"You're Too Closed-Minded"

Hello, everyone!

 

   Time for a little fun. I've been running into a lot of conversations lately regarding the concept of "opening" one's mind.  What is the first thought that pops in your head when you hear that phrase? Even better, what is the first emotion?  Skepticism?  Anger?  Curiosity? Perhaps it depends on what you consider the idea to mean.  I once saw a man at a bus station wearing a hat that was covered in all kinds of pins.  Most of them had some sort of political statement on them.  One large one on the back read "I used to be open minded, but my brains kept falling out."  Many of us today are of a similar mindset.  We see all too well the common illustration of a skull cap doing a "Pacman" impression in order to welcome the cascade of butterflies and rainbows pouring into it, all the while leaving the brain unnaturally exposed to the elements.  I had a Christian friend of mine once tell me "In my experience, most of the people who tell you that you should open your mind just want to dump their garbage into it." 

     While I concede the unspoken protest that this attitude does not describe all Christians, it is certainly not an uncommon view in American Christianity.  In addition, being "closed-minded' is one of the most common accusations against us, right up there with being "judgmental" and "hypocritical".  Now, am I saying that I believe all these accusations to be true?  Not universally.  However, I do think that there has been a fair amount of misunderstanding regarding the idea of "opening" your mind in the Christian community.  While I cannot speculate regarding where this misunderstanding originated, I do have several ideas regarding why it continues and what we can do to break the cycle.  I want to briefly explore the two ways I believe "opening" your mind has been misunderstood: as a concept, and as a perception.  Then, I want to share a few thoughts I've come across that require "opening" your mind without necessarily requiring that you spill your brains. 

     Let's begin by exploring the concept for a moment.  One fact that everyone agrees on is that this concept obviously implies new information being given the opportunity to be introduced into the mind; you are never encouraged to "open your mind" for no reason.  If you removed all possible ulterior motives behind that idea, how is this a bad concept?  The irony here is that some of us have been so conditioned that we forget that everyone at some point has had an open mind until someone closed it.  Some of us were told to close it to guard against anything that might conflict with what was already put in.  Some of us closed it ourselves either consciously or unconsciously when we reached the limits of our comfort zone.  For most of us, I think it is a mixture of both.  Either way, you cannot very well be completely opposed to the concept of opening your mind without questioning why it was acceptable to open it before.    

 

   Many Christians at this point would point out that the obvious difference is that they have had their minds open to God.  To them, I would ask: What changed?  You think He's done teaching you? "Well, my mind is still open to God."  What exactly does that mean?  Scripture only?  Specific individuals' interpretation of scripture?  Your denominations' interpretation of scripture?  I can already hear minds clamping shut; too many questions, too many implications.  The sad reality is that many of us have closed our minds so hard to whatever threatened what was was inside that we have shut out a great deal of our God.  The ironic part is that the God we have shut out is big enough not only to fill our own minds, but also the minds of each and every person we come into to contact with, if we only let Him. 
    
  

We will get back to that thought after we explore the second area that "opening" you mind is misunderstood: how it is perceived.  While I find it enjoyable and often productive to analyze everything, sometimes the simplest answer can be the most revealing.  The problem many people have with the idea of "opening" their minds may have everything to do with how they picture it.  Again, we think of the human head opening like a lid and we think things like "If I was meant to have an open mind, why do I have a skull to protect it?".  Maybe it's just how we are looking at it.  Besides the common visual association, how does "opening your mind" to new information and thought explicitly imply the loss of anything that was inside?  The answer is it doesn't.  Why does the mind have to open like the picture; with the seam partway down the side?  Why can't it open like a box, with the contents stored to a level below the hinge?  Why can't the mind be more like a jewelry box; with secure and separate compartments for convictions, beliefs, thoughts and theories, facts and fantasies?  Following the progression, why do we have to use the metaphor of a container at all?  

     Opening your mind could be equated with being asked to eat a fresh-caught fish.  You may have to prepare it to make it acceptable to your digestive system.  You may have to season it to bring out the inner flavors.  In the end, though, you are faced with either 1. chewing the meat and spitting out the bones or 2. deciding that it isn't worth the effort and buying a fish sandwich from McDonalds.  I like this metaphor because it implies something that I have always suspected to be true; the more available information has become, the less people have valued seeking it out and assessing it.  Whereas just a few years ago, a library visit was essential to a decent report, now people seldom look into a subject deeper than a Google search on their phone.  Perhaps if we as a culture in America spent more time on a daily basis catching the fresh fish of self study, we would be more open to receiving new ideas which may not mesh entirely with our own.

     Now that we have briefly explored both the concept and our own perceptions of "opening" our minds, we can reasonably say that the concept of opening our minds to new information and ideas is not only favorable, but essential to our development as human beings.  The only questions that still remain are "what or who are we opening our minds to?" and "when, if ever, should we close them?".  To answer those questions and ask a few of my own, I would like to use the metaphor that I personally think of when this subject comes up.

     One of my favorite parts of the book "The Count of Monte Cristo" is when the main character, Edmond Dantes, visits the cell of a fellow prisoner who has been tunneling through the walls of their mutual prison in order to escape.  Edmond discovers that his companion has staved off insanity by exercising his mind.  He has even going so far as to study the sky through the tiny window of his cell and, using the movement of the shaft of light that streams in through it each day, calculate a calender of sorts on the walls of his cell.  This image has always stuck in my mind when I think of mankind.  I picture a prisoner in a cell, whose only view of the world beyond is what he can glimpse through a single, small window facing skyward.  He may use this fact to his advantage, or his despair.  He can lament that he may never understand all of what there could be and conclude that there is no point, or he can pour over what he has been given, understanding that the whole truth may very well be more than what he can see, but is certainly not less. 

