The presentation of a program with a disbelief orientation on public television is a rare event in the United States and one that should bring some satisfaction to those who want open dialogue and freedom of expression for the public. There are probably plenty who would wish to “swift boat” attack any such effort. The deist orientation of many of the founders deserves to be brought to the attention of those who assert the Christianity of all of the founders. The quotations given probably bring that out regardless of whether they are exact. The use “creator” doesn’t necessarily mean the God who is watching over every sparrow to the deists.  Maybe, they can present exact quotations in the next two hour presentation in a few years, if the right wing extremists haven’t shut down PBS as they might wish.

Careful Doug.  I think that he’s on to our grand atheist conspiracy to distort the truth.  Those quotes have revealed too much of our plot.  We’d better alert the head atheist. 

Bryan,

I haven’t looked into all three of the quotes “in question” yet, but I see nothing misleading so far.  Miller does paraphrase, but I don’t see any case in which he is doing so misleadingly.  Certainly not in any way that is not conventional practice.  From the link that you provided to your blog I noticed that you further elaborate on the Adams quote there, and also address a quote by Jefferson.

Your blog doesn’t provide any convincing points about Miller misusing the Adams quote.  This quote that you suggest was fabricated seems to be everywhere on the internet.  I don’t take google as an authority on history, but it seems that a whole lot of people think that Adams said those exact words.  Type the whole of it into google, as it stands.  What is your basis for insisting that any of the quotations in question were not uttered as such, apart from your providing alternative variants?

Also, your contention that “The video account produces a quotation very friendly to atheism and unfriendly even to Deism.” is just bizarre.  Did you really get that impression from the film.  As I remember it, the film clearly refers to Adams as a deist and not an atheist.  I suggest you watch the entire film so that you are clear about Miller’s point before you criticize it further.  Most people will doubt that you are making informed judgments about context without having done so.  I also have no doubt that you will enjoy finding your fill of misplaced commas, added “um"s and unwritten pauses that you can use as evidence that Jonathan Miller and PBS are misleading the public.

I’m sorry, but you certainly don’t have me convinced about your being “petty for the truth.” And you still just strike me as angry.

erasmusinfinity - 21 November 2007 09:24 PM

I haven’t looked into all three of the quotes “in question” yet, but I see nothing misleading so far.  Miller does paraphrase, but I don’t see any case in which he is doing so misleadingly.  Certainly not in any way that is not conventional practice.

It is not conventional practice to take two statements occurring five years apart and join them together to give the appearance that they were uttered consecutively.  At least not so far as I am aware.

From the link that you provided to your blog I noticed that you further elaborate on the Adams quote there, and also address a quote by Jefferson.

Your blog doesn’t provide any convincing points about Miller misusing the Adams quote.

I think it does, and I have trouble understanding why you don’t agree.

“God is an essence we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

Pretend you don’t know the background of this Frankenstein’s monster of a quotation.  What’s the awful blasphemy?

This quote that you suggest was fabricated seems to be everywhere on the internet.  I don’t take google as an authority on history, but it seems that a whole lot of people think that Adams said those exact words.  Type the whole of it into google, as it stands.  What is your basis for insisting that any of the quotations in question were not uttered as such, apart from your providing alternative variants?

You want me to teach you research?  OK.

I disregard quotations that provide no source.  Those offer no help.  I search for the quotations in web domains with a high degree of reliability (.net, ~ aren’t likely to make the cut).  If I can’t find a quotation with a reference then I break it down into pieces until I find a reference.

What I most certainly do not do is see if I get Google hits and then assume that it must be OK because people have been repeating it as though it is true.

Also, your contention that “The video account produces a quotation very friendly to atheism and unfriendly even to Deism.” is just bizarre.  Did you really get that impression from the film.  As I remember it, the film clearly refers to Adams as a deist and not an atheist.

That segment of the film doesn’t refer to Adams’ beliefs specifically.  It just says something along the lines of how the founders weren’t devout Christians (Miller’s voice containing irony there, I’d say), then it presents the quotations without any other context apart from identifying the person alleged to have made the statement.  Then Miller expresses doubt that any of them could hold political office in modern America.

