Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 05.15.2006 /
On Saturday Wendell, who posts on our discussion board as ‘isaone’, interviewed Jim Henderson for his weekly radio show.
Wendell refers to himself as a ‘bright’, which means he only believes in natural causes. You can read more about brights and Wendell on his website, Brightly Speaking. During the interview Wendell comments on why some people like to call themselves ‘brights’, sharing the benefits and downsides to using such a term.
The taped show is available here. The interview with Jim begins at around 17 minutes and continues for the rest of the program.
In the interview Jim first talks about the history of Off The Map and then goes on to comment on other topics of Wendell’s choice, such as heaven.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: TXatheist
1 05/15/06 7:27 AM | Comment Link |Jim,
At 23 minutes into the program isaone explains how grateful he is for your type of xian. That you are open-minded to atheists without condemning and shaming them. I don’t think most xians are like you Jim. I will suspect that I speak for most atheists in that we truly appreciate your outlook on us. There aren’t enough of your type in the USA imo.
Comment by: Ir
2 05/15/06 7:45 AM | Comment Link |TX, thanks for taking time to listen to the interview and share that with Jim.
My experience is that what Christians believe - which can be all over the map (or maybe off it :)) - affects how condemning and shaming they are about atheists.
What is special about Jim is that he is so genuinely interested in people (whatever they believe or don’t believe) and so willing to go to atheists, say, and find out what atheists are like from atheists, rather than relying on what non-atheists say.
Ok, I should have said “in my opinion what’s so special about Jim is…”. However, I do suspect it’s not just my opinion :)
Comment by: Lisa
3 05/15/06 7:57 AM | Comment Link |I would be willing to bet there are millions of Xians who hold values similar to Jim’s. They just don’t have as much of a voice. That’s why there is a movement afoot.
Comment by: TXatheist
4 05/15/06 7:59 AM | Comment Link |Now I have to be critical of Jim but it’s to make a point. About 50 minutes into you talk about Apollo and science and the sun rising. It wasn’t science back then because it wasn’t testable. When a guy informs people how the sun rises or the earth rotates it’s just his opinion. When a guy explains how we can test the rotation of the earth making the sun appear to rise and lower, that’s science. A man finding the fossil Lucy and a man finding Piltdown man are not discovering our human ancestor until we can test the fossils and repeatable show how that they are. p.s. Evolutionists accept piltdown is a scam.
Comment by: TXatheist
5 05/15/06 8:01 AM | Comment Link |Lisa said:
Would you please provide them with an atlas and list of job opportunities available in Texas? We have plenty of room and I will gladly welcome them once they get here:)
Comment by: Marty
6 05/15/06 8:20 AM | Comment Link |I agree with Lisa. I think that in some ways - we such Christians are afraid to project ourselves on the world the way the Christian Fundamentalist do because we can’t figure out a way to do that without being aggressive and in so doing be perceived to be the same as the Fundamentalists. This is one of the things that I hope to focus on as guestblogger this week - stay tuned.
Comment by: TXatheist
7 05/15/06 8:36 AM | Comment Link |Marty,
Would you please bring this idea, non-fundamentalists want to project themselves in a non-agressive way over to the DB?
Comment by: Rick L in TX
8 05/15/06 9:45 AM | Comment Link |I am already here, TX! 7 1/2 years now… ; )
TX said
Would you please provide them with an atlas and list of job opportunities available in Texas? We have plenty of room and I will gladly welcome them once they get here:)
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
9 05/15/06 10:04 AM | Comment Link |Marty wrote
I agree except that I wouldn’t use the word ‘afraid’. I think that the non-fundy Christians simply don’t see that “style” of “projecting ourselves on the world” to be what Jesus called us to do…for several reasons. Not least is because of its dubious effectiveness. But even more because it fails to deal with people as individuals and unique creatures in the image of God. It’s a mindless, one-size-fits-all approach that does a disservice to God, His message, the audience and the messenger.