 

   I hesitated at first in sharing this illustration, as the portrayal of a man in a cell could have some misleading implications.  The more I have thought about it, however, the more I have realized that this metaphor may be more accurate than we care to admit, even to those who do not believe in "God".  The non-theistic person may view the cell as the human mind, with the window representing man's knowledge of the universe.  In this case, the conditions of the imprisonment are of little consequence.  The point is, man is a prisoner of his own physical and mental capabilities.  Many modernistic thinkers have sought to drown so called "closed-minded" theists in a sea of wonder; the unfathomable infinite universe.  The problem with that approach is that it is counterproductive.  The more we acknowledge the existence of the vast unknown that is hidden from our understanding, the more we must admit that we have no absolute authority to speak on it.  The larger the sky, the smaller the window is by comparison.  I once heard a speaker ask a skeptic if he knew half of everything there was to know of the universe.  The answer was no.  He then asked if he knew ten percent.  The answer, again, was no.  The speaker then said this.  "Let's assume for a moment that you know ten percent of everything in the universe.  Is it possible that 'God' exists in the ninety percent you don't?"  There was no reply.  In that moment, the skeptic knew what it felt like to feel closed minded.  Perhaps that is the reason Carl Sagan claimed to be an agnostic instead of an atheist. 

 

   To the theistic mind, the metaphor of a man in a cell is slightly different.  The cell still represents the mind of man.  The window, however, as well as the light which illuminates the walls of the cell, represents the the knowledge of our universe and God as revealed to us by nature, the Holy Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit.  This is the picture I will be focusing on.  Let's start with the window.  

    Most Christians are perfectly comfortable describing God with words like omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  As soon as someone tries to approach them with information that threatens their personal perception of those words, however, many of them take to denying that any of it is true.  It's like they are terrified that admitting the expanse of sky that lies outside of the window's view somehow means denying that what does come through the window is real.  Can God not be revealed through His creation in ways not mentioned explicitly in scripture?  Can He not be "all powerful" over the laws of nature, no matter what they are discovered and re-discovered to be?  Why can't He fully comprehend all of the mysteries of the universe that we have only begun to discover exist?  Why can He not be present in and through and outside off all of the known and theorized planes of existence?  Case in point: watch the video below.  If you subscribe to this man's description of the ten dimensions, is it so unreasonable to picture the concept of "God" as a second point in the tenth dimension?

     I once heard a story about Galileo.  It claimed that, at his trial, he presented his accusers with a model of the universe.  When asked where God was in the model, he was said to have replied "the model doesn't need Him."  I spent a decent period of time trying to verify the validity of that story but I couldn't find any account of it.  What I did find, however, was his amazing letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, in which he fervently argues the very same points I have just been; that the reality of God is bigger than anyone's perception of Him, that there are truths regarding God revealed both in scripture and elsewhere that we will never comprehend, and that, even though some truths may not be contained within scripture, it does not mean that we shouldn't seek them out.  Here are some of my favorite excerpts from the letter: 

   

 "But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.  He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations...I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."...Who will assert that everything in the universe capable of being perceived is already discovered and known? Let us rather confess quite truly that "Those truths which we know are very few in comparison with those which we do not know."  We have it from the very mouth of the Holy Ghost that God delivered up the world to disputations, so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.  In my opinion no one, in contradiction to that dictum, should close the road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things, as if everything had already been discovered and revealed with certainty...People who are unable to understand perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them.

       "And to prohibit the whole science would be to censure a hundred passages of holy Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all his works and divinely read in the open book of heaven.  For let no one believe that reading the lofty concepts written in that book leads to nothing further than the mere seeing of the splendor of the sun and the stars and their rising and setting, which is as far as the eyes of brutes and of the vulgar can penetrate. Within its pages are couched mysteries so profound and concepts so sublime that the vigils, labors, and studies of hundreds upon hundreds of the most acute minds have still not pierced them, even after the continual investigations for thousands of years...that which presents itself to mere sight is as nothing in comparison with the high marvels that the ingenuity of learned men discovers in the heavens by long and accurate observation...."* (emphasis mine) 


     I highly recommend reading the entire letter.  I have, and it pretty much boils down to three words: open your mind.  In the same way that Galileo's discoveries threatened people's beliefs to the point of accusing him of religious heresy, many Christians today become extremely confrontational and defensive over issues like the age of the universe, the search for extraterrestrial life, and anything surrounding the subject of evolution.  Why?  In regards to the first two, there is no explicit biblical reason to have an opinion either way.  The "Christian" answer to the age of the earth was derived by adding up the genealogies in the old Testament; hardly above question.  Similarly, Christians who deny life outside of earth seldom have any other reason to other than the fact that it isn't directly discussed in the Bible.  Evolution is a loaded topic which I have no intention of discussing here, but I will say this.  Even if all of evolutionary theory is a not-so-secret plot to promote an atheistic view of the universe, it will ultimately fail for that very reason; and we should know that better than anyone! 

