Documentary vs Documentary-Style -- aka Reality vs Fiction

Let's take a break from picking on the Discovery Institute.  I know it will be a short one because they are bound and determined to post something incredibly stupid that just begs a response.  Until then . . . this morning I caught a post from CNN, no not that CNN, but the Christian News Network.  "Is Genesis History? New Film Affirms Truthfulness of Biblical Record".  Here's the opening paragraph:

"A soon-to-be-released documentary-style film, featuring footage from around the U.S. and interviews with over a dozen scholars and scientists, will provide visual evidence and scientific arguments for the Bible’s accounts of Creation and the Flood."

Documentary-style?  Just what does that mean?  Is it a documentary or not?  Wikipedia defines a Documentary Film as (I added the underlines for later emphasis):

" . . . a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record."(Wikipedia: Documentary_Film)

So, a documentary-style film looks like a documentary, feels like a documentary, might even be as boring as many documentaries, but it's missing at least one of the key elements that make it a documentary, which is why they call it a documentary-style.  I wonder which one it is?  Let's poke around a little  Here's a quote from the end of the article:

"I want people to see this, and to realize that Genesis is the cornerstone for the history of the world."

Apparently, this is supposed to be educational, so it meets one of the primary purposes of a documentary.  It is a motion picture, so it meets that requirement to be a documentary film as well.  So what's left?

A documentary is nonfiction and some aspect of reality -- so for all of the posturing of this press release, and more than likely the film itself, it isn't based on reality, thereby qualifying it as a documentary-style rather than a true documentary.  Just to be sure, I also looked up the definition of documentary on Merriam-Webster and they said:

"a presentation (as a film or novel) expressing or dealing with factual events" (Merriam-Webster: Documentary)

So, we can see by that definition, this particular 'documentary-style' film must not be dealing with factual events.  This whole documentary vs documentary-style might seem like a nit, but for organizations who like to play word games, we have to remind them that words have meaning.  This film is not based on fact, historical or otherwise.  The Bible is not a history book, no matter how much Biblical Literalists want it to be.  OK, so we now know this film is fiction, that is not dealing with factual events.  OK, so now what?

" . . . features interviews with respected Christian scientists, including microbiologist Kevin Anderson, astronomer Danny Faulkner, geologist Andrew Snelling, and several others."

Let's see - Anderson, Faulkner, and Snelling.  Oh you know me, I have to find out who these guys are:

• Kevin Anderson is the Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center and the Editor-in-Chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ).  His bio, from the CreationWiki, claims he has authored over 20 papers, yet they only mention 4 of then, two for Creation Matters and 2 for CRSQ (remember, he is the editor-in-chief of CRSQ).  I guess the other 16 weren't that important.
• Danny Faulkner is also a member of the Creation Research Society and serves as the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.  There seems to be a conflict, since Anderson is listed as the editor-in-chief, yet Danny here is also the editor?  Can you have more than one?  It's published quarterly, how many editors do you need?  Danny is also a Researcher/Speaker at Answers in Genesis (AiG).
• Andrew Snelling is also at Answers in Genesis (AiG) as their Director of Research, speaker on various topics, and serves as editor-in-chief of the online Answers Research Journal.

As you can see, the only identified speakers are from very Biblical Literalist organizations.  Even though claiming the Bible should be taken literally is, in itself, an interpretation.  This, like so many other criticisms, tend to be ignored by such literalists.  

I do love the description 'respected Christian scientists'.  Do you know who are respected Christian, or really any other theistic, scientists?  Ones whose religious beliefs do not blind them to the reality of the world around them.  Actually respected scientists as a whole are those who do not let their views on multiple matters affect their ability to view the world.  Look at the scientists who opposed leaded additives?  It's not the ones who sided with the industry who made the additives that turned out to be well-respected, it was the ones who identified the problem and fought for decades to have the problem fixed.  How many of you respect the scientists who work, or in many cases worked, for the tobacco companies?  Especially those who did the 'science' that supported the many statements form those companies telling up cigarettes aren't bad for us, they are not habit forming . . . all the while upping the chemicals that made it more addicting and harmful.

Look at AiG and it's cabal of 'creation' scientists.  Look at their published works.  The only ones who are respected outside their theist organization are those whose scientific work is not based on their theology.  Little kennie ham, AiG, identified one of them for us a while back in this post from his blog: "A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  No one has ever pointed to any part of the theories behind magnetic imaging and said "and here is where God did such-and-such." or "here is the part that is based on creationism".  The celebrated work was not based on any religious belief, but on actual science -- supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  The idea of a 'creation scientist' is more and more just another creationist, simply one with a degree they can wave around but never use in conjunction with their beliefs.  Think of them as just a poster child for creationism.