In my experience “JH-style Christians” are the norm rather than the exception. The biggest difference being that many may not have the finesse that Jim does because they don’t have the experience in face to face relationships with As that Jim does.
And, in that sense, I think OTM has been outstanding because it has allowed people with a passion for both personal integrity and a desire for understanding others, both As and Cs, to get to know the folks on the “other side” and to learn how they think and to see them as real people rather than 2-dimensional stereotypes.
Comment by: Lisa W.
10 05/15/06 10:46 AM | Comment Link |Tom - well said! It’s not about Fear it’s about Style. But, our style is also our problem if we don’t give it the proper volume and presence; supporting it with confidence not cockiness.
Comment by: Ir
11 05/15/06 10:56 AM | Comment Link |Nicely said, Lisa! :)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
12 05/15/06 11:13 AM | Comment Link |TX
Didn;t they think it was a fact when they said the sun rose and set? Saying it isn;t science is using a technical language (which I am not sure you are right about anyway) to minimize how people (including smart non theists)self described the reality they were observing and the fact is they were wrong- just as imo many things science may say currently think we are seeing may be discovered to be wrong in the future (I mean some just plain will be wrong) Why is this a controversial statement?
Comment by: TXatheist
13 05/15/06 11:49 AM | Comment Link |I know what you are saying Jim. Men did believe the sun rose and then lowered daily. They believed this was a fact. I’m talking about the way they declared something a fact. Observation with the senses versus testable review. One of my roommates in college was a magician so I’ve seen how easy our senses can be deceived.
Comment by: Ir
14 05/15/06 12:01 PM | Comment Link |I think science begins with observation - because testing what we believe against what we see is a scientific test, albeit a very basic one.
Seeing that two things move relative to each other is a scientific observation.
Figuring out whether one - and if so which one - or both - move relative to another point is taking the scientific understanding to the next level.
And figuring out whether we can trust what we think we see, is also going to another level of sophistication in our knowledge.
I think it’s all science if we are testing what we can test along the way.
I agree with Jim from the point of view that we are in an ongoing process of developing new scientific tests we couldn’t do before; and when we run these tests the results they give enable us to ‘refine/correct’ what we currently ‘know’. In fifty years if we read what scientists were writing this year I think we will say about various things “we know more about that now and we know that’s not quite right/that’s a simplification/that’s not the whole picture”.
Comment by: Jayson B.
15 05/15/06 12:32 PM | Comment Link |I would say it’s a controversial statement because it discounts science entirely. I’ve seen you say comments similiar to this before, and it’s something that many fundamentalists say: that science can’t be trusted because it’s been wrong in the past.
Will we learn something about the universe that will fundamentally change our view of BASIC tenets of scientific knowledge, on the same scale as finding out the earth isn’t flat, that the sun does not rise and set, and that the human “mind” doesn’t exist in the heart?
No, I doubt it, for some very good reasons.
Today we know FAR more about the universe and how to test it than we do before, and we have FAR many more tools than we had before to test such things. This isn’t to say that we know everything, but it is to say that we’re beyond the birthing stages of science now, and we’re into the frontier of refinement.
You’ve said before Jim that I give science too much credit: I say that you give it too little. Science, whether you like it or not, has given rise to the greatest developments mankind has ever seen.
Trying to compare scientists hundreds or thousands of years ago, with very little ability to observe phenomena outside of seeing and hearing, to scientists today, is absurd.
When i was a child, I could not read or right. today, if I may say, I have a fantastic grasp of the english language. I’ve learned a lot. Is there more to learn? Absolutely! Will I see a fundamental shift in my understanding of the language in the next 30 years as I have in the previous 30? No, I doubt it greatly.
I can refine my knowledge. There is a lot to learn, but the basic tenets of english I understand far better now than I did previously.
Science is self correcting. Science understands that it CAN be wrong, and when it is, it eventually gives way to the truth.
but that doesn’t mean we should ignore science just because it’s been wrong in the past.
Comment by: Ir
16 05/15/06 12:48 PM | Comment Link |Jayson, aren’t the two of you saying the same thing? It looks to me like you are.
