Dispatches from the Culture Wars

POnce again Ed you totally manage to miss the point. The argument is NOT a legal one. Winnning legal battles will get you nowhere, nor will your insistance on seperation of church and state (You only need to look to Europe to know that having an established church does not cause problems like you think it does). The issue is one of hearts and minds, and winning hearts and minds is something America has never been good at.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 11:08 AM

I am sorry Ed nut I simply do not believe you.

You seldom ever comment in your blog on scientific matters, and this whole thing is about science. You seem to regard that courts as main battleground and that is not where the war will be won. Your fight at the moment is purely defensive, you rely on the courts to uphold the US constitution seperating church from state ignoring the fact that is not actually the battle). To give you a simple case, in the UK we do not have seperation of church and state and yet which of the US and and UK has less of a problem with relgion in public life ? That answer does not support your claims.

With regards enlisting the support of the likes of Miller, fine. Miller is a good scientist. His religious views are simply not relavent, and for people like you to push Miller's views becuase he is relgious and not because of the quality of his science is to concede the battleground to the fundies. You have in the past criticised Richard Dawkins for being to hostile to relgion and thus undermining supporters of evolution. Well sorry to tell you this (You must have missed it somehow, not sure how though), the relgious in the UK have no problem standing alongside Dawkins in confronting the teaching of creationism/ID in UK schools as evidence by the fact he was a signatory along with the a whole load of other scientists and relgious leaders in writing a letter to the times on the subject. If Dawkins is such a devisive force why would they do that ?

Posted by: Matt Pemfold | May 15, 2007 11:46 AM

Miller is a good scientist. His religious views are simply not relavent, and for people like you to push Miller's views becuase he is relgious and not because of the quality of his science is to concede the battleground to the fundies.

Utter nonsense -- the fact that he is religious, and does not let his religion compromise the quality of his science, helps to undermine the fundies' central claim, which is that evolution is an atheist conspiracy inherently hostile to religion.

Miller's religion is not relevant to science -- but it is relevant to the debate over how religion should respond to science.

...the relgious in the UK have no problem standing alongside Dawkins in confronting the teaching of creationism/ID in UK schools...

Rreally? Did it ever occur to you that if Dawkins was less overtly hostile to religion, perhaps EVEN MORE religious people would be on his side?

Also, I notice that fundies here, who can't defend their own anti-science con-games anymore, concentrate on Dawkins' extremism in order to distract attention away from their own. In that respect, at least, Dawkins is helping the religious extremists more than he's helping us.

...he was a signatory along with the a whole load of other scientists and relgious leaders in writing a letter to the times on the subject.

Is that the letter he had to back away from afterword, because he hadn't read it before signing it, and found out too late that it said things he couldn't defend?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 11:57 AM

Matt,

Creationism/ID do share things in common with theistic evolution. One of them is this:

Science would answer some who asked what was before the Big Bang by saying "We do not know, and in fact the question might not even mean anything".

A theist evolutionist would answer "God".

See the problem ?

No. Please explain the treat to the republic if a cosmologist believes the best answer to a question outside the purview of science is God.

Posted by: David Heddle | May 15, 2007 12:02 PM

make that "threat" not "treat" in the previous comment.

Posted by: David Heddle | May 15, 2007 12:03 PM

A theist evolutionist would answer "God". See the problem?

Not really. As long as the theist doesn't make up a bunch of hand-waving mumbo-jumbo to pretend that "science" proves his answer, then he's at least being honest, even if he's wrong.

Not only that, but as long as the theist evolutionist didn't illegally try to teach others that "God" was the correct answer, then who really cares what he personally believes?

Posted by: doctorgoo | May 15, 2007 12:05 PM

Matt Pemfold: "Please do not contribute quotes to me I did not make. It is not honest."

The "little old ladies" bit is straight from PZ Myers. Sorry about not making that clear.

Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | May 15, 2007 12:08 PM

Really Matt, you seem way too concerned about what others believe. You should be focusing on whether or not they try to force their beliefs on others. THAT is what's important!

The Ken Millers of the world might believe that Goddidit, but their science and their teachings are completely void of any of their religious biases.

Posted by: doctorgoo | May 15, 2007 12:10 PM

"Really Matt, you seem way too concerned about what others believe. You should be focusing on whether or not they try to force their beliefs on others. THAT is what's important!"

I don't know if you are American, but if you are are you really happy to live in a country where nearly half the population is scientifically illiterate, and are so becuase of their relgious beliefs ? And do you really think that does not impinge society ? The US is currently trying to decide who gets to run for president. I would hope in doing so people would make a rational choice. But how can people make a rational choice if they are scientifically illiterate ? How do they assess a candidates position on climate change or stem cell research ? The simple answer is they cannot, yet that will not stop them from voting. And that is scary. Having an election where half the population admits to holding a position that is not supported by any evidence and they get to elect the the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

And you see no problem with that ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 12:18 PM

Ed,

The battle may be primarily an American one. Of course that does mean you owe the rest of us elsewhere in the world on big apology for allowing creationism to be exported, and even allowing to get a foothold in the first place (Not that I hold you personally to blame for that).

The fact remains, and you still do not seem to be willing to acknowledge it, that religious leaders in the UK are quite willing to work with Dawkins which does give lie to your claim he is devisive.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 12:23 PM

Matt,

He can't teach anything because we don't know, and the premise of your question, which is correct, is that the answer may be unknowable. (Even worse, whatever speculation exists as to what happened before the big bang is untestable, i.e., not science no matter how much it smells like science.)