Note your response to my statement.  I refer specifically to the quotation as the film gives it.  You don’t address that at all but appeal to a supposed identification of Adams as a Deist.  Isn’t that skirting the issue of the quotation (almost like Well, if he’s identified as a Deist then no matter how he’s quoted it couldn’t be unfriendly to Deism!)?

I suggest you watch the entire film so that you are clear about Miller’s point before you criticize it further.

How could Miller’s point possibly make up for the inaccuracies?  They said it or they didn’t, and they meant it the way Miller presents it or they didn’t.  The only way Miller gets a pass is with some kind of disclaimer like “The filmmakers have deliberately taken liberties with some of the quotations used in this film,” or “The filmmakers do not vouch for the accuracy of the film.”

Most people will doubt that you are making informed judgments about context without having done so.

Would that make sense, given that I am only judging the content with which I am familiar?

I also have no doubt that you will enjoy finding your fill of misplaced commas, added “um"s and unwritten pauses that you can use as evidence that Jonathan Miller and PBS are misleading the public.

So, basically, if you take a quotation from five years ago and join it to a quotation from today where the context of each is strikingly different, it’s like misplacing a comma.  I think I understand. 

I’m sorry, but you certainly don’t have me convinced about your being “petty for the truth.” And you still just strike me as angry.

It makes me furious when people insist that I’m angry.  :grin:

Bryan - 21 November 2007 08:15 PM

I still can’t even figure out why you brought it up.

I brought it up because it’s one of my favorite quotes from the film.

Bryan - 21 November 2007 08:15 PM

It doesn’t make the existence of God logically impossible. But it demonstrates quite adequately why belief in God is absurd given the evidence before us.

If you don’t mean it to sound like a deductive argument you probably should say “why belief in God is probably absurd.”

I know, I know.  Petty.

Right, petty. Following your line of thought, one ought to append “probably” to nearly every statement one makes. In this case, however, it doesn’t work. An absurd belief is just one that is wildly improbable—like, believing that the moon is made of green cheese. Given the evidence before us, that is an absurd belief. Not “probably”. It’s even an absurd belief if the moon is in fact made of green cheese.

And taking two or three quotes (you still haven’t convinced me of one, and the other two look like small problems) out of a lengthy and very well spoken series strikes people as angry and petty because it is. One wonders what your ulterior motive is in bringing these up. Do you always write in to online discussion boards when you find errors with two sentences on TV series? I’d have thought at that rate you’d spend your entire life online pointing these things out!

... unless, of course, there’s something particularly about Miller’s personal story about atheism that has stuck in your craw. In particular, is there something you don’t like about this being perhaps the only open discussion of atheism and its history on television in living memory?

We can argue over words from now until we are long dead but we must remember that we all realize the world would be better off if the nightmares of the hereafter could be removed from our brains.

We are told as children to do the right thing or suffer in hell and never have a chance at getting into heaven.  This nightmare has also started wars among people who believe in a different god and now we are seeing a possible war between Christians.  The dialog offered by the Evangelicals castigating the Mormons is so childish I can’t believe millions of Americans believe this is the truth. 

In my world, we are born innocent of hatred and as we grow into our abilities to walk and talk and learn we open to so much more than the churches offer us.  Trying to discuss any subject with a child can be stimulating unless they believe in God.  The brains are disconnected and many subjects are rejected.  It is a shame because Jesus represented those who were often uneducated, unskilled and living in poverty.  Today we find racism, anti-Semitism, and a general attitude that Christians are superior and therefore must change others into their images. 

After 9/11, we did not declare war on those men who attacked us but our Christian President declared a Crusade to destroy Islam.  The multi-million Americans stood tall with Bush on this attitude and we saw 4000 of our men sacrificed to the Christian God of War. 

Apparently humans have lost their ability to think as individuals and will always need a big daddy to lead them.  If our founders left a message for us it was found in the U.S. Constitution with all the freedoms in our Bill of Rights handed to us “if we could keep them.”