Comment by: Jayson B.
17 05/15/06 1:16 PM | Comment Link |Not on order of magnitude, no. Jim has implied in the past, as well as with this statement, that science is probably wrong about things on the magnitude of being wrong about the earth being flat.
That would equate to finding out that gravity works nothing the way we think it does, or that friction is caused by small demons.
Science is willin to be open and admit mistakes. But science isn’t going to throw out the vast amount of knowledge we have just because we *might* be wrong.
jim shouldn’t either.
Comment by: Ir
18 05/15/06 1:28 PM | Comment Link |I’ve heard Jim object to what he considers unwarranted certainty wherever he finds it. Whether it’s Christians being overly certain their beliefs are right, or scientists being overly confident about their current working hypotheses.
I haven’t heard him say “let’s throw out all our scientific knowledge because it might be wrong”.
If you can find a quote where he says that I’d be interested to read it.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
19 05/15/06 3:09 PM | Comment Link |Jayson - Of Course I understand the value of science - no need to associate me with Fundys on that one - What I do not believe is that science is self correcting - unfortunately scientists are human beings - some of whom are selfish (just like some Cs) abd make self serving decisions- I just am unable to go with the diefication of science
Comment by: Jim Henderson
20 05/15/06 3:10 PM | Comment Link |BTW- Jayson - nice to have you back - we didn’t hear from you in awhile - maybe you’ve been on the DB
Comment by: Siamang
21 05/15/06 4:35 PM | Comment Link |Jim wrote:
Hmm. I always had the impression that it’s human beings’ self-serving nature that makes science self-correcting.
After all, proving someone else wrong IS a way to advance your career.
Jim, you talk about the deification of science. I’ve heard talk like that before. Creationists call evolution “just another religion.” Why is it when the religious want to take science down a notch, they call it a religion? Is that supposed to be an insult to these people?
You’d never hear a scientist call religion “just another science.”
I think religion craves that appelation. Creation science, intelligent design, prayer studies on heart patients, etc show religion desperately attempting to gain the real world respect a “scientific religion” would garner. Heck, entire churches are called “Christian Scientist” or whatever.
So, we certainly have in this country beyond a desire, but Actual attempts by some to scientize religion. To discover God in a test-tube, “Eureka!” The Discovery Institute apparantly spends big bucks trying to prove the hand of god scientifically. Or at least pretending to.
But I am not sure I’ve ever heard anyone really “deify” science. I think you’re speaking metaphorically. I think you’re using hyperbole to say that people may be making science and it’s unlocking of the secrets of the world too central in their life’s philosophy.
I’m sure you don’t mean that people are praying to the DNA molecule. That would be ridiculous. But trying to prove God by peering into the DNA molecule, well, that might get you a seat next to the President at the prayer breakfast.
How far the pendulum has swung toward lunacy.
I can understand “deification” being used as a pejorative. As in dogma, not able to be questioned. I just don’t know anyone who treats science in that way.
I hold science as a valuable human endeavor. That and love, being the two highest, as I see it. Love in that it binds us to one another and drives us to do good for each other. And science in that it gives us the tools to do that good.
What is the value of love if we comfort the smallpox victim and ignore our science lessons, never to discover the cure?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
22 05/15/06 6:01 PM | Comment Link |Siamang- cant believe I got you to come out and play :-) Hey I really do not deserve to engage in this conversation because I won’t spend anytime defending my view- It is mostly based on interactions with medical community and the arrogance I detect in “some” scientists-
Reality is I am in one of those positions on this issue where I am not interested enough to seriously reconsider my opinion right now - so I will stop talking about it
Thats all
Comment by: isaone
23 05/15/06 7:39 PM | Comment Link |Darn, this should teach me to sign on more often. I see that the thread went a direction I wanted to continue on Saturday but then byt the time I join in I see that Jim has retired from the field. O well.