     Now, let's look at the cell.  Referring back to our metaphor, we as Christians must always keep in mind that we are largely responsible for our own imprisonment.  Whereas the non-theistic mind is (in their view) restrained only by the limits of his own comprehension, we are, as stated by our own beliefs, fallen creatures who can only see glimpses of what we once freely shared with our creator.  With that in mind, we have far less reason to be arrogant in our beliefs about the world than non-theists.  We can reason that, even as perfect beings made in the image of God and communing daily with Him, we still were not able to understand all of the mysteries and knowledge of the universe.  Even before the fall, we were created beings, lesser than our Creator.  Even in paradise, we could not see all of the sky.  How much less must we be aware of, now that we have fallen and placed our minds inside of the prison cell of mortality, lined with the filth of sin?  Now, am I saying that we as Christians cannot have or even claim to have knowledge?  Certainly not.  For my Christian friends, this concept would be related to the doctrine of total depravity, something I do not subscribe to.  The author I will be discussing shortly brought up the excellent point that, if man were truly depraved, he would not be aware that he was.  What I am saying is that we, as Christians, have a perspective that paints a far more reduced and humble picture of human intellect than that of secular humanists.  We would do well to remember that instead of imitating the arrogance of modernistic thinkers.  

     One of the books I have been reading lately is The Problem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis.  Lewis, who I only recently discovered was a theistic evolutionist, was not threatened by new ideas or ideas that fell outside the realm of biblical authority.  In the book, he presents the fall of man from a standpoint that, not only do we have no knowledge of the potential actions of God that do not concern us, but that we also have no authority to measure, weigh, or judge them:  "But it must always be remembered that when we talk of what might have happened, of contingencies outside the whole actuality, we do not really know what we are talking about.  There are no times or places outside the existing universe in which all this 'could happen' or 'could have happened'.  I think the most significant way of stating the real freedom of man is to say that if there are other rational species than man, existing in some other part of the actual universe, then it is not necessary to suppose that they also have fallen."**  Lewis was implying that there may be other beings out there even though the Bible doesn't mention them; the reason for which may be that it is none of our business.  These are thoughts that are not coming from a man who is known for denying the authority of scripture.  Rather, these are coming from someone who was and is one of Christianity's most influential modern supporters.  How did he reconcile such thoughts with the knowledge he already had of God?  Quite easily, actually: "God may be more than moral goodness: He is not less.  The road to the promised land runs past Sinai.  The moral law may exist to be transcended: but there is no transcending it for those who have not first admitted its claims upon them..."** (emphasis mine) Lewis was promoting the image of a God that didn't contradict the Bible's claims about Him, He simply transcended them.   
    

     Where does all of this leave us?  Well, there is one final point I would like to make before I answer that.  The reality of "opening" your mind is that many of the people who prompt you to do so don't actually want you to open it.  They want you to change it.  This phrase has been made popular as of late by those who would see their own point of view as singularly superior to all others, simply because it does not seem to be bound by same conditions as others.  This is an illusion.  Many such "open minded" people are slaves to their open-mindedness, forever forced to promote the ironic duality of pluralism that can neither condemn, nor promote any particular point of view over another.  They can't compartmentalize and they often have little filtration.  These are the actual brain-spillers; the ones who are willing to discard whatever previous opinions and convictions they held that clash with the new ones.  There is no expansion here; no growth.  There is simply the "open exchange of ideas" in the most literal and pointless manner.  As I have said before: There is no such thing as a "freethinker".  Thought has never been free.  It comes with the price to be paid to those who thought of it before you; the price of affiliation.  Don't deny your masters: know them.  You should be wary of those who would, as soon as the words "open your mind" come out of their mouths, start to point out what they think is wrong with what's inside. 
  

   To protect against this dead end, and to answer the questions I posed earlier, there is probably a better way of phrasing the willingness to explore new information than simply "opening your mind."  I was discussing this subject recently with a friend of mine who suggested the phrase "growing your mind".  That phrase, along with the phrase "expanding your horizons" may apply more to the process we should be seeking.  Increasing the volume of your thoughts does not mean that all of your previous ones are not valid, or that the new ones are, for that matter.  It simply means that you are willing to learn and to grow, accepting some things, and rejecting others; chewing the meat and spitting out the bones, as it were.  Seeing it from that angle, the two questions mentioned earlier look rather silly: "what or who are we opening our minds to?" and "when, if ever, should we close them?"  We should be open to learning from potentially anywhere.  Galileo himself said "I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him."  Regarding timing, we should never stop learning.  Period.  If I have to argue that point to anyone reading this, I'm confused as to how you read this far. 

     So where does all of this leave us?  I have an illustration to help answer that.  I once watched an episode of the Bernie Mac show, in which Bernie found himself faced with having to ask his niece to repeatedly testify against her friend's dad, who was trying to sue them.  Her testimony was all true, and the lawsuit was frivolous, but Bernie eventually realized that his justification was not worth what he would have to put his young niece through.  The episode ends with him informing his attorney in front of everyone to settle the case, remarking that he would rather be accused of being a bad parent than to actually be one.  In our journey, we will always have those who will accuse of ignorance and say to us "you're too close-minded".  In our desire to expand our horizons, we should be careful not to simply change our point of view to the commonly held one.  We would find ourselves in the very position we were accused of being in.  I would rather be accused of being close-minded, than become so by being too willing to abandon all perspective.  That being said, grow your mind.  Expand your horizons, receive new information, chew the meat and spit out the bones and, if you feel up to it, open your mind.



“Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?  Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth  Tell Me, if you have understanding.  Who determined its measurements?  Surely you know!  Or who stretched the line upon it?  To what were its foundations fastened?  Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38: 2-7 (NKJV)

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV)

Links

*Galileo's Letter
**C.S. Lewis; The Problem of Pain

Days of Present Past; Conclusion

Part 4. Originally posted Feb 4, 2014

Today, we live in a culture that is being trained to think for itself by being told what to think.  We are taught to “think outside the box” by jumping into a different box that sometimes, isn’t even any bigger than the last one.  After decades of postmodern thinking, we no longer know how to analyze the reasoning and purpose behind our thoughts and actions.  We don’t choose role models based on merit anymore.  We choose them based on media and social networking hype.
 

I remember when I first learned this fact.  I was attending a leadership meeting for the college group I belonged to in 2007.  We played a game that was intended to be a team-building exercise.  Two teams were formed on opposite sides of a large room. each team chose an individual and blindfolded them.  They then placed three colored balls randomly across the floor.  The teams had to effectively communicate to their blind teammate where the correct balls were so that they could retrieve them.  They also had to ensure that their teammate didn’t collide with the person from the other side.  I remember the clock starting and everyone shouting over each other in an attempt to give the most accurate instructions to the poor blindfolded people feeling their way around the middle of the room.  At one point in particular, I remember shouting to my teammate to walk towards me while the person standing next to me told him to go the opposite way.  I realized later that the person next to me was attempting to guide our teammate to a ball that was actually much closer than the one I was leading him to.  However, since my voice was louder and carried more than his, my teammate listened to me.  

The truth of our society, now more than ever, is that we don’t always follow the most accurate voices; we follow the loudest ones.  Theology graduate students beg for analysis and critique of their dissertations while mega-church pastors publish dribble that makes the New York Times bestseller list.  Scientists and theologians alike struggle to answer the deeper questions of our culture and existence while society obsesses over reality show redneck pastors and comedic science television show hosts.  Our only hope of moving beyond these shallow, pseudo intelligent trends is to simply start raising our standards.  Should we refuse to listen to anyone who wishes to instruct or sway us?  Certainly not.  If you never follow anyone else’s instruction or advice, you will never make a decision that is beyond your own intelligence.  If, however, you don’t set standards for what you are influenced by, you will inevitably default to popular opinion and be forever be at the mercy of the loudest voice.  Must we really be reduced to following “Duck Dynaminations” and listening to “Bill Nye, the Sagan Guy”?  In a rapidly changing culture, we can and we must do better.  On that, note, I have to go tune into “Dr Oz” so I know what to eat for lunch.







(end of part 4 and Days of Present Past)

Days of Present Past; Bill Nye, the Sagan Guy

Part 3. Originally Posted Feb 4, 2014

I decided to discuss this issue second because I figured it would be the more humorous of the two and not contain as much controversy.  However, as I have fleshed out the discussion with various acquaintances of mine, I have encountered a surprising amount of emotion and passion concerning it.  It is ironic.  The concept of a farce is considered by many to be an old fashioned form of humor that few still appreciate and even fewer understand.  It would seem, though, that we have succeeded in creating a real life farce right under our noses, nonetheless.  It is complete with drama, comedy, buffoonery, and, like any decent farce, fully capable of being described as a ludicrously improbable situation.    

Allow to me to introduce the subject matter.  As I am typing this, an auditorium is being prepared to house a debate.  This debate, like many before it, will be on the subject of creation and evolution.  There will be one big difference, however.  This debate will feature Bill Nye “the Science Guy”.  Since his successful run on PBS, Bill has appeared on numerous TV specials and YouTube videos doing what he does best; wearing outlandish bowties, looking like a nerd, and explaining some scientific concept to viewers.  He also has been increasingly in the press for his comments regarding evolution and its critics.  Bill was featured in a YouTube video in 2012 where he stated that teaching creationism to children is harmful.  After nearly half a million comments to the video were posted, he was unexpectedly confronted by Ken Ham, CEO of the creation museum in Petersburg, KY, as well as the founder of the organization “Answers in Genesis”.  Mr Ham challenged Nye to a debate on the merits of creationism and Bill (again, unexpectedly) accepted.  The debate’s theme is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” and is set to begin at 7 pm on Tuesday, February 4th.   

I have some strongly flavored thoughts on this upcoming debate that I think would be a bit more palatable if we first dig into the background of these two individuals a little bit.  Let’s start with Ken Ham.  

Originally from Australia, Ken Ham moved to America in 1987 and founded “Answers in Genesis” in 1994.  The goal of the organization is to defend and uphold the teachings of the biblical book of Genesis as part of a greater defense of Christianity.  Through AiG, Ken has built a 75,000-sq-ft creation museum in Kentucky with plans to construct a full scale replica of Noah’s ark.  Ken has become perhaps the most prominent promoter of creationism in the country, with frequent appearances on Christian television and radio shows.  He has also made a name for himself as a Christian apologist and author, and has appeared on networks like FOX, ABC, CNN, PBS, and BBC.  As far as education, allow me to quote Ken’s own posted bio: “Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia.  He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).”   He also has been awarded four honorary Doctorates for his contributions to the worldwide church.

