First, if you haven't read
my blog on the heroics of Rob Lehr with the
Give A Damn project, please do.
I will also start by saying that there is a place in this world for people like Ben over at
War on Error, who edit their posts meticulously in the interest of not putting out the wrong vibe. I am not one of those people. I have a blog to say what's on my mind, and right now my mind is pretty livid with some people.
But first the important stuff. Rob has
posted a blog detailing the plane crash, and it is one of the more touching things I've ever read. I strongly urge everybody to read it. He's also posted an interview with Dan a day after the crash.
I know I have sung Rob's praises at length, but his blog reveals another aspect of his heroism I had not yet heard about:
"At the hospital, our travel insurance that was purchased before the trip was flat out denied by the hospital, and having dealt with a multi-thousand dollar uninsured hospital visits before, I made a quick decision. As soon as I realized our insurance wasn’t going to work, I got off the gurney, removed the electrodes and told them to stop charging me immediately, and to do whatever they could for Dan. I then requested some Gauss and materials to clean my own wounds, and I’ll never forgot the look on the nurses face when I put my melted synthetic backpacking pants back on and then pulled up a chair next to Dan to talk him through his pain. For the next 7 hours I refused pain killers and stayed by Dan’s side as much as possible until I was confident that he was safe, and I knew what had happened to the other passengers."
Let me reiterate that: with a gash on his head that would later require six stitches, burns from reaching through fire to save the co-pilot, and pieces of the melted seat grafted by the flames onto his skin, Rob refused treatment and pain killers in the interest of helping Dan.
Rob's blog is posted on Conversant Life, a Christian web site that supports the film. While there is an outpouring of admiration and sympathy, you can imagine some of the things that turned up in the comments...
"May God continue to give you his grace and peace and healing."
If what these young men have had to endure can be indicative of god's grace, then I would hope that Rob and Dan get as far away from him as possible.
Also, god is healing them? Perhaps you noticed the steady beeping in the above video emanating from the products of
human ingenuity that are sustaining Dan? Perhaps the mortals who rushed them to the hospital, risking their own life and limb in the process, or the doctors who operated on them should get some of the credit (note that by "some" I mean, "all")? If god is so interested in bestowing his grace, why let the plane crash in the first place? Could god's plan to show his goodness really be to kill a 35 year-old pilot (leaving his wife and four children without a provider), to mangle one of his followers, and to horribly scar (and perhaps kill) the co-pilot? Is this part of god's plan that us mortals are just too dense to comprehend? Give me a break.

And what of peace? These people will
never be the same again. The trauma will likely haunt them for years at a minimum. If the psychological wounds are at all mitigated, it will be by flesh and blood counselors employing tested means and modern medicine in an effort to unmake the "peace" that god has bestowed upon these people. Trying to paint something meaningful and miraculous in having a burning, bleeding friend's face in your mind is pretty shitty, and it takes a mind so drunk on faith that any horror, no matter how wretched, can be paraded out as evidence of god's "goodness." Again, it is suggested that we are to thank god for the travesty simply because it didn't turn out
worse.
But there is one comment I found to be particularly odious.
"The story does require this one question: if you saved Ryan, and you saved Dan...Who saved you?"
I suspect that this pious pissant is implying in a none-too-subtle fashion that an all-knowing, all-powerful god, who knew in advance that the plane would crash, watched it crash, let Dan get ripped to shreds, burned the co-pilot into a coma, and killed the pilot before leaving it to the non-believer to drag his crippled body back into the plane to rescue the two survivors, should receive the credit for inspiring Rob's heroics after all of that? Or perhaps god is to receive the credit for not killing Rob outright so that Rob could go rescue the believer while god was too occupied leaving a calling card for his "goodness" to reach his divine hand into the plane and pull anybody out?
Here's one for you, dumbass: if god was interested in rescuing any of them,
why did he not just stop the plane from crashing? This type of penitent idiocy makes me want to vomit blood.