I generally agree with what Jayson B. says. Jim I must completely disagree with your statements that Science is deified and not self correcting. Are there some scientists who are not open minded, sure, but the truth is that science self corrects every day (Piltdown Man, Cold Fusion, HRT (Hormone replacement therapy) Hwang Woo-suk). It is not perfect but please show me the millions of Mormons who have quit the faith because the South Sea Islanders and American Indians have no Middle Eastern Blood or perhaps all Christians and Jews have recently quit believing that the flood happened and that that little trek across the desert was nade up just because evidence shows those stories to be unture. It is at last a matter of degree. Even the most cynical viewer of the problems in self correcting science must admit it is thousands of more times more flexible and correct than religion.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
24 05/15/06 11:55 PM | Comment Link |each of us tend to compare our best with their worst.
Since I am unwilling to debate this issue meaningfully due to lack of personal interest and maybe intellectual laziness - I continue to defer- Someone else may want to come in and defend religion- not me
Comment by: Ir
25 05/16/06 3:33 AM | Comment Link |Hi isaone,
Thanks for jumping in with your comments! And thanks for interviewing Jim and making the interview available online.
Regarding your comments on ‘religion’: religion means different things to different people. Your criticism of religion seems to refer to religions which incorporate a certainty that certain ancient writings are without error and authoritative. I agree that that type of belief almost rules out self-correction.
In practice people who believe that way manage to achieve a little self-correction by pushing nuances of interpretation as far as they can. But a) there are significant limits on one can achieve by using nuances of interpretation b) if it is done too overtly the person doing it is likely to be labelled as ‘manipulating Scripture to his/her own ends’ instead of ‘honestly interacting with the text’ and then whatever he/she says will be dimissed as ‘not of God’.
Anyway, there are many many people who have some sort of belief in God, but reject the concept that such a God has dictated authoritative writings that must be obeyed.
Since the faith of such people is not tied to ancient writings, they are free to rethink it over and over again as our understanding of ourselves and the world around us increases. There is no reason for their faith to uphold once-lauded and now-discredited values.
So, when you talk about religion, please bear in mind that what you say about it may not apply to all people of faith.
Comment by: isaone
26 05/16/06 5:03 AM | Comment Link |IR I certainly concede that definitions are huge in this area of discussion. That is why I have a work in process Wiki on my site where I define some of these slippery terms before I use them. When I use the word Religion I mean more what I sense to be the majority of believers. I see what is happening in Kansas and the anti Gay constitutional amendments and what else can I think? Polls show that the believers in heaven and hell are above %70 and when I turn on my radio or television (or watch my president) the kind of Christian I see is the one to which I am referring.
Of course my perception may also be influenced by my location in Nashville Tn where there are more churches than stop signs (at least that seems to be the case). At the YMCA a year ago I met a guy who has terminal cancer (he is probably dead by this writing). He was cut off from his church when he was diagnosed because they blamed him for whatever sinful actions he took to have caused God to give him the cancer.
Comment by: Ir
27 05/16/06 6:15 AM | Comment Link |It may well not be the majority, imo.
I have a suggestion ;)
You could think “Some believers get very exercised about these issues”. You don’t have to infer from that that it’s a majority of all believers unless you have evidence that it is. Extremists tend to attract media attention (with all due respect ;)) and that can skew our perceptions.
But you equated religion with belief in authoritative ancient documents, which is different from percentage believing in heaven or hell.
I refer you to my previous comment about the media and our perceptions ;). Also, when you make inferences about people voting in someone with the President’s beliefs you have to consider what their options were. You can’t know he was voted in on his belief since there wasn’t an otherwise equal candidate except for having different beliefs.
I know that churches like this exist but I believe it is a minority of all Christians who think and behave this way. Do you personally know any other Christians who think this way? I don’t personally know of any. I know that’s not ‘proof’ that there are not lots of them out there, but in my reading of Christian literature my sense is that they are in the minority. Most Christians would agree that such beliefs are somewhat off-base and that such behavior is unkind and not what God would want.
