Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Freedom from (not of) Expression

    Ed Brayton notes that the UN Human Rights Council has endorsed an anti-religious speech code proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. I could write about this with the anger and disgust I feel, but Ed already said it so well:

    Now I am one of those people who is careful to distinguish between Islamic radicals and Islamic moderates. I strongly believe that most Muslims around the world, probably a significant majority, just want to live their lives as people of any large group do. Bin Laden certainly does not speak for them, nor should we lump all Muslims together under him. But there is at least a sizable minority of Muslims around the world who really do embrace what I regard as the most reactionary and barbaric ideology in the world today.

    While you’re expressing your deep concern about those who identify Islam with terrorism and human rights violations, how about at least expressing equal concern about those many millions of Islamic reactionaries who themselves openly identify Islam with terrorism, violence and who routinely violate the human rights of those around them? While you’re complaining about Muslims being stereotyped, how about at least pretending that you care as much about school textbooks in madrassahs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere that call Jews pigs and devils? At least keep up some pretense of being objective about this.

    Precisely!

    Ed also notes the irony of having Saudi Arabia of all places trying to lecture the west on freedom of expression. Quoth Daffy, “it is to laugh,” except that these folks aren’t funny; they’re dangerous.

  • MyBibleVersion.com – Comparison against a Base Version (Alpha)

    In response to a comment, I have added a page that will allow you to choose a base Bible version (whatever you prefer) and get a list of all other available versions based on how much they differ from that. The page is http://www.mybibleversion.com/compare.php. The default version is the NRSV if you don’t specify. There is a drop down box listing all available versions after the list of characteristics.

    I can’t emphasize enough that this is ALPHA software. Please watch for bugs, large and small, and report them via comments to this post. Requests for features are welcome, though time to implementation may vary wildly.

  • Also Richard Colling

    PZ Myers (yes, he who was expelled from Expelled!)* Pim van Meurs, has posted a couple of interesting cases on The Panda’s Thumb, and I want to make sure one name is also known: Dr. Richard Colling. I wrote about his situation in a number of posts, and also blogged through his book Random Designer.

    I experienced conservative Christian education myself. Many of my more conservative friends think I don’t understand the closed nature of academia because I didn’t attend a public university. But I experienced the closed minds that manifested themselves as soon as one deviated from the party line by too great a degree.

    The Expelled! producers aren’t concerned about academic freedom. They’re concerned about victory. They would like to be in control and be the ones expelling.

    *My sincere apologies. I plead posting too early in the morning.

  • The Major Errors of KJV-Only

    Someone signing as Morgan Sorensen just left a comment on my old post (11/28/2006), and I want to promote it to its own post, because it demonstrates the core errors of the KJV-Only position in a very small space.

    I’m printing the entire comment but I’m interspersing it with comments on the core errors that are displayed.

    Henry Neufeld, You are the one, in error here . These two verses do NOT say the same thing, unless you have graduated from “Dumbness school”.

    In what way do they not say the same thing? Surely since you believe that in order not to see it I must have graduated from “dumbness school” you can provide details.

    Furthermore, two important factors from the scriptures hang you , and James White out, as the deceivers that you are.
    One, is the first pillar, (of two) on the doctrine of scripture. That the Word of God came not by the WILL of MAN. Therefore, any changes to this Word of God, by the WILL of Man, must result in “sriritual blood poison”.

    Here’s the key KJV-Only error. They assume that the KJV is the one and only word of God, thus any changes from it become errors because you can’t change the word of God. But the word of God is not limited to one translation, and it didn’t come into existence in 1611. By this standard, the KJV is “spiritual blood poison” because of the alterations it makes from the source Greek and Hebrew texts.

    Of course that isn’t the case, because they, like other Bible translators, were simply working with what they had, and they did a pretty good job. Their translation shouldn’t replace the source texts. How could it? But it was very good for its time.