Or, if you like, explain how what happened before the big bang fits into traditional, testable science.

If he answered "God" in a physics class to the question "where did the elementary particles get their masses?" then you'd have a point.
But as stated, you have no point. Just more of the same-old same-old nonsense.

I had a few physics teachers (at a private, secular, research university), while I was an unbeliever who stated that they thought God was the answer to certain unknowable questions--including the before-the-big-bang question, and the science they taught did not suffer for their beliefs. We unbelievers (at the time) understood that this was their personal view (and found it interesting). You, like PZ, assume all students are morons and the mere mention of God even in the context of (not the unknown but the unknowable) will have them all transferring to Bob Jones U. Dumb, just dumb.

Posted by: David Heddle | May 15, 2007 12:33 PM

Heddle,

You seem intent on ignoring my point.

Someone cannot answer "God" is response to "WHat came before the big bang" with any honesty becuase there some scientific evidence the question does not mean anything.

The honest answer is "We do not know, and there is evidence the question is not a meaningful one". The person may go onto so say somepeople say god, but of course there is not single shred of evidence to support that claim.

Go read Hawking and others for their thoughts on what came before the big bang since clearly you do not know them. (Just to help, Hawking has a hypothessis that means time does not actually have a beginning or end. It is very complex and involves the concept of imgaginary time (as is imaginary numbers, not a fiction of his imagination). It is not accepted by in cosmology but there some who take it seriously and have done more work on it).

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 12:42 PM

The fact remains, and you still do not seem to be willing to acknowledge it, that religious leaders in the UK are quite willing to work with Dawkins which does give lie to your claim he is devisive.

As has been already pointed out, US and UK religious leaders are very different folk, as is, apparently, US and UK culture. In the States, Dawkins has been used effectively by the ID/Creation lobby as a tool for divisiveness. "This is the face of evolution," they say, and quote mine for anything and everything anti-religious he can offer. The religious right has bought this line, and it's trotted out with regularity.

What we need right now in the US are scientists who are prominent, eloquent, and Christian to say to the masses, 1) that evolution is neither atheistic or anti-Christian, 2) that it's the only scientific answer to the question of biological diversity, and 3) that ID/Creationism are tools of social and cultural manipulation and have no basis or value in science.

Posted by: Michael LoPrete | May 15, 2007 12:47 PM

grr, I don't know why my html isn't working, it's quoteblock with "", right? Anyway, to be more clear, here's the same post as above, but with quotations marking Matt Penfold's remarks:

"The fact remains, and you still do not seem to be willing to acknowledge it, that religious leaders in the UK are quite willing to work with Dawkins which does give lie to your claim he is devisive."

As has been already pointed out, US and UK religious leaders are very different folk, as is, apparently, US and UK culture. In the States, Dawkins has been used effectively by the ID/Creation lobby as a tool for divisiveness. "This is the face of evolution," they say, and quote mine for anything and everything anti-religious he can offer. The religious right has bought this line, and it's trotted out with regularity.

What we need right now in the US are scientists who are prominent, eloquent, and Christian to say to the masses, 1) that evolution is neither atheistic or anti-Christian, 2) that it's the only scientific answer to the question of biological diversity, and 3) that ID/Creationism are tools of social and cultural manipulation and have no basis or value in science.

Posted by: Michael LoPrete | May 15, 2007 12:52 PM

"All that this shows is that Dawkins isn't devisive in the UK. However, any reasonable observer (whether ID/creationists, religion-friendly evolutionists, or Neville Chamberlain atheists) recognize that in the US, he is VERY devisive.

This is why so many on our side (that being pro-science but not necessarily fervant atheists) keep pointing out that accepting evolution is possible while still being religious, or more specifically, Christian... and that the dichotomy of "Either choose God or Darwin" is a false dichotomy."

Ok, let's come at this from another angle. If the US is so different in religious outlook from the UK, and the rest of Western Europe, why is that the case ? I know a number of the initial settlers from Europe were relgious zealots but much immigration since has not been from places where relgious zealotry had hold, and the founding fathers certainly were not zealots. So what it is about the US that has made it become this cauldron of relgious bigotry where as Western Europe has stuck with the enlightenment. And how come the enlightened liberals in America failed so badly ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 12:58 PM

Matt,

Go read Hawking and others for their thoughts on what came before the big bang since clearly you do not know them.

I do know them, and I read them (well, I've read Hawking). You can take him as seriously as you like. I take him very seriously, in fact. However, his ideas in this case cannot be tested (do you know how?) and so are not really science.

You have failed (no surprise because it's doom to fail) to explain how a scientist who sees God (and even says that, perhaps in response to a direct question, to his students) in the unknowable is in any manner a threat to science.

Just saying things are so does not constitute a proof.

Posted by: David Heddle | May 15, 2007 1:04 PM

Matt Penefold -

Of course that does mean you owe the rest of us elsewhere in the world on big apology for allowing creationism to be exported, and even allowing to get a foothold in the first place (Not that I hold you personally to blame for that).

What a collosaly ignorant statement. I mean seriously, think about that statement.

All in all, what you entirely fail to understand is the nature of the battle for science in the U.S. We have a population that not only believes that they must choose between science and faith, but by and large then chooses faith at the detriment of any scientific reason.

