Ouch (Brian Dunning manages to offend even me)

Click to enlarge: Peanuts Cartoon - Snoopy is writing a book on theology.

As much as I like Brian Dunning, I found this particular Skeptoid installment a little offensive. See if you can find it…

d(-_-)b
Try this link... http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4250

The History of Knowledge - A trip through the centuries to see how human knowledge is reflected through music > 

(Visit Skeptoid.com here > )

Now, just to put this in context: I listen to Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid every week on WPRR, and in fact I’ve been working my way through every show he’s published in his RSS feed. (I have about a third to go; I”m listening to them in reverse order; there are 390 or so available as of this writing).

 

This particular installment wasn’t offensive because it was skeptical, but because of the juxtaposition of caveman grunts with Gregorian chant and the inevitable conclusions we’re expected to draw.

 

Dunning is not an offensive person, but he likes a good joke and probably enjoyed this one at the expense of a few sensitive types like myself.

But it’s not only that he equated grunting cavemen with chanting monks; it’s that he elbowed a small skeptical community that finds room for an authentic supernatural element among counterfeits and quacks; chanting like this is heard each week in some churches where many Christians nurture that discernment.[1]

Dunning is a considerate and thoughtful skeptic and among my favorite weekly treats, but I’m still wincing from a shot to the ribs.

I’ll recover.

[2013-08-14]

c0

This is a very good segment by Dunning on the poor behavior that sometimes characterizes believers and skeptics alike:

d(-_-)b

Skeptoid #134: Who Is Closed Minded, the Skeptic or the Believer?

 

Great quote: "So don't focus on buzzword labels like ‘close-minded’ or ‘true believer.’ You can be both of those things and still be able to properly analyze evidence and draw a supported conclusion; ...focus on the method behind the conclusion; focus on the quality of evidence that supports the conclusion."

I’d like to think I’m in that category most of the time.

[2013-09-06]

 

c0

 

[1]

Regarding the “skeptical community that finds room for an authentic supernatural element among counterfeits and quacks,” some places you may find interesting:

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese  (>)

Just about anything by John Polkinghorne  (>)

Good News for Science: Why Scientific Minds Need God, by Davis A Young (>)

Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker (>)

I use the word “skeptic” in the sense that all of these writers have their heads on straight, examine the evidence so far as they are able, and won’t intentionally bend the rules to support their own philosophical or academic views.

None of these are without their faults, and even their authors would admit that. An oversight by Hahn and  Wiker on brain size is a good example: complexity can have utility apart from what we think is a primary function; eg, none of our speech organs exist only for speech, they all have other roles in breathing and eating. So the argument “there’s no reason why the brain should be this complex” is not helpful, it may correlate with an ability to articulate meaningful sounds and the generative quality of language, to use Chomsky’s term. Ie, once you develop language, you have the capacity to create an infinite number of expressions to characterize the same or subtly different things and concepts. That could very well require a big brain for reasons we don’t yet understand.

 

c0