    Secondly, the Word of God is; “Forever settled in Heaven”, it is”pure”, it is by Jesus’s own explanation, the “Lifeblood” of the Christian. Jesus said; “My Words are life unto you”.
    In Leviticus 17, we read that the LIFE is in the blood. You fellas are tampering with that “life”, and inserting the tincture of “scholastic arsenic” into that “God given Pure bloodstream” of the traditional text, and presenting the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure, when you ought to know, it is not.

    Now she also assumes that the “traditional text,” a rather ephemeral object is equal to the “word of God. Which is it? Is the KJV the word that cannot be changed, or is it the “traditional text?” And what represents the traditional text? The textus receptus, the majority text, or some reconstruction of the Greek text used by the KJV translators?

    Considering some of the completely unique readings in the latter chapters of Revelation, again, the KJV might well be accused of adding this “spiritual arsenic.” Of course, no such thing is true. They did the best they could with what they had–and it was an excellent job. The translators themselves would be horrified at the type of arguments KJV-Only advocates use in supposed support of their work. With friends like these . . .

    Further, who presents “the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure”? I’m an advocate of an eclectic text, and don’t regard any hand copied manuscript as “pure” in this sense. All are subject to error, and all disagree with one another in some way. If the scriptures are corrupt, that corruption was introduced pretty early.

    Your stupid mis-caricature of Mrs. Riplinger, shows both you and James White’s cowardice and un-gentlemanly behaviour.

    Anyone who speaks the way she does about others has no grounds to complain about how she is treated. She has slandered many men of God and her book contains an overwhelming number of errors.

    Not that I in any way need to defend Mrs. Riplinger, as both you and James white, could not scholastically measure up to her ankles. You both stand exposed for your lies and deception.

    I eagerly await the first time that you expose my lies and deception. All you did in this comment was assert that I was a liar. Try again.

  • Expelled! and the Atheism-Evolution Connection

    There is something I want to clarify from my previous post on the topic. Nobody has mentioned this to me, but it is a common enough error that I think I need to say something explicit.

    I object both to the comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis and the equation of acceptance of evolution with atheism, but I do so for rather different reasons.

    I regard Nazism as ethically repugnant and pretty much without redeeming value. It’s manifestation in Germany was particularly evil. The passage of years, however, has resulted in a variety of people comparing just about anyone they disagree with to the Nazis. If you get by with it, it guarantees a win. I regard the comparison of scientists denying tenure to a professor with Nazis as a slander. It also demonstrates a lack of ethical judgment, and specifically devalues the true evil of Nazism.

    I think it’s quite possible that for the producers of Expelled, the connection to atheists is more important. Atheism is more present and real to modern Americans, and it is the one thing they expect Christians of all denominations and believers from other faiths to be able to agree on–atheism is bad. So if you can hammer the concept into people that belief in evolution is the equivalent of atheism, they will viscerally reject evolution as they already do atheism.

    It’s a fairly standard propaganda ploy. Find something that is already in disrepute amongst your audience (and polls on the perception of atheists will show the basis for this), then all you have to do is completely (subconsciously if possible) relate the idea you dislike to the one people already dislike. Unfortunately, all that is necessary to accomplish this goal is to repeat it often enough and loudly enough.

    So my problem with “evolution is atheism” is quite different from my concern about Nazism. Nazism is nasty, and it is slander to connect it with evolutionary science. Atheists are generally good, moral, productive people, and there is nothing about their belief system that says they will be anything else. There’s a big difference between a group of people who believe as a tenet of their ideology that you ought to be killed, and a group that disagrees with you on certain philosophical points, even very basic ones.

    So I want to make myself clear. I do not object to the connection of atheism and evolution because atheism is nasty, and you shouldn’t smear evolution in that way. I object to this connection because it is incorrect. The theory of evolution describes the natural world, and is not incompatible with theism. It is also not incompatible with atheism. It is simply organized information about the natural world. Connecting it with a philosophy is completely unrelated to determining its truth value.

    Nazism is an ideology with an ethically repugnant set of actions inherent in it. It is slanderous to connect evolution with that ideology.

    It remains true, of course, that both connections are inappropriate propaganda ploys and the producers of Expelled! should be ashamed of themselves for both.