I guess they have several others speakers.  Hmmm, several usually means 3 or 4.  These three plus 3 or 4 more doesn't add up to the dozen mentioned in the opening paragraph.  So is counting a Creationist problem?  Oh yea, 6000 = 4,500,000,000 . . . so I guess it is.  What else is going on here:

" . . . the film’s host, Del Tackett, guides viewers through over a dozen locations and landmarks to explore the competing views of creation and evolution."

So this documentary-style film, which is apparently not based on reality is going to present creation AND evolution? So who is going to present evolution?  Have they got an actual evolutionary biologist?  Doubtful!  Apparently a creationist will do the explanation. Oh yea, this is going to be a fair representation, right?  I would guess that any actual biologist probably turned down their invite, if they got one at all.

 It reminds me of one of the books by Ann Coulter, you know the Bill O'Reilly for people who can actually read. She decided to learn about the whole Evolution vs ID issue by visiting the Discovery Institute. There, she knelt down in front of a few of their usual talking heads and swallowed the kool-aid without a single discerning thought. Now a reasonable person might have taken a little bit of time to get the scientific view from . . . oh, I don't know . . . actual working biologists, but not Coulter, she prefers her science of the pseudo-science variety.

So there is going to be a one-sided view portrayed as showing both sides to support an allegorical story and it's being labeled as history.  OK, I think I understand now.  Somehow I don't think this will change any minds, but simply reinforce the beliefs of people who already think Genesis is a literal reading of history.

I won't see it in theaters, but if it follows the normal path, it will eventually end up on You Tube and I will watch it there.  My expectation, low as it might be, is that this movie will visit a number of historical and archaeological sites and then present the less than original idea that since many of the places mentioned in the Bible are true, then Genesis has to be true.  Much like the 'fact' that Baltimore MD and Washington DC exists must mean that the Super Bowl in Denver was hit by a nuclear bomb just like it says in that Tom Clancy book.  Yes, Clancy does write fiction, but didn't we already determine that this documentary-style film is not based in reality either?

Is Atheism a Religion?

Caught this from The Immoral Minority. "My new mantra."  For a change I read all the comments, some of them are hilarious!  The post introduced this:

"Atheism is not a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality." (source)

Even before going to the source I saw this as humorous, as in how many people like to try and define their religion as a 'personal relationship with  . . . pick a deity of your choice.  In the comments a couple of other analogies were mentioned that I might be using in the future:

"Atheism is a religion like "bald" is a hair color.
Atheism is being religious just like NOT playing guitar makes one a musician.

Caught a few more from the source:

Atheism is a religion, like off is a T.V. channel.
Like good health is a disease
Like abstinence is a sexual position -Bill Maher
Atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby- Penn Jilette
[Like] Mute is a musical genre

Many of the comments devolved into a common argument that Atheism is some sort of religion.  All you have to do is look up the definitions of both Religion and Atheism and you can see the differences.

Religion (Merriam-Webster):
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group 

Atheism (Merriam-Webster):
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I am sure one of the anti-atheists will point to the third definition of religion and say something like "See, I told you Atheism is a religion", but I say not so fast!

When you are having a discussion, context is probably more important than any specific definitions that might exist.  I mean look at the definition of the word 'base'.  There are 9 different categories of 'base', everything from the 'opposite of an acid', a Air Force location, to the 'four corners of a baseball diamond'.  Context is what determines what definition applies to a given conversation.  More importantly, the context should remain consistent in a conversation in order for actual communication to occur.  

I mean can you imagine a baseball announcer saying "Jones just slid into third base, and while he was safe, the pH level of the base burned his exposed skin badly!" Huh?  Changing from one definition to another in mid-stream is a tactic . . . usually of the gutter variety . . . in order to try trip people up.

Let's look at the first definition of Religion:

"the belief in a god or in a group of gods"

When you are talking Christianity, Hindi, Muslim . . . or any of the thousands of Religions that exist, or have existed, this definition certainly applies.  Does this definition apply to Atheism?  Don't change any of the words . . . look at the definition!  No it cannot!  So when discussing the two, if you are keeping the context coherent, Atheism is not a religion, according to this definition.

Now for number two:

"an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"

While I would say this is more for 'Organized Religion' than just 'religion', let's ask the same question, does this apply to Atheism?  No, it does not.  As soon as you mention worshiping a god or gods, you cannot apply this definition to Atheism.  Atheism is not a religion, again according to this definition.