At this point, it would be useful to clarify something.  Ken Ham is a straight creationist.  This should not be confused with the term “intelligent design.”  There are a growing number of scientists whose faith in established evolutionary theory has been shaken due to independently gathered research which, to them, indicates the existence of a higher intelligence.  These are respected men and women of their field who often remain soft-spoken about their views, for fear of ridicule.  The concept of intelligent design requires no belief system, nor does it necessarily attempt to discard all of evolution.  It is simply a box in which to put scientific observations that deviate from the status quo and attempt to provide a reason for them.  There are a variety of interpretations for this data that I will not get into today.  I will say, however, that the discussion of intelligent design is not only a valid one, but can be addressed from multiple angles (ei scientifically, philosophically) using quantifiable data to produce measurable results.  That being said, Ken Ham does not promote intelligent design; he is a creationist.  This means he promotes as a scientific theory the concept of creation as described in the first Chapter of Genesis.

What does this mean?  It means that there is virtually nothing that Ham can hope to accomplish by this debate.  Why?  Because creation is not a scientific theory.  It is a set of beliefs directly dictated by verses from the Bible.  As critics often point out, creationism resembles the game-show jeopardy in that it works backwards to known scientific method.  Where science is supposed to start with evidence that leads to new conclusions, creationism starts with conclusions and attempts to collect new evidence for them.  Considering that this is the practice many creationists accuse modern evolutionists of doing, you can start to see the elements of farce that I’m referring to.  Ken Ham is not only a creationist, he is a radical one; so much so that he has actually had some difficulty keeping ties with other creationist groups due to the level of dedication he has towards his somewhat singular interpretation of the accounts of Genesis.  Contrary to Ham’s claims, there is no obvious, universal way to translate the creation story into scientific terms.  There are many ideas and hypotheses surrounding the events presented in Genesis.  Critics of creation claim, however, that the only reason such theories exist is not because of independent evidence, but because the claims of the Bible necessitated them.    

When seen in this light, we can clearly observe why the claims of Ken Ham have already negated anything he could hope to accomplish through this debate.  He can’t even get all creationists on board with his interpretations of a book they all claim to believe in, and yet he is scheduled to attempt to defend their viability to a man who clearly does not.  Imagine the members of the Westboro Baptist church attempting to explain why condoning homosexuality is not productive for America.  How many people do you think would listen?  How many people’s opinions would be swayed?  Ken Ham is in a similar situation.  He is on the fringe of the fringe when it comes to his views on creation.  He seeks to earn the country’s respect for creationism and thus for all of Christianity.  What he will discover is that the only thing he’s defending by the end of the night will be himself.      

This next section will not just be about one man.  It will be about a man and the the man he wishes he was.  Bill Nye grew up in Washington, DC.  After graduating from College with an engineering degree, Bill went to work for Boeing in Seattle, Washington.  After a bizarre string of events, Bill made the switch from engineering to comedy, quitting his job at Boeing to work full time as a writer and performer on Seattle television’s “Almost Live”.  Through his connections on the show, Bill went on to create several TV shows of his own, the most famous of which was “Bill Nye, the Science Guy”.  In five years, the show won 18 Emmy awards, with Bill alone earning seven of them.  Since the show went off the air, Bill has continued to host and appear on TV shows, video projects, news stations, and even had a short stint on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars”.  He currently serves as the vice president of The Planetary Society; the largest space interest group in the world.  He holds a Bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University and has been awarded three honorary Doctorates including one from Johns Hopkins.

Now it’s time to clarify something in regards to Bill Nye.  If Ken Ham is on the fringe of the fringe of acceptable scientific thought regarding the origins of the universe, then Bill would certainly be considered the “monkey in the middle”, so to speak.  He has repeatedly demonstrated both on his shows and since that he fully supports the views regarding the universe’s origins that are put out by the established scientific community.  While this may garner more respect from the general public, it is ultimately, in my opinion, a naive and small minded way of looking at science.  This would be more forgivable if Bill Nye was the one coming up with any of this research but he isn’t.  He is simply repeating what he has been taught.  Even the criticisms he uses against creationists and intelligent design theorists are not original.  The sad truth of the matter is that, at some point in the last ten years, Bill Nye decided he was Carl Sagan.

Perhaps it would be useful to demonstrate just who Carl Sagan was and what he has to do with Bill Nye.  Carl Sagan was perhaps the most celebrated and influential astrophysicist of the 20th century.  He not only worked with NASA on virtually every planetary project through the 50’s and 60’s, but he briefed the astronauts who went to the moon in person.  He received more medals, awards, and accolades than could be reasonably cited in this paper and for very good reasons.  For one, Carl Sagan had two Bachelors degrees, a Master’s, as well as a Doctorate (a real one) in astronomy and astrophysics.  For another, he single handedly changed the world’s entire understanding of the solar system and brought planetary exploration decades forward.  He was also a well-known naturalist, humanist, and skeptic, subscribing to a form of agnostic atheism that was careful not to draw many conclusions but rather to simply ask the right questions.

There are a few other things about Carl Sagan that I find interesting, however.  For one, after he lectured at Harvard, he moved to Cornell University.  As a full professor, he directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies.  He was Bill Nye’s professor.  Ironically enough, Bill even quotes him purposefully in the same YouTube video that he bashes creationists.  Remember that “Planetary Society” that Bill Nye is vice president of?  The original president and co-founder was Carl Sagan.  It is also interesting to note that many of Sagan’s personal traits and qualities, like naturalism and the love of education, have been imitated by Nye so passionately that his bio on his website dedicates entire paragraphs to whatever he has done that pertains to them.  Finally, we have Nye’s gutsy arguments, all of which are modified forms of statements already made by Sagan decades ago and repeated many times by people like Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson.  Once again, we see a situation that is reminiscent of days long gone.  Unfortunately for everyone, Bill Nye is not Carl Sagan.  He is a television personality with a Bachelors degree who probably wishes now that he’d have gone to graduate school before getting into late night comedy.

