Some excellent points were made about some recents posts of mine, so I’d like to make a few clarifications.

First of all, I tend to post only when I’m worked up in a frenzy of blog-fueled rage. Not at all an excuse for any half-baked arguments, more a setting of context.

With regard to my comments on Al Gore’s alleged electrical hypocrisy, I don’t have an inherent problem with people making information available and letting the public draw their own conclusions, ever. And I have to conced that it’s probably impossible for anyone to present information without some sort of bias–if you look hard enough, you can find traces of spin anywhere. I do have a problem with people making information under the guise of an official-sounding organization that may or may not exist–for me, it’s an honesty thing. People are free to draw their own conclusions–I happen to fail to see the relevance in this particular instance, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said.

That wasn’t the intended point of my post, though. The proper treatment for dishonest/deceptive/hateful/whatever speech is more speech. That generally isn’t what happens in these situations. I invoked the Swift Boat analogy because this situation reminds me of that situation: a group made a number of allegations that were capable of being disproven by numerous records and witnesses, yet the Kerry campaign didn’t say squat back in 2004. A lot has happened since then, and it would be nice to see someone with more credibility and a bigger audience than me offer some sort of counterpoint to what people and groups like the Tennessee Center for Policy Research have to say. Like, say, Al Gore. And he did.

A quick note on the relevance issue–the argument seems to be that (a) Al Gore addresses the severity of global warming; (b) Al Gore uses electricity at a level above the national average; therefore (c) Al Gore is a hypocrite. The problem is, (c) doesn’t say anything at all about (a); it just attacks the messenger.

With regard to the Discovery documentary on Jesus, again I have no problem with anyone presenting information or opinions. I draw my own conclusions and my own opinions. Personally, based on what I have seen so far, I think the documentary is full of crap–it is an interesting premise but has about as much historical weight as the Da Vinci Code. I don’t blame Mr. Wildmon for trying, either, but if that is the best he can do, I kind of feel bad for him. My point is that if watching the documentary shakes someone’s faith to the core, you really can’t blame the filmmakers for that. My objection here is similar to my issue with the Gardasil debate: valid arguments against a proposal that are grounded in science, history, logic, etc. supercede arguments based only in faith. Object to the documentary because it’s bad science, bad archaeology, bad statistics, and so forth. If someone publicizes information that contradicts the foundation of someone’s faith, and that information is objectively flawed (e.g. not based in sound science), why not make that your first argument? My understanding of Mr. Wildmon’s argument is something like this: (a) the Bible states that such and such happened; (b) a new documentary may present evidence that contradicts the Bible; therefore (c) Christianity is under attack.

In retrospect, my statement “I am not out to offend or denigrate anyone else’s religious beliefs” was not entirely accurate. I do not intend to denigrate religious people. There is a difference, subtle though it may be, between crticism of a system of beliefs and criticism of the believers. I may not agree with someone’s beliefs, but I do not intend to disrespect the person. And I have a very hard time respecting a lot of religious beliefs. I could probably write a book on that issue (and I might), but if anyone is offended by what I have to say about religion, it’s honestly kind of flattering because it implies that the person is placing my words on a rhetorical level with the Bible or whatever book they follow. Well, that’s how I look at it, anyway. I can’t help how people interpret what I, or anyone else, say. All I can do is try to be honest and rational–I’ll admit it doesn’t always work (although I still think it did this time.)

I also stand by my characterization of faith, which was pretty much based on the definition at dictionary.com:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.

4. often Faith ChristianityThe theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

The difference between faith and science is that science (assuming you are dealing with an honest practitioner), has to change in the face of contradictory evidence. Faith does not. Yet they can co-exist for most people just fine, most of the time.

If I do have any particular bias creeping into posts of this nature, it is my frustration that agnostics (I prefer the term apatheist, but I’ll go with a more recognizable one) are so often misunderstood and disrespected on a personal level. That must be a topic for another day, however.