Do not take this to mean that I think atheists should sit down and shut up. Quite the opposite, I would love to see an environment where atheists can be quite comfortable criticizing religion. The problem is that many atheists seem to think that they must act just like the worst theists do, when trying to convince people to accept faith over reason. That is atheists want to perpetuate the same false dichotomy that so many ignorant theists do - that being that one must choose between their faith or the acceptance of science. Criticize supernatural notions all you want, just realize that when you perpetuate that false dichotomy, you are being just as ignorant as Kennedy and Dobson or even Kirk Cameron and Roy Comfort.

Posted by: DuWayne | May 15, 2007 1:06 PM

...You have in the past criticised Richard Dawkins for being to hostile to relgion and thus undermining supporters of evolution. Well sorry to tell you this (You must have missed it somehow, not sure how though), the relgious in the UK have no problem standing alongside Dawkins in confronting the teaching of creationism/ID in UK schools as evidence by the fact he was a signatory along with the a whole load of other scientists and relgious leaders in writing a letter to the times on the subject. If Dawkins is such a devisive force why would they do that ? Posted by: Matt Pemfold | May 15

Perchance it is because the British religious leaders and most people in Britain understand that science == methodological naturalism and is agnostic about god(s).

They therefore understand that science doesn't equal atheism.
The Christian leaders in Britain have also, most likely, read Aquinas who wrote fairly clearly that methodological naturalism and the studying of nature is not a bad thing. He even expected that it be understandable.

The fact that Dawkins attached his name to a petition signed by others with religious beliefs says nothing about the religious believers thoughts about Dawkins nor about his beliefs.

Oddly enough, this is similar to the idea that we should all be defending/teaching science, irrespective of any philosophical differences.

A war on religion is another thing alltogether.

As for the answer as to what happened before the big bang the answer is obvious; science cannot answer and so until it can the scientific answer is "don't know". That people believe that they do have a valid non-scientific answer isn't relevant to science education.

Posted by: Chris' Wills | May 15, 2007 1:06 PM

Sorry, that should have read that some atheists wany to perpetuate the same false dichotomy. . .

Posted by: DuWayne | May 15, 2007 1:10 PM

The New Atheists have gone off the rails with this fatwa against theistic evolution. They are afraid that scientists giving any measure of credence to theistic evolution - which is not in textbooks or being taught in classrooms, and there are no plans to do so - will end up helping Intelligent Design. But they have the implications backwards. With their insistence that science (and specifically evolution) equals atheism, New Atheists are preparing the ground for defeat.

Let me quote myself opining on the matter on another thread:

"Here is how the next Dover might go down if atheists and the larger scientific community don't wise up: Religious conservatives claim that atheistic scientists are trying to indoctrinate American schoolchildren into atheism. As evidence, they cite statements by New Atheists rubbishing the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism and asserting that accepting science is equivalent to, and necessitates, atheism. This, religious conservatives will claim, is a violation of the Establishment Clause. And religious conservatives win a major victory."

The New Atheists misunderstand the philosophy of science. And that has ill implications for the teaching and conduct of science.

Lewis Wolpert, atheist biologist, lacks the proselytizing zeal of Myers and Dawkins:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

Posted by: Colugo | May 15, 2007 1:15 PM

Why did enlightened people in the US allow their country to become a place of such religious zealotry ? Why did they fail to prevent it ? After all I always being told your constitution was drawn up in part to prevent that! So what went so badly wrong ?

That is a idiotic question with about as much meaning as asking you why, as a trouser-sporting gentleman, you did not stop those dastardly Scots from wearing their silly kilts.

Posted by: Matthew Young | May 15, 2007 1:26 PM

Ed.

Hawking has indeed put forward a hypothesis. Of course since you know it is wrong you must know what it says. Or rather should know. I suspect you in fact do not have a clue. So that makes your childish little rant all the more pathetic. Note I do not think Hawking is right, but nor I am sure he is wrong. And if he is right then the position of theistic evolutionists would become untenable. From what I have read testing the hypothesis may not be easy either. But not being easy does not mean not possible.

So Ed, you are lying, and having a tantrum when I call you on it. Grow up please.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 1:28 PM

Someone cannot answer "God" is response to "WHat came before the big bang" with any honesty becuase there some scientific evidence the question does not mean anything.

First, please tell us what "scientific evidence" can prove the "meaningfulness" of a question? Have you found a way to quantify "meaning" and "meaningfulness?"

Second, if a theist says "I believe God caused the Big Bang," such a statement would be scientifically meaningless, but not "dishonest." You really need to be careful about reflexively questioning others' honesty, lest they return the favor.

I have news for you. It ain't working. You may win a few legal battles but the polls show no shift in the % who deny evolution in the US.

Remind me again where atieists alone got better results, with no help from theists of any stripe? I certainly don't remember Dawkins' testimony affecting the outcome of the Dover trial. And yes, "a few legal battles" can have a serious effect on public opinion in the long run, as we're seeing in the gay-marriage debate.

Matt, you're starting to sound a lot like the radical left of the previous century -- calling other people's accomplishments meaningless when their meaning and magnitude were obvious to all.

AS for your perfectly valid question of what went wrong in the supposedly-more-advanced USA, my answer would be that our progressive wing lost the ability to engage and talk with ordinary Americans -- a mistake which you, and the European atheists, are continuing to make.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 1:33 PM

Grow up??? Matt, you utter bozo, are you joking? Your opinion is a mere whisker away from virtually everyone who reads this blog, and yet you have managed to generate a heated argument out of almost nothing. You have accomplished this not with your fine rhetoric and radical viewpoints, but with your rude and abrasive way of expressing yourself.

Calling Ed childish is, in this instance at least, almost hilariously ironic.

