Opus 2025-002: Orange God Bad

I am getting close to the end of the Joe Rogan program (2008) where he interviews Stephen Meyer.  Overall, it’s an interesting conversation.  Since I’ve read a couple of Meyer’s books, I am not shocked by anything he has to say or surprised by the scientific basis of what he is saying.  I did find at least two things very frustrating.

The first was how Rogan kept asking the same question every 10 or 15 minutes through the whole interview.  To paraphrase that question it would be, “Yeah, but what if?”  He kept wanting to say what if 400 years from now we have these big breakthroughs and find all kinds of neat cool stuff that just proves your point totally wrong, “What then?”  This, of course, is just an intellectual approach to playing the Why Game.  It is a pointless task based on just a wild hope that something will prove you wrong.  It isn’t that you don’t make sense.  It is not because facts are not on your side.  It isn’t because you refuse to admit the nature of science is change and new information.  It is because for you to be right people like Rogan would be confronted with a need to change.  They will sacrifice anything to cling to their assumptions.  It is almost as if they are the mirror image of what they accuse others of being.

I’m not saying that there might not be new discoveries to prove current theories wrong.  Meyer kept repeating that science is never settled and he expects there to be new discoveries.  I’m just saying that there is no basis at this point for projecting such discoveries, and it’s rather childish to put your faith in wild speculation.  

The second frustration would be on the part of Meyer to me.  One of the things I picked up in reading his books was the dishonesty of scientists in their inner motivations.  I don’t know how many times he pointed out in his books that the only real reason why many physicist had a hard time excepting the Big Bang Theory was because it would point toward the existence of a god.  In other words, their atheistic theological perspective was the assumption and mold for all of their thinking, and they refused to consider anything that went against that basic assumption.  How similar to the caricature of Fundamentalist Christians.

To use their terminology, your typical liberal, materialistic, atheistic scientist is living in his own version of “orange man bad” but in this case it is God with the orange hair.  That seems to be the answer to everything.  It has no basis in reality, but they insist on rejecting anything having to do with God, or pointing towards the existence of God, with a simple statement, “Orange God bad.”

Rogen and Meyer had a good discussion.  Both sides were respectful.  I still have about a half hour to go so I don’t know if they will reach any conclusions but I would recommend it.
homo unius libri

homo unius libri