Defaulting to ignorance: What Bill O’Reilly and the Insane Clown Posse have in common

2011 February 9
more by

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 154

Bill O’Reilly is a conservative political commentator who is best known for his TV show “The O’Reilly Factor” and its many associated books. Recently, he got into some hot water over comments he made about life, the universe and everything. This is the quote you’ll hear often regarding this issue:

“Okay, how did the moon get there? How’d the moon get there? Look, you pinheads who attacked me for this, you guys are just desperate. How’d the moon get there? How’d the sun get there? …Can you explain that to me? How come we have that and Mars doesn’t have it? Venus doesn’t have it. How come? Why not? How’d it get here?”

Here’s the video of the above:

YouTube Preview Image

This comment was made in response to viewer feedback, after an earlier broadcast had him claiming that the Earth’s tides were proof God created the Universe – since we didn’t know how the tides worked, O’Reilly claimed, that was proof of the existence of God.

Every commentary I’ve read on this issue so far addressed the point that O’Reilly is factually wrong: Yes, we do know how the tides work. We know how the moon and sun “got there”. These issues have been addressed in plenty of detail by people much smarter than I. So I’m not going to tackle them here.

Most criticism of this issue misses a more important point than O’Reilly being factually wrong. Yes, he didn’t know some basic science. He then proceeded to plant himself deeper in his hole by backing up his claim with more examples of Stuff We Don’t Know, although it turns out We Do.

O’Reilly’s problem is not in knowing specific answers. His problem is in assuming that because we don’t know something, then “God did it”.

In his response to scientific criticism, O’Reilly moved from talking about the tides to talking about the moon and the sun. I see where he’s going with this. If we then tell him how the moon and sun are formed, he’ll pull back the camera to encompass an even bigger picture. He might say something like:

“Okay, pinhead, then how’d the solar system get here? How’d the Universe get here? Why is there anything at all?“

O’Reilly claims that because we don’t know something, God (presumably the Christian god) is the answer, because if something exists, it must have had a creator. That sounds nice on the surface, until we use his technique and pull back the viewpoint. We might respond with something like this:

“Okay, Bill, then how’d the Universe get here? You say your god made it? How did your god get here? Why is there anything at all?“

The answer to this question: God always existed. He exists outside of time and space. However:

1) How is it that a god can always have existed, but the Universe can not? It’s frustrating to me that, when religious people claim that their god created the Universe, they don’t worry about the creation of their god, who supposedly has always existed. If you can accept a god that always existed, why can’t you accept a Universe that always existed?

2) Saying ’I don’t know’ does not mean ‘I give up’. O’Reilly’s attitude indicates that a sensible person must respond to him with, “because I can’t answer your question, God must be the answer”. Listen to the rest of his commentary – he seems to believe this himself, and expects his audience to follow this same logic. However, I don’t have a problem saying ‘I don’t know’. But I do have a problem with people who explain their ignorance by defaulting to an even more unknowable and complex explanation. They shrug their mental shoulders and default to a “god did it” explanation. To me, this is the same as saying, “Because I do not have an answer myself, there must be a supernatural answer and I will not search further. I see no need to learn about this or research it. I won’t evolve and life will not improve.”

This is the refusal to explore our world’s many mysteries. Even worse, it’s to state that you have no interest in doing so. This is willful ignorance. This is mental stagnation.

Bill O’Reilly isn’t the only one. He’s got plenty of partners in intellectual crime. Like the Insane Clown Posse, the hip-hop group who released a song called “Miracles”. Here are some applicable lyrics:

******* rainbows, after it rains
There’s enough miracles here to blow your brains

…Fire, water, air and dirt
******* magnets, how do they work?

…And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
y’all ************* lying, and gettin’ me pissed

The Insane Clown Posse is another version of Bill O’Reilly’s original point: If we don’t know the answer to a scientific question, it’s better to remain ignorant and call it a god-given miracle, rather than to try and solve the mystery.

Calling a rainbow a miracle is laughable. Calling a magnet a miracle is cringe-inducing. This mindset leads to poor education and scientific regression.

I’d rather research chemistry and biology to find ways to heal the sick and cure disease.

I’d rather learn physics and astronomy and explore our Universe so we can eventually move off this limited-lifespan planet.

I’d rather use science to understand our world and make our lives better.

Anything less is uncivilized.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Astronomy, Politics, Pop Culture, Science

4 Comments
2011 February 10
Obvious Sock-puppet 23 permalink

Good points; as stated elsewhere, my guess is that the BOR had a decent theological education including traditional Thomist ‘natural law’ theory which he’s trying to dumb-down for a general audience.
I think the shame of it is that even if you posit there being an intelligence ordering the Universe behind the scenes, that does not imply that that intelligence care one jot for us—-many of the better Founders and those physical scientists who didn’t want to ditch God entirely believed that He set the thing up and walked away, which belief I think would also irritate our Billo whilst still satisfying the ‘f—-n’ tides, how do they work?’ argument.

2011 February 10
Matt R permalink

I am guessing he was not a philosophy major in college.

2011 February 11
richard permalink

I’m guessing BOR was a little turd at school, and should’ve been beaten with a big stick when he spoke!

2011 July 15
M. permalink

Belief in God – the God of the Bible – requires faith.  He is invisible.  But the whole universe testifies of His eternality and wisdom. 

Rationality disintegrates without faith.  Think about this.  You come to a building.  It is composed of many large stones which are cut and fitted together in a precise geometrical arrangement.  It has large pillars evenly spaced and an entrance suitable for the passage of people into and out of it.  It has a floor composed of finely cut marble.  When you see this building, you don’t ask yourself if it is a created thing.  You assume it is.  But who built it?  What if the builder has been dead for centuries?  You could not touch, smell or see the builder.  No matter, the builder’s existence (past or present) is beyond dispute: There is a building.

You’re walking along a beach.  There is no one around.  You come upon an easel.  On it is a beautiful painting of a woman.  You wonder who the painter is.  But you never question that there is a painter.

This is how I, one who believes the Bible is God’s word, approach the universe and everything in it.  You know, I disagree with your conclusions, but your existence – you, personally - fill me with wonder and awe of God.  You are intelligent.  You can communicate.  You can relate your experiences in this world to others, including me.  You have a unique personality, and everyone else is unique from you.  That in itself is amazing.  An impersonal universe cannot give rise to personality.  A personal God who exists eternally in three distinct persons in perfect fellowship explains personality.     

If God didn’t make the universe, how did it get here?  One might say, “It created itself.”  But this is self-defeating.  It could not have created itself unless it existed to create itself.  One might say, “It is eternal.”  From the Christian point of view, this is simply a form of idolatry – putting the universe in the place of God. 

If the universe is finite, then it must have a cause.  If the universe is infinite, then no true knowledge is possible.    

If one starts with himself to construct meaning out of existence and reality, he inevitably destroys rationality.  You cannot get to the God of the Bible by climbing the ladder of human reasoning.  You cannot know anything if human reasoning is the ultimate arbiter of knowing.  

     

Comments are closed for this entry.