A combination of religion and television has turned off most of the people living in America.

dougsmith - 22 November 2007 07:50 AM

Right, petty. Following your line of thought, one ought to append “probably” to nearly every statement one makes.

Uh, I think you meant to say “Following your line of thought, one probably ought to append ‘probably’ to nearly every statement one makes.”

In this case, however, it doesn’t work. An absurd belief is just one that is wildly improbable—like, believing that the moon is made of green cheese. Given the evidence before us, that is an absurd belief. Not “probably”. It’s even an absurd belief if the moon is in fact made of green cheese.

I’d say you radically overestimate the strength of the inductive argument from evil.  But I’m sure you didn’t wish to change the topic from Jonathan Miller’s film.

And taking two or three quotes (you still haven’t convinced me of one, and the other two look like small problems) out of a lengthy and very well spoken series strikes people as angry and petty because it is.

I’ve explained more than once that the three quotations I mentioned are merely the tip of the iceberg.  Believe it or don’t--that’s your prerogative--but spare me from the suggestion that I only object to two or three of the quotations Miller used.

One wonders what your ulterior motive is in bringing these up.

I probably have some severe psychological problem that invalidates any of my observations about the reliability of the quotations.  How’s that?  I’m kept captive in an insane asylum and they’ll only feed me my Chee-tos if I’ll agree to make senseless posts to message boards.  Like that one better?

Seriously, maybe you should examine your own response to my posts.  If you don’t think my observations about the quotations are legitimate, or at least not a great concern, fine.  Why would you concern yourself about my motivations?  Are they either here or there with respect to the topic?

Do you always write in to online discussion boards when you find errors with two sentences on TV series? I’d have thought at that rate you’d spend your entire life online pointing these things out!

Well, why do you think it took me so long to post here after first writing about it on my blog?  :grin:

… unless, of course, there’s something particularly about Miller’s personal story about atheism that has stuck in your craw. In particular, is there something you don’t like about this being perhaps the only open discussion of atheism and its history on television in living memory?

I’m a Christian and I think atheism cannot provide a coherent noetic foundation (IOW I doubt the ability of any atheistic world view to produce a coherent account of reality).  Feel better now?  But if you’d read my blog (I’m not suggesting you do so) you’d see that I research all manner of things and try to bring all manner of errors to light.  But I stick primarily with the ones that interest me most.  Weird, huh?

Debating any subject with a Christian is ridiculous as one needs to define terms before the debate begins.  You cannot define reality as you see something spiritual in everything.  I am much closer to reality than anyone who has to rely on a higher being to know what is right over what is not right.  Christians have been justifying terrible actions for 2000 years if these actions are done in the name of Jesus Christ.  Not even the Jews are that shallow.

Dear Sandy Price,

I repeat to you the question I posed to erasmusinfinity:

“God is an essence we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

Pretend you don’t know the background of this Frankenstein’s monster of a quotation.  What’s the awful blasphemy?

I’m not certain blasphemy is used correctly in the quotation.  Here is a commentary I wrote last week on the subject.

http://www.rightpov.com/

Sandy Price - 22 November 2007 08:54 AM

Debating any subject with a Christian is ridiculous as one needs to define terms before the debate begins.

OK.  What do you mean by “Christian”?
:grin:

Sandy Price - 22 November 2007 08:59 AM

I’m not certain blasphemy is used correctly in the quotation.  Here is a commentary I wrote last week on the subject.

http://www.rightpov.com/

Your commentary seems to be in left field with respect to our topic.  Adams apparently had some idea in mind when he used the term.  Whatever he intended is the meaning of the term in that context, regardless of any other expectations you may have, Sandy.

I suggest you try each of the following definitions where Adams used the term and see if you can make sense of what Adams wrote.

1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy

After that perhaps you’ll feel comfortable in answering my question.

Bryan - 22 November 2007 08:48 AM

I’d say you radically overestimate the strength of the inductive argument from evil.  But I’m sure you didn’t wish to change the topic from Jonathan Miller’s film.

