Bill O'Reilly's argument against atheism: "Tide goes in, tide goes out"

I'm not sure if the level of Bill O'Reilly's scientific education is funny, or horrifying. Probably the latter.

Bill O'Reilly, a Catholic, interviewed an atheist who had been involved in putting up highway banners stating that all religions being scams.

O'Reilly's argument for the existence of God is that "tide goes in, tide goes out [. . .] It always comes in, it always goes out", and atheists have no way of explaining this.

In a follow-up video, O'Reilly concedes that the moon might be causing the tides, but then asks "OK how'd the moon get there?":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyjGySFCU9c ["Tide Goes In Tide Goes Out Explained By Science; Bill O'Reilly is an idiot!." March 2013]

The full 5 minute interview between O'Reilly and the atheist is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3AFMe2OQY ["Bill O'Reilly vs David Silverman - Tide Goes In, Tide Goes Out" Feb 2011]

Richard Feynman gives an explanation of tides and the motion of the moon in Newtonian terms here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reMQbwY2fQQ ["Richard Feynman tries to teach Bill O'Reilly science." Dec 2011]

(Of course I don't mean to suggest that atheists are right and scientifically correct, and religion is wrong. Rather just that religious people who are flagship presenters and bestselling authors should try to keep abreast of scientific knowledge, and not be taking us back into the dark ages.)

Mal7 said:

(Of course I don't mean to suggest that atheists are right and scientifically correct, and religion is wrong. Rather just that religious people who are flagship presenters and bestselling authors should try to keep abreast of scientific knowledge, and not be taking us back into the dark ages.)

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're serious, but the point is valid nonetheless. He may already know and just not care. Bill is primarily an entertainer, right? I think I recall that there was once some exposure that the kind of show Bill hosts is classified by the broadcast network as entertainment, or "entertainment news."

In any case, I'm pretty sure this "Tide In, Tide Out" meme serves primarily to provide pleasure for Bill and make ratings and money for his broadcast network. I see this "debate" as a human embodiment of David Letterman's old idea for "stupid pet tricks." Now I'm tickled. :P

Thanks for posting!

I wouldn’t know if I would call Bill an entertainer for being an establishment propagandist. Actually I would very much like him to be seen trailed on the next ''Nuremberg'' if it ever comes to it. History shouldn’t treat him well.

Buddy said:

He [Bill O'Reilly] may already know and just not care. Bill is primarily an entertainer, right? I think I recall that there was once some exposure that the kind of show Bill hosts is classified by the broadcast network as entertainment, or "entertainment news."

Click to expand...

Good point, I hadn't considered whether O'Reilly's private view might have been that of course the tides are caused by the gravitational forces between the moon and the earth, and not some divinely orchestrated twice-daily performance by God.

I think the kind of infotainment O'Reilly provides is a more serious matter though than just being a form of entertainment, rather than information. O'Reilly's books have been NY Times bestsellers, and are I would think significantly shaping public perception of history. He has a series of 6 books called "Killing [. . .]" I haven't read any, but gather that "Killing Kennedy" prevents a definitive conclusion that essentially Oswald was just a crazy lone gunman, and that there is no reason to take any "conspiracy theory" too seriously. There is also "Killing Lincoln", "Killing Reagan", "Killing Jesus", and one planned on World War Two that will present to the American public the "real" story of what happened in World War Two.

There have been better and more sophisticated "Arguments from Design"recently for the existence of a divine, or at least a purposeful, nature to the universe, but O'Reilly's formulation is not one of these. "The tide go in, the tide goes out" is lot more dumbed down than earlier versions of the argument from design made in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Mal7 said:

"The tide go in, the tide goes out" is lot more dumbed down than earlier versions of the argument from design made in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if he was really keen to persuade his audience one way or the other on the existence of God, then being the jam-up researcher and writer that he is to have written so many books, he knows there is a section in any library with all he could want. It's chock full of philosophical, theological and metaphysical texts with some of the most logically coherent and well-written arguments both for and against the existence of God. He could have a scholar on his show for arguing the case about God if that's what he wanted in order to persuade his listeners. But that would be a boring, academic discussion; the farthest thing from entertainment for his audience.

Instead, a guy getting attention because of his involvement in a religion-as-scam billboard campaign gets invited to the show. An intelligent Bill, writing so many books involving the skills to research, overlooks that a so-called atheist doing such stuff is not really an atheist (a=without, theist==from theos==god or gods) so much as he is simply anti-religion. Such an anti-religionist would have a religious or quasi-religious zeal and so the discussion can get emotional and can easily be cut off with satisfaction just about anywhere, anytime Bill has the last word.

Besides, how does Bill use tide action or the existence and placement of the moon as proof of God just because an anti-religionist can't explain something? Does God manually or god-ually push and pull the water? Did He bring the moon here from somewhere else? If so, how? Do I even wanna know how Bill would answer any of that? :)

Forgive my inanity if I've asked a dumb question or made a dumb comment. Long day so far.

From an online etymology:

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

Click to expand...