Posted by: Matthew Young | May 15, 2007 1:35 PM

Re Matt Penfold

Mr. Penfold is apparently a member that I have referred to on other threads on other blogs of a group that insists that philosophical naturalism is science (along with his hero Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Larry Moran). This is philosophically equivalent to stating that science == religion. All I can say is that this approach is a certain loser in the US. This is why the plaintiffs in the Dover case chose Ken Miller as their first witness an presented no witnesses belonging to the Dawkins clique. The plaintiffs might have won anyway if people like Dawkins had been called as witnesses but never in 10 million years would they have gotten the stinging rebuke administered by Judge Jones to the defendants (by the way, none other then Richard Dawkins has effusively praised Judge Jones' decision). What's most interesting is that Judge Jones, who is a theist and a regular church goer found Prof. Forrests' testimony especially convincing and was apparently greatly underwhelmed by the defendants' attorneys' attempts to smear her as a godless atheist.

As for Mr. Penfolds' praise of European tolerance, I would point out that this tolerance does not extend to people of the Jewish persuasion as anti-semitism is rising at an alarming rate all over Europe (how about Ken Livingston, the lord mayor of London). I would suggest that Mr. Penfold consider the rise of anti-semitism in Europe, including Great Britain, before pointing the religious bigotry finger at the US.

Posted by: SLC | May 15, 2007 1:39 PM

Western Europe managed to get into the C21st without having a large percentage of its population thinking the earth is only a few thousand years old.

That's probably because Europe's Christian majority belonged to more enlightened churches; and America's Christians are descended from religious fanatics who came here to get away from all that decadent complexified moderation stuff.

Which pretty much blows away any notion that religious moderates automatically validate or empower extremists. If European attitudes are more enlightened than American, it's because of religious moderates, not atheists.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 1:43 PM

Ed - I meant what Chris Wills wrote above:

As for the answer as to what happened before the big bang the answer is obvious; science cannot answer

Which, on re-reading I realise I have accidentally distorted a little, as the whole sentence reads as follows:

As for the answer as to what happened before the big bang the answer is obvious; science cannot answer and so until it can the scientific answer is "don't know".

Sorry Chris.

Posted by: Matthew Young | May 15, 2007 1:53 PM

That we have religious people like Ken Miller on our side is no threat at all to that legal strategy.

If anything, having theists objecting to the establishment of other theists' narrow religious doctrines aids in winning church-state separation cases. I'll cite McLean et al. v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District in support of my contention.

Where are the legal citations that support the argument that a more-religious plaintiff is hampered in pursuing church-state separation relief against a less-religious infringer? If this were generally true, it seems like it would have been noticed by now. Those citations have thus far been conspicuously absent from the discussion.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | May 15, 2007 1:57 PM

Wesley,

So you have any cititations that show that winning court cases actually changes anyone's opinion of the subject of evolution ? I see no evidence at all that do they and yet they seem to be Ed's favourite way of doing battle. Winning court cases is not going to win the war. They are purely a defensive measure, a field fortification used on the defence. You need them but they are not going to get you anywhere in the long run. You are if you like, the Russian's defending Stalingrad. You may hold the Germans from crossing the river but in the end you need to go on the attack.

Posted by: Matt Pemfold | May 15, 2007 2:11 PM

...when I say: "The real PR fight for PZ and for atheists is to stop allowing theists to villify atheism."

...it's a bit obtuse to accuse me of threatening to take away anybody's freedom of speech.

The only thing that's "obtuse" here is your poor choice of words, and the fact that you blame others for the result of it. "Stop allowing" is a pretty unambiguous phrase, especially when applied to expression of opinions. When thin-skinned theists say they want to "stop allowing" others to "insult" their religions (as they've been doing a lot lately), it's perfectly obvious they mean using legal force and/or other forms of intimidation to punish such "insults." You used the same words, therefore I read the same meaning. Any misunderstanding on my part is your fault, and no one else's.

If I say "the real task for the Patriots next week is to not allow the Giants' to run at will", it is a bit obnoxious to ask me why I want to deny habeas corpus to the New York Giants.

In that (completely different) context, everyone knows that "not allow" means to physically prevent the opposing team to run at will, by means that are perfectly legal and accepted in the game of football. Your analogy is like Hitler at an ice-rink.

Francis Collins, for all of his contributions to science, endorses a wholly anti-scientific attitude in some aspects of his life.

IF his attitudes don't conflict with his science (and you've just admitted they don't), then, by definition, they're not "anti-scientific." Get your terminololgy straight.

That is certainly his prerogative, but I don't see anything gained by embracing the anti-science.

What, specifically, are we expected to "embrace" that is not gaining anything?

If people have problems with atheistic science, then putting a bit of lipstick on it doesn't really solve the problem.

Telling the world that science is not, in and of itself, "atheistic," is not "lipstick;" it's a fact. We should be calling science "agnostic," since that word means "not claiming to know."

I realize it's politically expedient to go down the path of "nonoverlapping magisteria", but that just seems like politically correct unscientific nonsense.

"Politically expedient," as used here, is just a sneering swear-word for "talking to others, finding common ground, and building a coalition to get the right thing done." If Jesus partied with politicians and other sinners, why can't atheists talk to theists without blowing a gasket? Not strong enough to face other people?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 2:21 PM

Seems you and I have different standards on what makes a person honest.

I notice you haven't defined yours.

I cannot say I care for a standard that means it is ok to lie so I prefer mine to yours.

Where did I say it was okay to lie?