I’m sure I did not. This was one of the topics of Miller’s film. And ... radically? Given the twisted justifications for evil one finds in theodicy, I’d say it’s the theologians who radically underestimate the strength of the arguments they are dealing with.

Bryan - 22 November 2007 08:48 AM

I’m a Christian and I think atheism cannot provide a coherent noetic foundation (IOW I doubt the ability of any atheistic world view to produce a coherent account of reality).  Feel better now?  But if you’d read my blog (I’m not suggesting you do so) you’d see that I research all manner of things and try to bring all manner of errors to light.  But I stick primarily with the ones that interest me most.  Weird, huh?

Aha. Now we’re past the smokescreen and into the heart of the issue. You picked out three quotes because you disagree with the entire message, and felt that those minor problems would be a convenient opening to attack the entire “noetic foundation” (wouldn’t it be easier just to say “intellectual foundation”?) of atheism. The quotes themselves are irrelevant to this larger attack; there are any number of other, similar ones Miller could have used. I showed one of them, above, from Madison.

As for the blog, I can’t say I’m going to go through and read it. However, I think if you’re serious about debating the real issues that brought you here, you should start up some separate threads on the forum so they can be discussed.

dougsmith - 22 November 2007 09:54 AM

Bryan - 22 November 2007 08:48 AM

I’d say you radically overestimate the strength of the inductive argument from evil.  But I’m sure you didn’t wish to change the topic from Jonathan Miller’s film.

I’m sure I did not. This was one of the topics of Miller’s film.

Touche. 
Amend that to “change the topic from the historical errors in Miller’s film.”

And ... radically? Given the twisted justifications for evil one finds in theodicy, I’d say it’s the theologians who radically underestimate the strength of the arguments they are dealing with.

Yes, radically.  :grin:

Bryan - 22 November 2007 08:48 AM

I’m a Christian and I think atheism cannot provide a coherent noetic foundation (IOW I doubt the ability of any atheistic world view to produce a coherent account of reality).  Feel better now?  But if you’d read my blog (I’m not suggesting you do so) you’d see that I research all manner of things and try to bring all manner of errors to light.  But I stick primarily with the ones that interest me most.  Weird, huh?

Aha. Now we’re past the smokescreen and into the heart of the issue.

The heart of the issue.  Right. 

You picked out three quotes because you disagree with the entire message, and felt that those minor problems would be a convenient opening to attack the entire “noetic foundation” (wouldn’t it be easier just to say “intellectual foundation”?) of atheism.

I don’t know the “entire message” of the film since I haven’t seen but snippets, and I haven’t expanded my criticism of Miller apart from the historical errors.  Great hypothesis, other than that.

I don’t need Miller’s film as a vehicle if I wish to criticize atheism’s weak metaphysical foundations.

The quotes themselves are irrelevant to this larger attack; there are any number of other, similar ones Miller could have used. I showed one of them, above, from Madison.

Ah, yes.  And I’m so inept in pushing my hidden agenda that I had already pointed out that Miller had better quotations to choose from before you brought it up.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/28184/

As for the blog, I can’t say I’m going to go through and read it. However, I think if you’re serious about debating the real issues that brought you here, you should start up some separate threads on the forum so they can be discussed.

I’ll get back to you after my existing conversations with Josh Strawn and Adam Lee have run their course.  Unless my hidden agenda bids me enter the fray sooner than that.

This conversation has me watching the series again, so thanks for that. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a transcript of the series which makes analysis a bit more difficult.

As far as the argument goes so far I am unconvinced of - “fairly deep problems that reflect poorly on any researchers involved in the project.” - “That’s just the tip of the iceberg.” - “Miller’s work an embarrassment in this regard.”

I have seen three quotes with the idea that this is a “tip of the iceberg”.

Also, from the BBC interview with the director of the series, Richard Denton, we find some references.

BBC Four: Were you surprised to find the first American presidents were so sceptical about religion?
RD: I was incredibly struck by their quotations - these guys wouldn’t even get considered as candidates if they said anything like that now. And I was depressed by that because it made me feel that we have not made a great deal of progress since the Age of Enlightenment. If anything, we’re going backwards at the moment.

