I was raised on Ken Ham's stuff. The first science class I took that wasn't predicated on young earth creationism was in college. I tend to agree with Nye--believe whatever you want, but don't shelter your kids from learning other viewpoints. Oddly enough, young earth creationism ended up making me agnostic. In the circle of Christianity I grew up in, it was taught that 'if Christianity is true then it logically follows that the earth is 6,000 years old'. If P then Q, Not Q, therefore Not P. And, well, once you learn that biology is more than just classifying animals, it's not hard to show that the earth is a little bit more than 6,000 years old. QED.
Aware that I'm in the minority here, but this looks incredible. Who cares if it's bible-centric? Doubt it'll convince anybody who isn't already inclined to believe it that the earth is 6,000 years old and global warming isn't a thing, just as much as I doubt a former Nickelodeon host who just. Fucking. Loves. Bowties. Will convince the other side that creationism isn't a logical or graceful viewpoint. And who cares if it has state funding? Look at it. It's beautiful. five hundred and fucking ten feet long! The Santa Maria, for scale, was about seventy feet long. This thing is gigantic! What an absurd testament of faith. Just as much an anthropological study as it is a religious statement. I'm not religious, nor do I ever intend to be. But I DO plan on visiting this thing next year when I have time again.
In fairness, you could say the same thing about state funding for the Smithsonian or the Metropolitan Opera. While obviously there is competition between funding agencies, it's rare that a museum would be directly competing for funding with soup kitchens or hospitals.
Fair point. I would rather fund a soup kitchen or a hospital instead, though: sounds like a better deal. I would be more eager to fund a museum of Christianity and any other religion, as well. There's something about the Ark being a totem of sort, a thing to worship that bothers me away from its mythical value.
Not sure I'd go so far as "who cares," regarding the state funding. But states fund football stadiums and the like, why not a big ass boat?
I guess that's what I meant. I was a couple bourbons in writing that, clearly there's a fair amount to care about when your governor cuts across-the-board education funding and environmental protection enforcement in the name of saving the state pension system, and then gives this guy a tax cut. That's pretty rotten. That said: opposition to this project on similar grounds implies that no state funding ought to go to any cultural growth of any stripe. After all, one man's art museum is another man's ark. While I'm not crazy about Bevin's priorities, I don't really have any objection to this on religious/cultural grounds. I find the objection "this is terrible because it's a Christian myth" kind of perplexing.
If the ku-klux klan built a giant ass boat and you knew that the funds for viewing it went to fund the lobbying of the state government to educate people about lesser nature of black people, would you pay to see it? Also, it's like $40 to see. As for Bill Nie, I love your description of him. "just loves bow-ties." -I laughed out loud. Aside: Pick a BPM for the song I'm about to compose and record if you get this right now.After all, one man's art museum is another man's ark.
I couldn't agree more. But it's hard to be okay with it when you realize that the same man is responsible for the teaching of "young earth creationism" in public schools. Then, paying a ticket to see the giant ass boat becomes more problematic for me.
As for the rest of your comment: I can't engage right now because I'm not sure I'm right, but I don't have the energy to think it out anymore at the moment. Too busy cramming info re. beta blockers to actually think. I believe you have good points, although I'm not sure about the ol' moral gradient trick of "you wouldn't support racism, so why would you support x."
Pretty much all of it, unless it's violent or fraudulent. Religious freedom is important. Also remember that the religious far-right has quite a bit of influence in elections, deciding what is to extreme would probably get messy.How much intolerance must be tolerated?
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies: ... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. John Rawls' argument doesn't sound convincing... ...since KKK still exists, just as a lot of other violently intolerant groups. The wider society does not directly affect those in groups based on hatred because of how members of such groups perceive the world: they're highly biased and very interested in seeing the world as what they describe it. What use, for them, would be to learn from the outside if their hatred is comforting in its enclosedness? Indeed, they don't - but we, as a group of people of sharper critical thinking and tolerance, should. You want to build a shrine to your deity? Fine. You want to destroy another's? This is where we stop you - and act against you if you persist. This is tolerance.Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Rawls argues that an intolerant sect should be tolerated in a tolerant society unless the sect directly threatens the security of other members of the society. He links this principle to the stability of a tolerant society, in which members of an intolerant sect in a tolerant society will, over time, acquire the tolerance of the wider society.