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 2:33 PM

"Telling the world that science is not, in and of itself, "atheistic," is not "lipstick;" it's a fact. We should be calling science "agnostic," since that word means "not claiming to know.""

Then you are in no better position than if you ignore the theistic evolutionist path. The creationists will reject "agnostic science" as they will no difference between that and what you claim Dawkins/Myers etc put forward. The creationists do not regard the likes of Miller as being a christian, especially since in Miller's case he is a Catholic and many evangelical christians reject Catholocism as being christian. Whilst you and Miller may regard them as christian they do not return the favour.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 2:35 PM

So you have any cititations that show that winning court cases actually changes anyone's opinion of the subject of evolution ?

I appreciate that changing the topic is a favored tactic when one is defending a proposition that appears to have negligible evidence, but I will have to demur. PZ cast his complaint in terms of how having theistic evolutionists involved in pro-science litigation will make it harder to win court cases. I'm taking up that claim, having a look, and seeing that pretty much the opposite appears to hold.

If you don't want to discuss the topic as broached by PZ, that's fine. I have, by the way, opened up a discussion thread for the "hearts and mind" discussion. So there is now a place to go where your digression is actually the main topic.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | May 15, 2007 2:41 PM

Welsey,

You call it changing tack, I call it asking for you to provide evidence to support yout position the way you were asking for others to provide evidence to support theirs. Sorry if being even-handed offends you. After all if winning court cases does not change minds, what is the point of fighting them ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 2:46 PM

Matt,

Please provide a reference for where I claimed, in my words, that winning court cases also won "hearts and minds".

I think a cursory examination will show that I have supported my position.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | May 15, 2007 2:53 PM

Matt, when you write:

If people's faith does not conflict with scientific knowledge then why is their faith an issue at all ? Dawkins, Myers, myself, etc do not have nearly the issue with the latter.

you're doing your best to push reality out of your head, but you'll ultimately fail. This post (yes, this one you're commenting on) is in response to PZ frothing at the mouth over theistic evolution -- in other words, faith that does not conflict with science! Now, I don't know what Dawkins thinks of Anglicans, though he's been pretty up front about his disdain for all religion (I assume all religion is a set that includes the Anglican church), but PZ has pretty clearly laid down this dichotomy: you are either pro-science or you are religious, and there's no way you can be both. And the fact that you would claim otherwise in a thread about him doing just that says a lot about your ability to avoid dissonance, but little else.

Posted by: Chris | May 15, 2007 3:01 PM

Chris,

Try reading what Dawkin's has to say about Anglicans.

Does no one bother to read books anymore around here ?

We have Ed who refuses to read Hawking's book, and we have you who cannot be bothered to read Dawkins' "The God Delusion".

Disageement I can deal with but when people argue from ignornce, like Ed has, I take issue. Especially when he call me a fucking moron with no indication he is being ironic. I guess the guy has mental stability issues which is sad but in the end his problem, not mine.

And as for PZ's, his argument is not that the likes of Miller cannot do not science, he admires the science Miller has done. PZ's issue is with Miller being paraded as a theistic evolutionist. His point, and mine, is that there is no point to that. It achieves nothing for the reasons I have already articulated, ie that with regards science it does not matter and with regards religion the creationists are not going to accept the argument just becuase he is a christian. They will just deny he is a christain. I have seen it done.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 3:25 PM

I believe someone like Romney would still be likely to support a DI publication over something by Miller, and particularly something from an 'atheist'.

Posted by: daenku32 | May 15, 2007 3:33 PM

Chris,

In The God Delusion Dawkins explicity refers to moderate Anglians, the type he and I grew up with. He says his argument is not with that form of relgion, although he still does not believe in a god, and he would not have written the book he did if that was his target. This suggests to me that Dawkins sees a difference between type of christian who is an illiberal creationists, and one who is more thoughtful and much more akin to his own humanist views. So in fact he is making the very distinction you claim he has not made. I do not have my copy of Delusions to hand else I would quote directly. Please go and read the book before misquoting Dawkins again.

ED,

I have on this very page argued that court cases need to be fought. However you think in winning the court case you are winning the war. At best you are holding your position, and at worst just encouraging the fundies to see the courts as a liberal plot. In that you are seriously deluded to the extent I question your mental health. You seem to have to resort to petty name calling when you do not get your way. Pathetic.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 3:53 PM

Raging Bee,

We we have Chris who clearly has not read the God Delusion and we have Ed who has not read A Brief History of Time, or much other book on cosmology.

I have.

They haven't

They think they know what is written in these books. They don't. They have not read them.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 3:58 PM

In the same interview from which I quoted Dawkins above, Dawkins also said:

Throughout the ages, one has resorted to that kind of political compromise. And maybe it would be a good thing for me to do as well. But as it happens, I think the war is more important. I actually do care about the existence of a supreme being. And therefore, I don't think I should say something which I believe to be false, which is that the question of whether God exists is a non-scientific question, and science and religion have no contact with each other, so we can all get along cozily and keep out those lunatic creationists.

And I responded thusly:

'So now Dawkins reveals himself to be the George W. Bush of the atheist movement: waging an unnecessary war, for an unnecessary objective, against an enemy so poorly defined as to include our most indispensible allies (including me, my friends, and nearly all of my relatives, living and dead), at great cost to innocent people (costs that he himself will never share), motivated by simpleminded prejudice supported by extremely faulty (if any) intelligence. And, when confronted with the possible consequences of his "war," he simply brushes off all facts and criticism in the same uncaring, incurious, closed-minded manner with which Bush brushes off the reality of his own failures.'