BBC Four: What were your main references?
RD: There’s a very short pamphlet-type book called the Western Atheism: A Short History by James Thrower, a Scottish academic. There’s also a History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell by David Berman. Otherwise we went back to the original sources - from David Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature; Lucretius’ The Nature of All Things. We read the Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, books on Darwin. The System of Nature by the Baron D’Holbach. They were not so easy to find.

Western Atheism by Thrower is published through Prometheus books and History of Atheism in Britain is offered as well. These may hold the quotes under question. 

But, still claiming what is offered is the “tip of the iceberg” is implying a systemic problem which can be shown readily. So far I see one quote repeated three times and referred to Frankenstein, and the repeat of the “iceberg”. Also, if the feeling is that the conversation is being thwarted, then all one has to do is offer the evidence. I am still looking into this, to see for myself, and to see the context they are placed.

But, please, offer more then the “tip” of this problem.

zarcus - 22 November 2007 12:44 PM

This conversation has me watching the series again, so thanks for that. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a transcript of the series which makes analysis a bit more difficult.

I provided a link to a collection of quotations purportedly from the series (in my original post to the thread, albeit via a subsequent edit).
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/28175/

Hopefully that will make things easier on you.

As far as the argument goes so far I am unconvinced of - “fairly deep problems that reflect poorly on any researchers involved in the project.” - “That’s just the tip of the iceberg.” - “Miller’s work an embarrassment in this regard.”

I have seen three quotes with the idea that this is a “tip of the iceberg”.

When I publish the entirety of my research on this topic it will be to my blog, not to this discussion board.  Three examples are sufficient to demonstrate a problem.  If you’re interested in doing additional inquiry, fine.  If not, fine.

Also, from the BBC interview with the director of the series, Richard Denton, we find some references.

BBC Four: Were you surprised to find the first American presidents were so sceptical about religion?
RD: I was incredibly struck by their quotations - these guys wouldn’t even get considered as candidates if they said anything like that now. And I was depressed by that because it made me feel that we have not made a great deal of progress since the Age of Enlightenment. If anything, we’re going backwards at the moment.

BBC Four: What were your main references?
RD: There’s a very short pamphlet-type book called the Western Atheism: A Short History by James Thrower, a Scottish academic. There’s also a History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell by David Berman. Otherwise we went back to the original sources - from David Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature; Lucretius’ The Nature of All Things. We read the Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, books on Darwin. The System of Nature by the Baron D’Holbach. They were not so easy to find.

Granted, not every Amazon reviewer actually reads the books they review, but check this out:
“However, even a book intended to discuss only Western atheism should cover more than just Europe, because Western thought encompasses the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.”
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1573927562?showViewpoints=1

Makes it sound like Thrower only covered Europe, doesn’t it?
Nor did Jefferson or Adams rate in the index:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1573927562/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8538795-6762539#reader-link

Judging from the other titles mentioned, I judge that the quotations of early Americans were not referenced to any of the specific sources mentioned.  The director appeared to answer in terms of the series as a whole rather than as though the question were a direct follow-up to the preceding question.
Nice try, though.

Western Atheism by Thrower is published through Prometheus books and History of Atheism in Britain is offered as well. These may hold the quotes under question.

I doubt it.  We should expect some mention in the index if that were the case. 

But, still claiming what is offered is the “tip of the iceberg” is implying a systemic problem which can be shown readily. So far I see one quote repeated three times and referred to Frankenstein, and the repeat of the “iceberg”.

If I can’t get anyone to recognize that quotation as a problem then there’s no point in offering additional evidence.  I take it you agree that the quotation is a problem (please confirm or deny)?

Also, if the feeling is that the conversation is being thwarted, then all one has to do is offer the evidence.

Since when is three quotations not evidence?

I am still looking into this, to see for myself, and to see the context they are placed.

I applaud your initiative.  Would you have bothered if there were no evidence in support of the assertion of problems?

But, please, offer more then the “tip” of this problem.

Please see the list of quotations I provided, along with the guidance that I offered specifying that the weakness concerns American history.