But most importantly, how could any compassionate person try and take the credit away from Rob for what he did? How could this person even think about minimizing Rob's sacrifice and pain in the interest of proselytizing his myths to any of us, but especially to Rob? Only through faith could somebody so eagerly play the parasite and consider it holy.
But this contemptible cross-peddler manages to sink even lower.
"I wonder if Dan or Ryan wrote their story as you did, and closed with "Although I don't believe Rob exists, I consider his children a friend", if their story wouldn't beg the same question?"
Beg the question? Rob was there at the time, saving everybody despite how much it hurt. Tangibly. Witnesses saw it. Where the fuck was god? Off being pissed about two men swapping spit?
Yeah Rob, you did pretty well, but shouldn't you be grateful to my god for what you did? Fuck. No.
Then there was this one:
"I hope someday you will come face to face with the God who defeats and has control over death."
Really? Last I checked, all Christians die. If god has control over death, he bloody missed his chance to employ it, didn't he?
Let's talk about what it takes to really have power over death...
- A particularly noble human being to pull the believers from the plane that god, if he exists, just watched crash...meanwhile, believers pray.
- Other brave human beings to rush the injured survivors to the hospital, risking their own well-being in the process...meanwhile, believers pray.
- Doctors trained in techniques acquired through centuries of the scientific method treating them...meanwhile, believers pray.
- The doctors having tools at their disposal with which to treat them, that are also the product of human comprehension, without so much as a nod from the bible hinting at how to develop them...meanwhile, believers pray.

Had Rob not been willing to march back into the cinders of that wreckage, a believer would have died. At every step, the credit for our ability to conquer death belongs exclusively to human goodness and intelligence, while a group of the faithful sits idly by with clasped hands thinking they too are helping. Again, that someone could try and steal some of Rob's nobility in an attempt to build up a god that can, at best, be described as apathetic to the lives of these people, is pretty damn rotten.
Yes, these people are being more stupid than malicious, I can readily admit this. But it's a stupidity that is a result of forgoing their ability to think critically and to honestly assess the situation for what it truly is - a trait that their beliefs demand of them. All the prayer in the world would not have shuffled Dan or Ryan from that crash. The bible gives instructions on how to beat slaves and sacrifice animals, but not a word about how to construct the devices that are currently being utilized to heal the survivors.
And frankly, it is not hope or the nobility of truth that allows anybody to hear of a tragedy like this and rejoice at god's goodness - it is madness, and it is an addictive madness that people think they cannot live without.
Comments (22)
How horrible that they would diminish the amazing and selfless things your friend did. We could use more people like your friend in the world than preachers.
These people are so disrespectful and they just never quit.
Even then, don't you think if God allowed any of them to live it would have been the believer? So that the believer could save everyone? I guess God isn't picky.
If God is the one that saved Rob then God is also the one that took down that plane and God is also the one that killed that killed the pilot.
nice ending there. i'd like to see THIS on revelife.
You absolutely said it, and I especially liked your last line. Religion, an addiction, a drug... so true.
Whoever made those comments needs to be shot in the face. I hate it when Christians demean other people's lives.
Wow....just wow.....Those people are fucked up to say the least.
I apologize for all of my Christian brethren who don't think about the comments they leave. They mean well, but unfortunately the majority of them really are just following the rest of the herd and not putting a lot of thought into what they are saying. I always try to be very careful of the comments I make when referring to God's intervention or involvement before, during or after an event, and to make sure I know what I am saying as well as considering to whom and where I say it, when it comes to attempting to make a comment of comfort or encouragement. I'm not perfect, but I try. I never would completely discredit a person such as Rob in favor of God in this particular circumstance. The most I would say is that I would pray that God does what he can to make things easier on all involved from here on out. By that I would mean, I hope he places the right doctor by a patient's side, or nudges someone to donate the money needed for a procedure, that kind of thing. Things that wouldn't happen otherwise, but by saying so I would not be saying that they wouldn't happen without God's hand in it... I know plenty happens because of good people, simple as that. However, these people do mean well... just because they are ignorant doesn't make that any less valid. Appreciate their intentions, not their ignorance.