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 4:02 PM

"You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . "you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury."

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so."

That is a quote from a Richard Dawkin's article on The Times Online. The full text can be found here. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1071,How-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist,Richard-Dawkins-The-Times-Online

Now we can argue if Dawkins is right about "subtle, nuanced" religion being in a very small minority but that quote does show he sees a difference between different degrees of relgious fervour and that those who claimed he did not were ignorant. Here's an clue Chris, if you want to know what a man actually thinks try reading what he writes.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 15, 2007 4:06 PM

Matt: first you chide us for not reading Dawkins' book. Then you paste a quote from that book that flatly contradicts observable reality, and proves him so ignorant, simpleminded, and downright bigoted as to be utterly unworthy of the trouble. Nice going, dude.

I've got more reliable stuff to read, thankyouverymuch.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 4:15 PM

Oops, sorry, I should have said "Then you paste a quote from Dawkins..." My point still stands: on the subject of religion, Dawkins has no clue what he's talking about, and doesn't seem to care, either.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 4:17 PM

Matt: my opinion of Dawkins is based on what Dawkins himself has said, and I have quoted the offending material to back up my opinions. If you can't prove me wrong likewise, then you're not in much of a position to call me ignorant.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 4:23 PM

How many religious people do you know who think the books of Genesis are literal records of historical events? Non of the major Christian churches teach this, so attacking all religions as being anti-science is simply incorrect

Almost all religions, and certainly all major religions, make truth claims about the physical world or its history that are either demonstrably false, or are far more improbable than other claims that our culture routinely deride. Yet, when challenged and presented with evidence and arguments, proponents of and officials in these religions will still assert the priority of these claims.

That pretty much makes all religions anti-science, at least as regards to specific issues.

Posted by: Tulse | May 15, 2007 4:39 PM

How many religious people do you know who think the books of Genesis are literal records of historical events? Non of the major Christian churches teach this

This is false. The Southern Baptist Convention does. From the SBC Faith and Message:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.

Aside from the SBC, there are the Pentecostalist and charismatic movements, which are more movements than distinct denominations but which the literalist wings within are nonetheless basically equal in size to many other "major Christian churches".

Posted by: Coin | May 15, 2007 4:48 PM

yeah... what coin just said...

:-)

Posted by: doctorgoo | May 15, 2007 4:50 PM

Welsey,

You are correct in saying you have not said winning court cases wins hearts and minds. In which case why are you bothering to fight them ? What gain is there ? How are you pushing back the ignorance ? Sure the court cases need to be fought but all they are doing is maintaining the status quo, you are no further forward are you ?

I'm sorry for feeding the troll. I will try to do better in the future.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | May 15, 2007 4:56 PM

"We just do not share, nor are we working for, the same goal."

Mostly you are. You just lack the added goal. Don't get upset over it.

Posted by: daenku32 | May 15, 2007 5:03 PM

'Of course I have no idea if Hawking is right, I do not know enough cosmology to judge. But if he is then the idea there is a before a big bang is gone, and that would give a problem to those who say "Well god started it all off".'

Well, it'd be curtains for *that* version of the cosmological argument, for sure. But there are versions that don't rely on the dodgy 'time came into being' premise. Not that those are exactly problem free, of course -- but the problems there are metaphysical, not scientific.

(Note that science requires its own set of a priori metaphysical assumptions that can't be properly examined from within the field of science, so the argument that 'it's not scientific -- it can't be verified' is a bit of a non-starter. Unless you *like* being an external world sceptic, I guess, in which case, feel free. But don't bother the rest of us because you can't be sure that we exist.)

Still, it's nice to see that the inhabitants of the UK that I know and love are as capable of using arguments from authority [1] as anyone else. The blinding glare of Enlightenment scepticism and rebellion lives on in us Brits!

[1] The fact that Hawking's big theory isn't even a blip on the cosmological radar, or at least wasn't a year back when I moved from particle to condensed matter theory, is quite telling, IMO.

Posted by: Iorwerth Thomas | May 15, 2007 5:11 PM

Chris Will -

I'ld be interested in knowing which claims you consider implausible; but as this isn't the subject of the thread and there are so many religions it would be unproductive and rude to our genial host to mess up his blog.

Personaly, I find it fascinating just how far from the original topic a discussion can range. This one hasn't really gone very far at all, compared to some that I have been involved in at this very blog. I have seen them go from the original topic, evolve to a copmletly unrelated topic and then evolve further, to yet another topic, entirely unrelated to the first two. All that while following a path that eased the conversation into completely different realms by following relational comments all the way. Ed has never said anything to deter people from doing this, personaly I think he finds it as interesting as I do.

Posted by: DuWayne | May 15, 2007 5:30 PM

I've been away (at the pub - beware!) for a bit, and gosh, haven't we been busy.

Firstly, he may be a bit bonkers but I am coming round to Matt. He does have some points to make, despite the hysteria, but Tulse deserves applause for saying it far, far better.

The reason I am innately suspicious of accepting religious bedfellows in the fight for rationalism is because the core of religion is to abandon critical thinking by accepting faith and the core of science is to embrace critical thinking and question everything.

This is not to say that there aren't hundreds of religious believers who are all on what I would call 'my' side when it comes to almost all of humanism, rationalism, materialism, whatever you want to call it, I still can't deny that there is a fundamental clash between the two approaches to the universe that makes me uneasy.

