graduated. I too have not been in a classroom for 20 years. I am familiar with Ayer but have not read anything by him. Thanks for responding to the question.

What we have figured out is that humans sense of right and wrong is based on two primary factors. Genetic predisposition and enviornmental conditioning. We know that damage to the brain can cause serious and perhaps irreversable change to a persons moral behavior see Phineas Gage. Along with these kinds of anecdotal but significant observations there have been a number of emperical experiments that demonstrate a biological component to morality and we can explain many traits and behaviors that are associated with morality from an evolutionary point of view. We know that morality is not a constant and can and often is manipulated through environmental factors.

 

[Huntster]

There does not seem to be anything natural or absolute about morals.......

And because of that, wouldn't you agree that a general guide would be appropriate?

 

[RandFan]

So why doesn't that also apply to morality, especially for those who struggle with it?

Lots of mechanics don't need the manuals. Your average shadetree mechanic needs them.

Such a guide would not and could not tell us what is right and wrong only what society believes to be right and wrong. Such a guide would only enable you to peaceably co-exist in a society. Cannibals would have a different guide than others. But these aren't really moral guides these are ethics and laws.

Yes. Some of us call it "sin."

Can you demonstrate that "sin" is intrinsic? Why is "sin" so arbitrary? Why do so many cultures have different taboos and sins?

No, however I'm culturally, intellectually, psychologically, religiously, politcally, economically, and attitudinally different than many. My life experiences, education, and age all play a factor in my moral journey.

The same is true of all of us.

That IS my point. Laws define what is right and wrong for society. They evolve and are notoriously incompatible between cultures. If laws are so arbitrary how can they be said to be "right"?

How is that different than morality, especially since law is commonly believed to be rooted in morality?

Morality is that which is right. If I believe taxation to morally repugnant it will not excuse me from my obligation. I will have to obey the law or go to jail. Laws are social constructs and not absolute morals. Yes they are rooted in morals but only insofar as they are an attempt to codify a standard of right and wrong and are not absolute.

Sorry. I responded. It is not "non-responsive."

Non-responsive does not mean "didn't respond". It means that your response did not address the issue.

It's just a response that you don't like.

No, it was a weaselly way to avoid the question. It was, quite simply, non-responsive. If I ask you if you are hungry and you say the sky is blue that is non-responsive.

How do you know that the Bible shouldn't be used as a moral guide, like you have been propounding on this thread?

If I don't know why it is then at best it is arbitrary. If it is full of barbaric and violent prescriptions for what is considered immoral based on 2,000 year old world views (slavery was acceptable then) then why should it be a moral guide?

These are important and fundamental questions and that I don't know does not render the bible a moral guide. That is argument from ignorance.

 

[RandFan]

And because of that, wouldn't you agree that a general guide would be appropriate?

On the contrary, no. I would think that societies should establish laws for the betterment of society and social cohesion. If you want to use that as a moral guide that is fine so long as it does not infringe on me and my personal views of what is and is not moral that does not effect society. Take Sharia for instance, it is far too punitive, authoritarian and oppressive to me and I would hate for my morals to be dictated by the perverse beliefs of a few. Let me decide what is moral and immoral and let society tell me what I can and can't do legally.