Zerowing21 - After sifting through a lot of the emotional rhetorical appeals throughout this post, I noticed that you, as an atheist, place a lot of stock in human reason and science. You make mention of a faith vs. reason/science dichotomy. My question to you is simply this: does science involve faith/belief that cannot be tested by the scientific method?
Cheers,vv
@BunnyParfait - I hope you really don't mean what you just said.
@vivaverbum - Not sure what that has to do with the points I've made in this post, but I've addressed that idea here.
JT
@Zerowing21 - I just finished reading your article that you linked to on your other blog, thanks for the link. In the post above you focus on human goodness, intelligence, reason, and science that saves the day and not God. You mentioned in the provided link: "Science works under only one assumption: that the universe obeys a set of rules. If this assumption is true, then we should be able to observe the behavior resultant of these rules."
Through observation, you observe that there are sets of rules, and conclude that these rules make the results of observation meaningful and possible. Is this not an example of petitio principii? Have you read David Hume on the problem of induction?
Sorry if this isn't the right post for my questions. Your recent posts on this tragic event raised my curiosity on what some of your atheist presuppositions are.
Cheers,v.v.
@vivaverbum - Every word =]
@BunnyParfait - Okay...so, help me better understand your comments. You mentioned previously, "I hate it when Christians demean other people's lives." So you find it reprehensible to demean someone using words, yet it's justifiable to shoot someone in the face for demeaning another? How is *that*, whether in words or performing the action, not demeaning? Demeaning someone presupposes that the person has dignity.So, given your presuppositions, how do you begin to intelligently speak of human dignity in the first place? Aren't we all just animals, evolved from the same mess?
Any clarifications to your comments would be helpful for me!
Cheers,v.v.
@BunnyParfait - have I ever told you that I love you... lmao!!!
I agree with @BohemianLamb - that some people really should think before they speak and that those comments really didn't need to be made like they were. Rob really does deserve all credit for saving the lives of the other 2 that survived. Its a shame he isn't getting it.
@XDaemonessX - Oh I love you too doll :D
@vivaverbum - There are plenty of people that get shot with dignity. In some countries that's an honorable death; to be shot in the face after making a last request. There's not much to explain, you just wanna bitch about my word choice. =D
Don't make me destroy your ego kid I'm all too good at it. :3
@BunnyParfait - C'mon bunny, I was hoping for a more thoughtful and intelligent response than *that*. Where do humans derive their sense of dignity from, if we're all animals? If there's not much to explain, you should be able to give me a short and cogent answer.
"Don't make me destroy your ego kid I'm all too good at it. :3"
This is coming from someone whose user name is "Bunny Parfait"
Cheers,
V.V.
I can't even being to comprehend an awful situation like this, but I agree with every word you said, JT, and I feel very strongly for every family in this situation. Heroic stories like this are probably the most passionate feelings I get about anything and knowing that the ones involved came from an area close to where I am makes them all the more real. I am glad someone like you can be rational and take god out of it, though. It makes me sick to hear stories like this and people still thanking god for the outcome. Nothing good came from this that we can tell.
@vivaverbum - As I understand it, the Christian induction insurance policy goes something like this: Step 1: Assume the conclusion that the laws of nature will be consistent even though the premise was that this couldn't be proven (see Hume). Step 2: Given that we now have something to explain (because we've assumed our conclusion), let's explain it with yet another another assumption. God. Step 3: Our new ad hoc assumption from step 2 that isn't justified because step 1 wasn't justified now fails to be criticized for no apparent reason even though we can't possibly be any more sure that God's essence or magic powers (or even his will to make it keep working the same) will continue to work any more than we could be arbitrarily sure the laws of nature would continue as they are (see step 1). Step 4: Go around to atheists who advocate critical thinking and present steps 1-3 as a magic bullet against our very best methods of inquiry into the unknown effectively justifying belief in just any old thing. Hey look, I think I see Elvis! Step 5: Pride ourselves on our sophisticated philosophical travesty and call it a day even though not only have we not gotten anywhere, but we've added in even more assumptions than the atheists we were critical of and pretended like all measures of faith are necessary or equal.