The distinction between Sagan and Nye is so significant that it changes the very dynamic and effectiveness of Bill Nye’s views.  One of the reasons that Carl Sagan was so influential when it came to his views on God and spirituality was because he was uniquely qualified to comment on matters of the cosmos.  Who would you be more likely to trust: a certified map-reader, or the man who explored the region to start with and then designed the map?  Carl Sagan was looking at a much bigger picture of the universe than those around him were and he didn’t see God.  It is interesting to note that Bill Nye is considerably more outspoken than Sagan was on issues that Sagan knew twice as much about!  Like many modern scientists, Bill Nye has fallen into the trap of mistaking the establishment of science for the true art of science.

As any decent historian will tell you, sometimes the last place that you will find  actual history is in the history books.  In the same way that history goes to the victors, modern science goes to the funded.  Many people quip about the differences between futuristic sci-fi portrayals of the future and the realities of the period when it actually gets here.  I sometimes have wondered myself “After all of the movies about floating cars, why don’t we have them yet?”  I have come to understand that the progress of science is held back, no longer by religion, but by money and politics.  A few years ago, I was shopping at a vitamin store for some sort of natural ADHD treatment.  I knew I needed something but I wasn’t too thrilled about going back on medication.  What I stumbled on was a supplement which had originally undergone studies to be used as an ADHD medication but lost its funding before it got off the ground.  ADHD was not such a huge priority in the 70’s when the study took place. This product has been sold as a dietary supplement ever since, often getting lost among the numerous other fish oil supplements only to be rediscovered a few years ago, probably due to the increasing problem of ADHD and other related conditions.  you can now find it in the front of the store in several different doses.  This is a product that could have been put to better use on the market 40 years ago!  Imagine how far behind we are in other areas simply due to money and politics.  If anyone doubts my logic on this point, do some research on the advances made in regards to lunar research and see how they relate to NASA’s funding at the time.  The reality of established science is a world which hasn’t cured some of the oldest known diseases that kill millions of people every year in the developing world (ie HIV/AIDS, ebola, malaria) yet has somehow come up with billions of dollars to build a giant particle accelerator in Europe with the sole purpose of trying to re-create the conditions of the “Big Bang”.

 

I would like to wrap up this section with some thoughts regarding both Bill Nye and Ken Ham.  Now that we have a better picture of these two men, we can really see the farce coming into play.  This debate is one that has been going on for over 100 years and has been contributed to by some of the greatest scientific and theological minds of our time.  Why, then, are we so excited to hear the completely polarized opinions of two men with Bachelor's degrees and oversized egos?  These men are neither pioneers of modern established thought, nor are they experts in their fields.   In our attempts to revive the glory days of evolution vs creationism; science vs faith, we have chosen celebrity spokespersons who are simply not up for the task.  Ken Ham will likely never believe anything that God doesn’t tell him personally, and Bill Nye isn’t likely to accept anything that isn’t endorsed (and funded) by mainstream western science.  

In conclusion, I will leave you with what I believe may be the most obvious demonstration of the pointlessness of this debate.  As I mentioned before, the theme of the debate is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” Think about that for a moment.  How will discussing that subject have any affect on society?  If we were going to discuss the politics surrounding the opinions and practices of the public education system or even compare evolution and intelligent design side by side with the findings of modern archeology and paleontology, we might actually accomplish something.  But no.  Instead, we will be watching a three hour debate that will be streaming to over a million people on the subject of defending the religious concept of creationism to a diehard secular humanist.  If I didn’t know any better, I would think this was a government project for all of its productivity.  

(This post was originally made before the debate took place. If you would like to watch the full debate, I have included a link below. I think my predictions were fairly accurate.)

Ken Ham, Bill Nye debate

Bill Nye the Science Guy

Ken Ham

Carl Sagan, more Carl Sagan

(end of part 3)

Days of Present Past: Duck Dynamination

Part 2. Originally Posted Feb 4, 2014 

What a delightfully colorful conflict!  This is an issue that has captured national attention and continues to do so!  Social commentary shows have spent days weighing in on the drama these events have caused.  The problem is, there really isn’t anything that they can be applied to.  I compare this issue to a life-sized Hot Wheels car.  It’s big, it’s shiny, and everything about its appearance implies that it is usable...until you look under the hood.  No matter how shiny it is,  you aren’t going to be able to drive this one anywhere but where it can roll, which is downhill.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this subject, here’s a brief introduction.  Duck Dynasty is a cable television show about a family from Louisiana: the Robertsons.  Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, started a business along with his brother to sell a particular duck call that he had made.  The business took off, which led to interviews and promotions, which led to a DVD series, which caught the eye of the cable network A&E, which led to the show Duck Dynasty.  The show has gained popularity in recent months due to the religious nature of the family.  The Robertsons have insisted that their Christianity not be censored from the “script” as it were, and as a result, the show openly features bibles, devotionals, and prayers, as part of the family’s daily life.

In December, a reporter from GQ magazine wrote an article detailing some time he spent with the Robertsons.  The article featured some off-camera (and off-color) comments by Phil regarding his opinions on homosexuality, among other things.  This caused a huge uproar from several activist groups who immediately sent protest letters, demands, and threats of boycotting A&E to the network.  A&E responded by “indefinitely suspending” Phil from the show, only to reinstate him after an even larger backlash from religious and conservative viewers.  Duck Dynasty and its cast are now the focus of national attention as they resume their show after an annual break for duck hunting season.