Now for number 3:

": an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group "

Yes, this definition can apply to Atheism . . . but look how vague and general it is.  This definition can apply to damn near anything!  According to this, Baseball is a religion . . .OK that might be a bad example because I know some folks who do think baseball is a religion!  But look again, the Girl Scouts are a religion, according to this definition.  Hell's Angels, a High School band, a game of Stoop-Ball (NYC reference) . . . the club some of my buddies and I formed when we were 8 years old qualifies as well, our doctrine was "No Girls Allowed!".  Got a weekly poker game?  You didn't realize that it could meet the definition of a religion as well.

You could say some of these things aren't 'very important', but that would be an opinion.  I follow the NY Mets . . . but I don't consider Baseball to be very important . . . others don't share my interest and still others place a much higher value on it.  My club when I was 8 was of critical importance at the time, after girls had cooties :-).  I know a couple of guys who take their weekly poker game incredibly seriously, to the point of threatening their marriages and jobs!  It's up to the individual as to what level of importance something is, not anyone on the outside.  That's why this definition is pretty useless.

Why useless?  Think about context -- and look at the third definition again.  How many theists would use that to define their religion?  Be honest!  Therefore you cannot use this definition to make an apples-to-apples comparison between Atheism and Religion because theist wouldn't use this definition to frame a conversation about their religion.  It's too general to be useful.  That and all the bennies they get in the way of taxes and other things might dry up if belief in a deity wasn't involved, right?  

But as you read the comments from Gryphen's post, you see this sort of bait-and-switch happening. Some of the Anonymous comments certainly show that when discussing their beliefs, they are using definition one or two . . but when trying to claim Atheism is a religion, the only definition they can use is the third . . . which does nothing for their case.  They simply change the context, whether deliberately or without realizing it.

So, in my opinion, Atheism is not a Religion in any sense of the word.  It espouses no belief, it is not organized, there are no Churches establish for the non-worship of a non-deity.  Yes, there are some groups of like-minded people who have banded together, but while you can define them as a social or cultural group, they are not a religion any more than the live audience of America's Got Talent is . . . by definition.

One thing I haven't addressed is why, in my opinion, do people try and equate the two.  That's pretty easy.  When you artificially equate two things, you can more easily argue against one or in support of the other.  It's the same tactic calling Evolution 'just a theory', changing the definition of a scientific theory to the definition of the colloquial use of the term 'theory' is an effort to degrade what a scientific theory really means.  Calling Atheism a religion is a similar tactic.  Claiming a non-belief is actually a belief artificially equates the two and makes it easier to argue.  What theists who make such argument fail to realize is how amusing it is to watching the pseudo-logic you use to justify your position.  Gotta love things like:

"I think religion can be simply defined as a "system of beliefs". Under that definition, atheism is a system of belief that consists of "I only believe what can be proven"."

Look how the theist had to come up with their own definitions in order to equate the two! How entertaining is that?  Their definition of religion is nearly as useless as the third one from above, and their definition of Atheism is nonsensical.  Seriously, if that were the definition of Atheism . . . and Atheism is the polar opposite of Religion . . . then the theist's belief in a religion would be "I only believe in what cannot be proven." and be even sillier than their professed beliefs.

For the record I do not categorize myself as a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic.  I am an Apathist.  In other words, I don't care about your religious or non-religious beliefs -- well not until you try and force them on me.  Funny, I think I discovered another difference between the Theist and the Atheist, guess which one keeps trying to force me to comply with their beliefs?  You get one guess and it's not the Atheist.

Yes, I am sure some Theist is going to claim that Atheist efforts to remove mention of a deity from government-sponsored events is forcing their Atheistic 'beliefs' on me . . . but remember, who pushing their religion into those events in the first place?  For example the American Pledge of Allegiance did not originally include the phrase 'Under God' until 1954!  How many times have theists been pushing to have their religion taught in Science class or even History class , , , yes History as in the foolish claim that The US was established as a Christian Nation . . . that History.

While I do think that some Atheists go a little overboard.  I mean Christmas is more of a secular holiday nowadays, so whining when someone says "Merry Christmas" is a bit ridiculous.  But for decades Theists have pretty well had a free hand to define so many things with regard to their religion and forced other people to comply . .  like blue laws . . . I am one that hopes common sense eventually wins out, but looking at the current crop of politicians, I doubt it.

But back to the main point.  Atheism is not a religion and anyone who makes such a claim is building a strawman in order to take pot-shots at it.  Which means, at least to me, you have no actual argument and certainly no real defense for your theist beliefs . .  so you have to create artificial arguments in order to justify your belief set.  Good luck with that.