Applause too for DuWayne for tackling the question of Enlightenment values without telling Matt to piss off for his rather reactionary tone, although as I said, Matt did have some fair points. It seems that the Enlightenment types in America have to fight the ideological battle we in Europe never had to - we simply exported it, along with a massive set of cultural mores such as suspicion of federalism that make that battle harder to fight.

Now the American Enlightenment types are having to finish the job the European Enlightenment types never did. An utter bastard of a job that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

It's not ranging off topic that much though, DuWayne, I don't think. I have some sympathy for PZ and Dawkins and even Matt, but although I feel very much the same as they do I tend to try and not articulate it so freely because unfettered self-expression tends to not make for quite such effective cooperation and cohabitation.

I shall now finish my beer and go to bed. Night all.

Posted by: Matthew Young | May 15, 2007 6:39 PM

Matt P. said:

So you have any cititations that show that winning court cases actually changes anyone's opinion of the subject of evolution? I see no evidence at all that do they and yet they seem to be Ed's favourite way of doing battle.

Look, there's two separate but intertwined battles here. One is the legal battle, the other is the PR/education battle. The legal battle will continue to be fought on the Establishment Clause because that's really the only plausible constitutional ground for keeping creationism out of the classroom. Victories in the PR/education battle improve the possibilities in the legal battle, but the law determines the outcomes there to a far greater extent. And what law there is, is pretty harsh to creationism.

What about the PR/education battle? I think the legal battle helps there. After Kitzmiller, I've most definitely noticed an upswing in people that have, unsolicited, talked to me about creationism and the problems it raises. I see more attention paid to it on political web sites not devoted to the E/C debate. I've definitely seen more people, whose primary concern is other issues, thinking that creationism is a problem.

There's an increased skepticism of politicians who pander to the Republican base on this. The recent GOP debate opened my eyes to this - many observers were surprised that three of ten candidates said they didn't accept evolution. What surprised me was how low this number was; a few years ago, the proportions would have been reversed.

Kitzmiller helped because it was news that got people's attention in a way that most scientific news, unfortunately, never does. It was argued expertly by Pepper Hamilton and the NCSE staff, and generally covered well by the media that focused on the trial. A lot of the country that had never heard the phrase "intelligent design" were exposed to it in an unflattering light.

I like PZ a lot, and I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but I agree with Ed that he's just dead wrong about this. What this fight takes is convincing people that evolution is good science, and important, and worth defending. You don't achieve that by going around telling people "Everything you've ever believed or been told about the world is wrong." That works for some people who are receptive to a personal paradigm shift, but most people aren't. The response of most people to that is "Screw you, I'm not listening to you."

People are not solely rational actors. They often act irrationally, and according to emotion and instinct. And this is often a good thing; decisions made according to such suboptimal heuristics may be necessary when the decision-maker is confronted with time pressures or incomplete information on which to make the decision.

If I understand PZ's argument correctly, he is saying that we need to change the landscape of the PR/education battle, and that it would be easier to win and convince people of the importance of good science if more people were atheists and accepted a philosophically naturalistic view of the world. Undoubtedly he's right about that.

But you're not going to get there simply by ridiculing people for holding religious views. Ridicule can be effective in certain circumstances, when the intended audience does not empathize with the target of the ridicule. That's why it's often effective with political figures and the wealthy. It's far less effective when used against people the audience empathizes and agrees with (and if you don't think that includes their pastors and other trusted religious figures, think again). Using ridicule against an empathetic figure is far more likely to result in a backlash against the speaker.

The people we're trying to address here are decent people, who don't have much idea of what science says or how it works, and who simply accept what they've been told by their families and preachers. They believe atheists are evil and that evolution requires atheism, because that's what they've been told. They can be convinced, but they won't be if you treat them rudely, or call them names, or tell them everyone who matters to them is lying to them. You've got to do things slowly, in small steps. Show them some of the wonders of biology. Show them that other devout people accept evolution. Get some chinks in their armor of ignorance. Get them saying, "Hey, these people aren't so bad after all." To that extent, having Ken Miller and Francis Collins argue for evolution is nothing but a benefit, even if your ultimate goal - as PZ's seems to be - is to get them to move away from religion entirely.

As I said, I like PZ and agree with him on a lot of things. But unfortunately I think he's a lousy promoter of the ideas he'd like others, who don't already share some of his views, to accept. He's trying to jump across the ravine in one leap. I think it's far easier to hike down into the ravine and climb up the other side. It's far easier to chip away at someone's worldview piecemeal, and far more likely to succeed at changing their mind, than it is to ask them to change it all in one swoop.

Posted by: Kenneth Fair | May 15, 2007 6:58 PM

Raging Bee

"Stop allowing" is a pretty unambiguous phrase, especially when applied to expression of opinions. When thin-skinned theists say they want to "stop allowing" others to "insult" their religions (as they've been doing a lot lately), it's perfectly obvious they mean using legal force and/or other forms of intimidation to punish such "insults." You used the same words, therefore I read the same meaning. Any misunderstanding on my part is your fault, and no one else's.

everyone knows that "not allow" means to physically prevent the opposing team to run at will, by means that are perfectly legal and accepted in the game of football.

Similarly, a careful reader would see a sentence that begins with "The real PR fight is..." and understand that what follows is confined to a propaganda war.

Your analogy is like Hitler at an ice-rink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

I win!

Francis Collins, for all of his contributions to science, endorses a wholly anti-scientific attitude in some aspects of his life.

IF his attitudes don't conflict with his science (and you've just admitted they don't), then, by definition, they're not "anti-scientific." Get your terminololgy straight.