I think that about covers it. Science works with the practical assumption that the so called "laws" of the universe will continue. They don't claim to know they will. And if they change some day, science will merely adapt to those new changes. Unless anyone can present something better to go with, all criticism is pretty much meaningless. As I've shown, theism doesn't have a better induction insurance policy. All it has is a sense of entitlement for our solipsistic philosophical tendencies. Theism has a worse solution and has confused itself into thinking "God, the ad hoc stop gap" actually solves some problem. So the problem of induction has not been solved by theism, the problems of evils brought up by JT in this post have not been solved by theism, and Christians aren't looking any smarter by changing the subject of this post as though our "atheistic presuppositions" at this level could possibly make God look any better in this situation. Bad parenting is bad parenting and no one brings up the problem of induction when someone else calls child services on them.
Hope that clarifies things.
Ben
"Go around to atheists who advocate critical thinking..."
I was starting to get the impression that atheists are so serious, but I'm glad to see that you have a little sense of humor in you, considering that you say you "advocate critical thinking," yet you have no rational foundation or basis for explaining induction or scientific laws.
It's actually quite simple. Let me put it this way: Every worldview has an ultimate starting point, and that starting point will influence the beginning, middle, and end of one's reasoning. Hence, every worldview, when arguing its ultimate starting point, is circular. My starting point is Christian theism, yours is naturalism. I can rationally argue that my worldview provides the necessary preconditions for human experience, I don't believe yours can.
You assume the uniformity of nature and its, as you say, "so called 'laws.'" I'm sure the word "law" is hard to swallow and digest in your worldview given your naturalism. So, I can push the question back a step: so far you have not provided a rational foundation for your scientism, so you just assert, that it's just the way it is. If that's the case, how can you even make sense of laws in your naturalistic worldview?
You then said, "As I've shown, theism doesn't have a better induction insurance policy. All it has is a sense of entitlement for our solipsistic philosophical tendencies. Theism has a worse solution and has confused itself into thinking "God, the ad hoc stop gap" actually solves some problem."
Christian theism provides the only preconditions necessary for intelligible human experience. In fact, let me restate my earlier point: By arguing that you have shown through your reasoning/logic that theism doesn't offer a better solution, you are begging the question against my worldview, because naturalism cannot account for such things as reasoning, critical thinking, and laws of thought. So how *do* you account for laws of science and laws of thought given your naturalism?
I'd also like to point out a blatant double standard in your comments. You said, "Unless anyone can present something better to go with, all criticism is pretty much meaningless...So the problem of induction has not been solved by theism, the problems of evils brought up by JT in this post have not been solved by theism."
Let me use your same reasoning: Atheism has not solved the problems of evil brought up by JT. Therefore, in your words, "Unless anyone can present something better to go with, all criticism is pretty much meaningless." Therefore, this entire post by JT is meaningless and your comments are meaningless. I'll I've heard so far is to the extent: all this tragedy and evil is pointless evil, because *I* don't see any reason for it other than its pointless.
But given your naturalistic worldview, who cares!? We're all animals aren't we? Just a bunch of random atoms and chemicals smashing into one other.
So in the course of your comments, you have assumed the laws of thought, science, and morality, and yet, you do not have any rational or cogent basis for any of these assumptions in the first place.
Hope that clarifies things.
Just a note: I will be out of town for a week, so if you respond, Ben, don't think I am ignoring you!
Cheers,
Viva
@vivaverbum - And you said you weren't looking for a debate...
JT
@Zerowing21 - I'm not. Just responding to Ben. :)
Your friend Rob sounds like really brave person. If only there were more people who were willing to help others the way he did, perhaps the world would be a better place.
This is also the first time I've read about the Give a Damn project, and it sounds great. I admire the people who are involved and their dedication to helping others.