The level of attention this issue has gathered continues to astound me.  I expected the usual tabloid drama followed by gossip dribble on daytime talk shows.  This time, however, the hype has only escalated from there.  Within days of the original suspension, websites were selling “Stand with Phil” t-shirts with a passion not seen since “Team Jacob”.  Meanwhile, multiple advocacy groups swooped in like vultures, ready to pick the incident clean of any juicy offenses.  Various people of some, little, or no consequence clambered to get their two cents in on both “sides”.  An imaginary line was instantly drawn, prompting commentators to scramble for either side like cliquy schoolchildren trying to form teams for a game of dodgeball.  The only problem with all of this attention and passion is that it really isn’t justified when you examine the issue more closely.  This goes for both of the two most popular perspectives.  Allow me to elaborate on each separately.  

   

 First off, we have the attackers.  On the outset, I can understand some of the excitement.  In a culture that has arguably taken cues from radical Islam when it comes to reacting to offense, it is not surprising that certain groups would see fit to put on a territorial display of anger as opposed to simply allowing such incidents to occur.  However, the demands made of A&E have been unreasonable to the point of blatant hypocrisy.  It was not just required that Phil make an expected public apology for his comments, it was suggested he should be permanently removed from the show, which he very nearly was.  My first question in all this: Is anyone actually surprised by Phil’s comments?  Here we have a deeply religious southern family whose previously revealed political views have all leaned to the right, to put it mildly.  Here we have a family whose patriarch regularly refers to himself as a “redneck”.  Yet, when Phil finally sees fit to comment on the issue of homosexuality, his conservative, arguably fundamentalist views come as a shock?  To who?  Seriously?  No one saw this coming?

My second question is why should this man be removed from television?  Because he said something on the side that someone found offensive?  Try implementing that standard and seeing if cable still exists in a week; network television for that matter.  Perhaps the reason I see this issue a little differently is because of the line I straddle.  Due to my efforts to build bridges between theists and nontheists, I cannot allow myself to subscribe to a singular interpretation of Christianity.  However, due to my position as a minister, I cannot simply abandon my more fundamentalist-thinking acquaintances either.  Seeing issues like these from drastically different angles helps me notice things other people might not.  For example, I have read the article GQ article in question and I can personally attest to having many friends and acquaintances with similar views on homosexuality.  The views expressed by Phil may very well be inappropriate, but they certainly aren’t rare.  Here is what is interesting, though.  Neither my friends, nor Phil have burned down any abortion clinics.  They haven’t protested any military funerals.  They haven’t picketed any establishments and they certainly haven’t committed any acts of violence or hatred regarding their own views or anyone else’s.  Many of them, like myself are reluctant to even express their opinions on these subjects.  And yet, many of my acquaintances feel that they, like Phil, have been unreasonably targeted, not for doing anything, but simply for having an opinion that some find offensive.

Phil recently apologized for the manner in which his views were expressed, yet he made it clear he did not apologize for having them.  This brings me to my final point in regards to the opposition: Is anyone really surprised that he was reinstated?  Following the overwhelming wave of support for Phil that flooded in, is it really surprising that a cable company that is in the business of making money by drawing viewers would respond to the desires of its viewers?  The comments in question did not advocate violence, nor were they made on the air.  They were views held by a man who, for better or worse, has every right to subscribe to them.  To ignore that fact would be to openly admit that enforcing the freedom of a certain people group allows for infringing on the freedom of another.  If this is ever considered acceptable, then the very concept of freedom of speech is likely to disappear under the looming shadow of subjective political correctness.  

Believe me, I understand the precariousness of what I am implying. I once had the

honor of working at the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq.  I personally watched as the members of the Westboro Baptist Church assembled across the street with signs that read “God hates your tears” and “Thank God for dead soldiers”.  I then watched as dozens of "freedom bikers" rode up, parked their motorcycles, and lined up along the entire property line holding giant American flags which not only saluted the fallen soldier but also effectively blocked the view of the event from the outside as well as any sight of the protesters from the inside.  The sad irony of the spectacle was that the man who had sparked both responses had died to protect the rights of BOTH groups to have their opinions and be allowed to express them.  Something my grandfather used to say has always struck me as one of the few truly American thoughts of the century: “I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death for your right to have it.”

Am I saying that there should have been no response to the GQ article?  Certainly not.  There is, however a fine line between acceptable amounts of indignation and Al Sharpton-esque attacks designed only to cause more division.  I am also suggesting that expecting a cable network to go against the very demographic that their show was created to cater to is unrealistic.  Do you really think that the opinion of the demographics that protested Phil’s comments are a primary concern for the creators of a show about southern Christian rednecks? Follow the money. I can imagine the executives from the Ellen Degeneres show would have little to worry about if someone like Pat Robertson were to threaten a boycott.  We should always be vigilant when it comes to ignorance.  We should understand, however, that ignorance is extremely popular and makes money in virtually every form it takes, across all political lines.  If you don’t like that fact, start fighting the cause instead of the effects.  It will mean the difference between seeing lasting social results and playing culture war whack-a-mole.