  • MyBibleVersion.com – Adding a New Concept

    Lingalinga, formerly going under the identity lingamish, made a suggestion about my Bible Version Selection Tool. He thought it would be nice to be able to modify the version profiles to one’s individual tastes, and use the tool against those profiles rather than the ones I supply.

    I agree with him, and it wouldn’t be that difficult for me to implement, partially because I have most of the necessary code on file from other projects. The main difficulty is designing a usable system. So I’m going to give you, my readers, a chance to make more detailed suggestions.

    I will have one firm proviso. I’m not going to mix this idea in with the original tool. Feedback has indicated that my original tool (still available at http://books.energion.com/bibles/eneversion.php) was simply too complicated for most users. They would give up after going through one or two of the items, and rarely would get to all eleven. That’s why I created the simplified version with profiles. Users can now check a box and get the more detailed layout. I think, however, that adding links for all of this to that page will remove the benefit. Instead I will create a new page for individually tailored selection.

    Here are the basic features:

    1. Simple registration and sign-in. Version information can then be recalled and edited, but only by the one who created it.
    2. Though each person, unless possessed of multiple personalities, should likely have one set of descriptions for Bible versions, multiple sets are possible.
    3. The editor will present a matrix with the complete list of versions, defaulting to the current numbers and descriptions. Users will simply provide an ID for their data, and then modify any information they wish.
    4. Users of the personalized selection tool will be able to choose any one of the profiles provided by users, probably via drop-down box.
    5. Other than selection of the data set against which you want to work, the selection tool will function in the same way as it does at present.

    Some options I’m considering:

    1. User profile, with some kind of user ID (not necessarily real name) and web site/blog link.
    2. Published/not-published option, so you can edit on a new set of profiles for the translations without having it show publicly.
    3. Published profile sets would then display the user profile information, allowing users to evaluate a bit. For example, if the person who created the profile set is contributor to a major Bible translation blog (Better Bibles, for example), one might give it more weight.
    4. Allow users, more specifically anyone who creates a profile-set, to add characteristics on which they want to rate a version. This is a bit more complex, and would not be in any initial version.
    5. Allow users to add versions to the list. Again, in the initial version, people would have to e-mail me to add a new version.

    For those who have web sites, it looks to me like we would have the same XML generator available to work under your individualized profile. You’d be able to create a set of profiles for Bible versions, then use an RSS reader to access your information and display it on your site. I have the basic code for doing so here. I would expect this to be possible with the personalized version as well.

    These are just my preliminary ideas. I will accept suggestions via comments to this blog entry.

  • Upgraded to WordPress 2.5

    I have upgraded the software for this blog to WordPress 2.5. I believe with the way I did it nobody should have noticed more than a momentary (less that 30 second) glitch. If there were any other problems I apologize.

    Please let me know if any new difficulties emerge.

  • Context for Obama and Dr. Jeremiah Wright

    I commented before on how we’re getting snippets out of context. Peter Kirk has done some looking regarding the God damn America comment. From another angle, my wife thinks Obama needs to say “enough!” and get on with the campaign.

  • Matheson on Howard van Till

    He posted some good notes on a talk by van Till here. I have great respect for van Till as well, though I have only encountered him through reading.

  • Suppressed and Talking about it Everywhere

    After reading this review of Expelled!, (HT: The Panda’s Thumb) based only on the 10 minute trailer, I decided to go view the various trailers for myself.

    This is a movie that I have very little interest in seeing. Let me explain that. It’s not that I don’t want to hear about ID, but I need something that at least purports to provide some sort of information, some sort of argument in favor of it. I might reject that argument after reading, but I’m not going to be attracted to the material unless such an argument is made. For me to read something, or even more for me to view something, I require some sort of reason, and since I dislike watching informational videos in general, I need an extraordinary reason to go watch one. In the case of something like Expelled!, I also rest in the knowledge that I have friends who are attracted to these things like motorists to wrecks, and they will write about it.

