Comments on: Ken Miller lies, what to do about it?

By: Tone vs. Content : The Uncredible Hallq

Tone vs. Content : The Uncredible Hallq — Sun, 09 May 2010 21:48:03 +0000

[...] stating the impolite truth. I recognize that. It matters. As I pointed out in a previous post on dealing with liars, accusing someone of “egregiously misquoting” rather than “lying” in your [...]

By: Chris Hallquist

Chris Hallquist — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:42:44 +0000

I’m having a little trouble following your argument–the last sentence suggests you think all Christians must have a particular view of human nature. If that’s what you meant to say, I can see where you’re coming from, but it doesn’t vindicate Miller.

Why I can see where you’re coming from: I tend not to take liberal religious believers seriously. I relish telling them why their ideas about their traditions and scriptures are wrong. And once you have a firm idea of what True Christians believe, it’s easy to turn “we don’t want people who believe that running the NIH” into “no Christians allowed.”

If that’s what you’re thinking here, it still doesn’t vindicate Miller because that’s not how religious lables normally work. In spite of what I just said, I recognize that “liberal Christian” isn’t a direct contradition in English, and I think most fundamentalists recognize this too. It would be dishonest for a creationist to go around saying, without explanation, that so-and-so wants to bar Christians from running the NIH because so-and-so opposed the nomination of a creationist to the NIH. That would still be a lie, no matter how firmly you believe that all True Christians have to be creationists.

By: Joshua Blanchard

Joshua Blanchard — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:23:14 +0000

It is not hard to find evidence for Miller’s claim in Harris’s article. For one thing, Harris begins the article by going through slides Collins once presented, with no obvious argumentative connection to the main point. And this is done with an obviously condescending tone, how Harris normally discusses religious beliefs.

Furthermore, Harris’s main arguments are so sloppy that it really does seem to just bother him when Collins holds standard Christian beliefs – like that the truth of the Gospel answers fundamental human predicament. Harris gets loopy insinuating, if not outright claiming, that this means Collins will undermine research in psychology, for example.

So you’re half-right – Harris talks as if his problem has to do with things logically distinct from Collins’ religious identity. Yet his presentation begins by histrionic mockery, and ends with melodramatic attempts to show that standard Christian beliefs threaten “the future of biomedical research.”

And if you’re interested in lies, consider Harris’ claim that Collins thinks “a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible.” This is at best an obvious equivocation on the word “human nature,” deviating from how Collins would use the term. And if indeed a different understanding of “human nature” makes Collins culpable, then Miller is correct that Harris’s arguments will just mean every Christian is guilty by virtue of being a Christian.