Comment by: isaone
28 05/16/06 3:18 PM | Comment Link |IR I understand that there is no way to really know what most ‘Christisn’ are like. I can only surmise from things such as polls
This harris poll identifies that the percnatage of people who do not believe that humans evolved from other species is 54% and has increased from 46% betweeen 1994 and 2005
This poll
States that 54% of adults believe the earth was created in 6 literal days.
In addition since all of the TV programs and radio shows (in many cases entire channels) are of the more fundemental nature it appears that the money at least is heavily with the fundementalists. Not only that but even the major media outlets are completely cowed by the religius and pandering to them by adjusting their programming (Book of Daniel) or punishing (Janet Jackson). Have you noticed the great new special from Richard Dawkins about religion on the air in this country? Of course not and I am willing to bet you never will. Just the title alone (”The Source Of All Evil”) will prevent it ever being aired.
Yes I have personally met Christians who think like that. Please note I do not beleive that those kind of jerks are in the majority. I do however see that according to the polls it appears that Science and reason overall are fighting to hold their own against the onslaught.
Comment by: Ir
29 05/17/06 6:34 AM | Comment Link |isaone, I guess I’ll be direct and say: Dawkins has chosen to express his views in an alarmist and disrespectful way, in my opinion, and I don’t see that such an approach deserves to get on mainstream TV anywhere. I wish someone in the UK had said “Look, I know you’re a bigshot here but unless you tone it down a little and let your facts speak for themselves instead of your emotions about all of this, we’re not going to air these programs”.
He’s lucky that Channel 4 in the UK indulged him, imo.
Apart from that, I understand your concern. Polls don’t necessarily reflect reality - but if this one does I agree that it’s alarming.
Comment by: isaone
30 05/21/06 3:26 PM | Comment Link |Hmm., have you actually seen the special or are you just reacting to the name? Dawkins actually did not like the title but the TV producers wanted to create as much controversy as they could. I have seen the show and I completely agree with what he is saying. He and George Carlin are the only people I have ever heard who say it outright. Maybe they do not candy coat it but because of these beliefs PEOPLE ARE DYING and for me that is an event that is worth addressing directly!! Just look at the conflicts in the world today. They are all either religiously based or at least clothed in the concept. When I saw that plane in the side of the World Trade Center I immediately knew that religion was the cause (or at least the excuse). I know of course that if I magically (damn I don’t believe it that either ..) eliminated religion from the planet, all wars would not end. I do think however that if there was no belief in any life after this one, many despots would have a much harder time getting their young, poor, and uneducated to die for their causes.
I also agree with Mr. Dawkins when he implies that even most mainstream religions provide the soil for the more dangerous fundamentalists. Whenever people are taught to believe something for which there is no objective proof, to follow instructions for fear of eternal damnation, and that using their own capabilities to question\ is forbidden you have created an atmosphere that is ripe for misguided direction to disastrous results.
Admittedly the kinds of religious beliefs that get me going do not seem to be those of the believers on this site and for that I am grateful. If all believers were like you guys then there would be nothing for Dawkins and I to complain about. It is my belief however that the liberal religious point of view has been seriously undermined in this country to the point that we will have a long fight to even get back to the level of religious freedom we enjoyed in the seventies.
Comment by: Ir
31 05/21/06 4:34 PM | Comment Link |I wouldn’t make such a strong statement based just on the name.
I found entire copies of both programs on the Internet and watched them from beginning to end.
That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone say that - can you link me to an article which says it? I’ve read a number of statement by Dawkins and the title seems in line with the way he usually expresses himself so my guess is he didn’t protest that hard about it.
I think it’s way too simplistic to say that religion causes all the conflict in the world, or to imply that religion turns nice people into terrorists. I absolutely do not believe that someone who flies planes into buildings would be helping old ladies across the road if he (or she but they were men as best I know) didn’t believe in God.
I recognize that sentiment as his and I find it overly alarmist.
Which is exactly why I think it’s best to avoid ‘blanket’ statements about the dangers of religion.
Religion is dangerous when human beings make it so.
I don’t know enough to comment on that.