    Having watched the trailers I can now tell you that not only do they not give me any reason to watch the movie; they give me numerous reasons not to bother. I certainly won’t shell out money for it, and I like the energy to arrange to get my name on the list for a free showing as PZ Myers did (unsuccessfully) and Richard Dawkins did (successfully). Incidentally, I should mention that I don’t accept the explanations of the Expelled! crowd that Myers and Dawkins were gate crashers. I fully support what they did in that case. More importantly, I think it is indicative of the mindset of the producers that they did not welcome people whom they interviewed to see the finished product. Both men should have gotten in to see the movie and without such effort on their part. Myers more recent telephone escapade, on the other hand, falls outside my ethical boundaries. I confess that I laughed when I read about it (shame on me), but still, I could not do it with good conscience.

    Why did the trailers have such a negative impression on me:

    1. Misrepresentation of evolution
      It’s difficult to explain a theory properly in a short period of time, but there was no attempt made to correctly represent the theory of evolution. References to a totally random process or to lightning hitting some mud are misrepresentations intended to ridicule, not to inform. The ridicule is in no way surprising. This is constant in creationist materials on evolution. It was, in fact, one of the major elements that drew me away from creationism. This problem is especially egregious in a movie that complains about the way intelligent design (ID) advocates are ridiculed in science.
    2. First amendment issues are badly confused
      The first amendment doesn’t provide you with the right to have a particular scientific magazine publish your article, nor does it protect editors from the consequences of not following the rules (Sternberg). Peer review exists for a purpose, and that is to exclude articles that do not provide sufficient fodder for study by those who will read the journal in question. It assures readers, not that the material is all true, but that the material has enough scientific merit to be considered. Further, the first amendment doesn’t guarantee you a job at a particular university, or tenure, nor does it protect you from ridicule. In fact, the first amendment protects the right of others to ridicule you.
    3. Academic freedom doesn’t guarantee you a job or tenure
      Tenure is given to people who uphold certain standards and will advance the university. Personally, I’m not all that excited about the tenure system, but that’s because I think freedom is better protected by the variety of institutions of higher education than by a fight at a particular one. A person denied tenure is not automatically denied free speech. He can go down the road. I’m fairly sure the Expelled! crowd could find reasons that someone should be denied tenure; they just don’t think their particular silliness is a good reason.
    4. The problem for intelligent design is not that it hasn’t been considered
      In fact, it hasn’t even truly been presented yet, and I don’t mean that the meanies in the educational establishment didn’t allow it a hearing. Rather, it simply has never presented a scientific program that could truly be tested. The ID crowd want something for nothing. They want to be regarded as purveyors of a scientific theory without doing the work. Some want their theory to be presented in high school, without going through the process of consensus building.
    5. The connection of evolution with Hitler
      There are a very small number of things that deserve to be compared with Nazism. There are a variety of causes. Claiming that the theory of evolution is a cause of Nazi Germany and the holocaust is blatantly false. In a movie that complains of ridicule for ID advocates, this level of slander is incredible. Even in the trailer (and according to reviews the movie is worse), the implication of a Nazi connection is not at all subtle. It just goes to show the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of the film’s makers, and Ben Stein as a spokesman. They cannot possibly have any clue of how Nazi Germany suppressed people, and at the same time claim that there is a relationship between that and their claimed suppression here. That’s why I titled my post as I did. Intelligent design has provided us with the most heard, published, talked-about, and taught “suppressed” theory in history.
    6. Lastly, the one that annoys me most, is the lie that accepting the theory of evolution is the equivalent of atheism
      Repeatedly, Ben Stein equates the theory of evolution with atheism, and claims that all ID wants is to open the door to considering that God might have done something. Evolution may be incompatible with certain forms of Biblical interpretation, but it is in no way incompatible with basic theism.

    For people who claim suppression, these folks certainly act more like the liars and propagandists who help nurture suppression. If one were to propose a conspiracy in America, one might find more validity in seeing a conspiracy in the general removal of the word “evolution” from science standards so that now, when creationists push to get their view into the public school classrooms, few people really understand what evolution actually is. This facilitates the lies about it told in just the trailers to this movie.