Penn and Teller - Friends?

[Dntsycnt]

A good point, but I'm not talking about a few flaws here and there.  I'm talking about a churlish attitude, that takes a shallow view of a subject, without even considering that deeper study might completely change their point of view.  Such people tend to be uninterested in actual discussion on that topic, just invective.  They create the most absurd straw men out of their cursory study, then scoff when someone tries to "explain it away," by shedding light on the subject.

I like your argument.  "You don't agree with me because you're ignorant because if you had studied you would agree with me."  Yeah.  It's not like anyone has devoted an enormous portion of their time to studying, discussing, debating, and writing books about said topic and come to a different conclusion. 

[MechAg94]

A good point, but I'm not talking about a few flaws here and there.  I'm talking about a churlish attitude, that takes a shallow view of a subject, without even considering that deeper study might completely change their point of view.  Such people tend to be uninterested in actual discussion on that topic, just invective.  They create the most absurd straw men out of their cursory study, then scoff when someone tries to "explain it away," by shedding light on the subject.

I like your argument.  "You don't agree with me because you're ignorant because if you had studied you would agree with me."  Yeah.  It's not like anyone has devoted an enormous portion of their time to studying, discussing, debating, and writing books about said topic and come to a different conclusion. 

I think it all depends on what issues were addressed.  I haven't seen that Bible episode, but a lot of other shows I have seen seem to cover it based on surface/shallow issues from a perspective of non-belief.  I have seen some that were wholly caught up in Catholic Church issues that had little or no bearing on my beliefs at all.  I can understand that since then it would turn into a sermon or the opposite.  I don't expect much from anything on TV on that subject.  The History Channel has a few shows on the history of Israel, but mostly they were non-faith, historical accounts and pretty much assumed no miracles or divine intervention.  They were interesting to watch nonetheless. 

It is sort of like when I see liberal Democrats comment on what conservatives think.  Often enough, their comments don't address my position on the issues at all.

[Perd Hapley]

A good point, but I'm not talking about a few flaws here and there.  I'm talking about a churlish attitude, that takes a shallow view of a subject, without even considering that deeper study might completely change their point of view.  Such people tend to be uninterested in actual discussion on that topic, just invective.  They create the most absurd straw men out of their cursory study, then scoff when someone tries to "explain it away," by shedding light on the subject.

I like your argument.  "You don't agree with me because you're ignorant because if you had studied you would agree with me."  Yeah.  It's not like anyone has devoted an enormous portion of their time to studying, discussing, debating, and writing books about said topic and come to a different conclusion.  

Huh?  I was talking about those who HAVEN'T studied the topic with any depth.  I'm not expecting Penn and Teller to be born again, I'm just saying their arguments are shallow.  If they scratched beneath the surface, they might at least quit beating at straw men, and have a half-way respectable argument.

[Iain]

Yes but without naming the specific episode because it will turn into another one of 'those threads', I can think of at least one other episode where they did no more than scratch the surface, tilt at windmills and beat at straw men.

So you've got one you spotted. I've got one I spotted. Think if we keep looking we might find that the show is only great if you agree with their angle and don't examine things in too much detail? Like say, most opinion based television - entertaining, but that's about it.

[Perd Hapley]

Point taken.

OK, it's been a while since I saw it.  I just watched it again, and I'll have to restate that their Bible episode was almost a monument to fuzzy thinking, intellectual laziness and intellectual sloppiness.  I say almost, because it was only ten minutes long.  Yeah, Iain, a short popular presentation has its limits, but surely they could have done better.  It's just laughable. 

Just to hit a few highlights:

Half the show is an interview with some un-named guy who obviously has no clue.  No, I'm sorry, the two accounts of the creation of Man are NOT some kind of faith-breaking contradiction.  Not even close. 

No, literal does NOT mean what you think it means, there, stud. 

Then, he objects that there is no evidence of anyone named Moses, other than in the Bible, but that just doesn't count, so his argument doesn't even rise to the level of a respectably illogical argument from silence.

Better yet, he objects that there is no evidence that the Hebrews wandered in the desert for forty years.       What evidence does he expect a bunch of nomads to leave behind, that would survive the intervening thousands of years, and other nomads that tracked all over their stuff?  We didn't even find the Dead Sea Scrolls for two thousand years, and those boys stayed in one place for I think a couple of centuries. 

Then Penn (or whichever is the big one) informs us that Jesus claimed he would heal the sick, but he "only cures the ones he happens to bump into."  Despite being contrary to any evidence we do have, what exactly is his objection here? 


/Rant off.


To be fair, yes, they did cover a couple of points that were harder to deal with.  But if they were hoping to debunk the Bible, they simply failed. 

[Dntsycnt]

I'm not going to get into a debate...I'm just going to say that you not understanding the basis or implications of their arguments does not negate the value of those arguments.

Was it really ten minutes long?  I thought all their shows were an hour (with commercials).

[Perd Hapley]

No.  The criticisms of which I speak are simply bogus.  To speciously malign my understanding accomplishes nothing.  Well, Mike probably gets a kick out of it, so maybe that's worth it.     

And the video I saw just now was a ten-minute bit on YouTube.  I think I saw a longer version a couple of years ago.