Now, we come to the defenders.  One might suppose at this point, given the points presented in the last section, that I count myself among Phil’s supporters.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  In my opinion, “Team Phil” should not even exist.  Many  Christians and conservatives have been amazingly supportive of Phil Robertson, considering the crudeness of his comments and the archetype he so readily embraces.  Phil’s son Willie and his wife Korie were recently invited to attend the president’s State of the Union address as special guests of Republican Congressman Vance McAllister, where they stole the Republican after-show, as it were, making sure to snap a few photos with the likes of Paul Ryan.

Even larger than the conservative response, however, has been the Christian one.  Since the beginning, rather than keep the conflict at arms length until they see how it develops, mainstream Christianity has all but promoted the show into it’s own “dynamination”.  Phil and his sons have instantly been escalated to the office of spokespersons for American Christianity.  You see them on the covers of devotionals, in video projects put out by Christian bands, and in the “I am second” project.  Even Franklin Graham, son of the legendary evangelist Billy Graham (who had an amazing ability to avoid pointless controversy) has seen fit to defend the family.  For the longest time, I couldn’t figure out why this was happening.  After all, celebrities touting Christianity are certainly not a new phenomenon.  Images of Tim Tebow kneeling after a score come to mind.  Even Justin Beiber used to draw a decent Christian audience back when his movies portrayed him praying before shows.  The thing is, we all know where that went; nowhere good.  Celebrities rarely make good role models and Christianity has been embarrassed MANY times before for getting too supportive of celebrities who claimed to be “Christian”, only to do something that either contradicted the accepted standards for Christian behavior at the time and/or indicated that they had rejected God altogether.

So why has it been so different with Duck Dynasty?  What about this family has become so appealing to Christians and conservatives that they would be willing to risk public embarrassment to endorse them on such a level?  I’ve been looking forward to this section because it gives me the opportunity to tie in some points made in the introduction.  This is where we see the resemblance to previous conflicts from days gone by.  In the sixties, our public education system was rocked by the fight to remove prayer from schools.  From there, it moved on to Christian symbols in public places, and the phrase “separation of church and state” solidified itself in American politics.  Less than a decade later, one of the most polarizing battles of the twentieth century began: the great abortion debate.  With the legalization of abortion, we saw the lines between conservative and Christian blur into one angry, red mass ready to fight to the bitter end for their political/religious convictions.  It is a battle that is still being fought forty years later.  What is my point?  Phil Robertson isn’t simply a celebrity.  He’s not just a celebrity who’s a Christian, either.  He is a Christian celebrity who has gotten involved with perhaps the hottest social battle since abortion; an issue that ranges from being politically religious to religiously political.  

When seen in this light, it is a bit easier to understand the nature and the scope of the responses in Phil’s favor.  Fundamentalist Christians and conservatives alike would much rather take the gamble on recruiting a new spokesperson for their agendas than let the incident pass and risk appearing weak in the face of liberal onslaught.  There are, however, two distinct problems with this incident that render it useless to both parties.

The problem with Conservatives using this incident as a political tool is so obvious, it’s sad that I even have to point it out.  Believe me, I understand the concept of the freedom of speech and expression perfectly well, as indicated in previous paragraphs.  That being said, this a cable television show we are talking about!  The first amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of people from censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT.  It says nothing about a cable network not being able to fire anyone they are legally able to for any reason they want.  This issue is devoid of any actual political value whatsoever.  All it contains is publicity.  After all, Phil didn’t even make a single statement referring to the politics of the issue.  All he did was make a few unedited personal and religious statements in a magazine article.  End of story, at least it should have been.

The problem with Christians’ open support of the family is that it implies that, not only are the viewpoints expressed by Phil the definitive Christian standpoint on the subject but also that the manner in which he expressed them was completely acceptable.  I would strongly urge Christians to fight your gut reaction and DO NOT back yourself into that corner.  It is dark, dirty, and there is no comfortable way out of it.  I doubt any of my Christian friends would be comfortable openly comparing the appeal of a man’s rectum with that of a woman’s vagina as evidence for why they believe homosexuality is wrong.  I also doubt many of them have actually read the article in question; there is a lot that Phil said that I wouldn’t dare repeat, much less enthusiastically endorse.  When those who would criticize Phil’s remarks see such a clear response by Christianity in support of a matter that they find offensive, it only follows that they will now believe that all Christians hold the same views, which we most certainly do not.  While Christians have been rushing to the aid of their “brother in Christ” so to speak, they have inadvertently and even to some degree blatantly consolidated Christianity’s views on a delicate and complex subject into a handful of shallow comments.  In an attempt to “win” a petty, inconsequential battle, they are setting themselves up to lose the ongoing war for the respect of America.     
        

I have one last thought I would like to end with.  To everyone who has gotten involved with this conflict I would ask “Do you really think this was a mistake?”  A&E controls the contact the press has with the Robertson family with a fervor almost as religious as the family itself.  Do you honestly think it was a coincidence that this all started right before the show took its annual break?  I would not be surprised to discover that this entire fiasco was set in motion intentionally from the beginning as a way to survey public opinion and boost viewing of the show.  After all, when it comes to reality TV, is there really such a thing as bad press?  Either way, this is not Roe vs Wade.  There is no political precedent to be taken advantage of here.  All there is is an embarrassing situation which deserves neither witch-hunt levels of criticism nor blind waves of praise.  It deserves, for more reasons than one, to be universally ignored.


Links

Original GQ magazine article "What the Duck?

Phil Robertson

*Reference to the manufactured hype used to sell products promoting the “Twilight” book and movie series


(end of Part 2)