(eyes rolling)

These are fairly simple concepts here. A "scientific" attitude restricts its conclusions to observable evidence. An "anti-scientific" attitude throws away the need for evidence and indulges in speculation. The fact that Collins uses an anti-scientific attitude in his theological meanderings does not mean that he's a bad biologist. It does mean that he legitimizes non-empirical thought by indulging in it, and, indeed, praising its virtues.

Why is it so baffling that a person could be scientific in some areas of life and anti-scientific in others?

If people have problems with atheistic science, then putting a bit of lipstick on it doesn't really solve the problem.

Telling the world that science is not, in and of itself, "atheistic," is not "lipstick;" it's a fact. We should be calling science "agnostic," since that word means "not claiming to know."

And this is the crux of the discussion. I use the word "atheistic" to mean "lacking the need of a theistic hypothesis". I have written several scientific papers, refereed dozens more, and read hundreds of them. I've yet to encounter a theistic hypothesis in any of that work. I feel entirely justified in saying that science is an atheistic enterprise. I would simply use the word "secular" but since the right-wing Christianists have been attempting to take over the government by equating "secular" with "atheist" I think it's more productive to take on that conflation head-on, rather than run away from the distinction.

I realize it's politically expedient to go down the path of "nonoverlapping magisteria", but that just seems like politically correct unscientific nonsense.

"Politically expedient," as used here, is just a sneering swear-word for "talking to others, finding common ground, and building a coalition to get the right thing done." If Jesus partied with politicians and other sinners, why can't atheists talk to theists without blowing a gasket? Not strong enough to face other people?

If I'm teaching a course in Calculus, I'm not interested in "finding common ground", if that "common ground" is based on completely non-mathematical premises.

BTW, I love the usage of the word "sneering". Telling a person he is "sneering" reflects a mature approach to debate.

I find that your tone is entirely presumptuous and disrespectful. I'm sorry that you have a problem with the concept of letting science simply be science. But as I see it, religion has no place in science. I don't believe that religious leaders represent any sincere attempt to truthfully explore the world. Rather, I find their maneuverings to be typically driven more by political
egotism than anything else.

You know what? Let's say somebody comes to me and asks me: how can I reconcile the creation myth of Genesis with the commonly accepted scientifically-grounded notions that the Earth is several billion years old, that fossils represent species that lived in the past and may not necessarily exist any longer today, and that distinct species that live today and look entirely different from each other may have had shared common ancestors? My answer is going to be that Genesis is simply an old legend and isn't literal truth. If they insist on trying to shoehorn the evidence to an explanation that has been discarded by the scientific community, I will explain that the explanation has been discarded as flawed.

If I kiss ass and pretend their ideas are just as good as science, all I've accomplished is the perpetuation of inferior thinking. I realize it's considered impolitic to simply tell people that they are wrong, but when it comes to science, that is often the only path to take.

It really isn't a coincidence that the most religiously-driven Presidential administration in recent memory is also the most anti-scientific. Faith-based anti-empiricism and reason-based empiricism just are not compatible.

Posted by: RickD | May 15, 2007 7:28 PM

...if the religious approach to the world is inherently inimical to scienitific thought, then ultimately theistic evolution isn't a friend of science.

First, this statement is based on the false assumption that there is only ONE "religious approach to the world." Different religions have different approaches, and individuals within one faith can have different approaches. This is, after all, why there are so many wildly differing interpretations of the Bible.

And because of this false assumption, the connection between "religious approach to the world" and "theistic evolution isn't a friend of science" becomes suspect.

If I'm teaching a course in Calculus, I'm not interested in "finding common ground", if that "common ground" is based on completely non-mathematical premises.

If you were teaching such a course, you WOULD probably start by establishing common ground: by finding out what your students already knew and understood, and building on that foundation.

But we're not teaching calculus, are we? We're engaged in a POLITICAL struggle, for religious freedom and decent and honest science education, against people who want to use "science" to legitimize their particular religion and thus force everyone else's kids to be indoctrinated in it. And a political struggle must be won by political means -- including finding common ground, building concensus, making deals, dispelling irrational fears of our agenda, and (perhaps most importnat of all) picking and choosing our battles wisely, and not wasting resources fighting battles that don't have to be fought, against people who don't think like us but might not necessarily be our enemies. If you have a problem with any of this, perhaps you should stop telling others how to do the right thing.

But as I see it, religion has no place in science.

I totally agree. But that's not the same thing as saying that all religion is useless crap. Can you not say one without saying the other? I can.

Let's say somebody comes to me and asks me: how can I reconcile the creation myth of Genesis with the commonly accepted scientifically-grounded notions that the Earth is several billion years old, that fossils represent species that lived in the past and may not necessarily exist any longer today, and that distinct species that live today and look entirely different from each other may have had shared common ancestors? My answer is going to be that Genesis is simply an old legend and isn't literal truth.

You could also say, as I do, that the Bible is not intended to be a literal document; and that most of the Bible stories that are important to people are important for their metaphorical, not literal, truth. You could also add that many Christians throughout history have interpreted the Bible the same way.

It is possible to uphold honest science without directly attacking religion in general. Understanding exactly who your enemy is leads to victory; assuming that all of a certain broadly-defined class of people are, by definition, your enemy, and giving up in advance on getting them on your side, leads to failure; as does confusion about your own objectives.

No, it won't convince everyone; but if it convinces a few people, and weakens the resolve of some others to continue attacking honest science and education, then that will advance our cause. Divide-and-rule is a valid political tactic, and if we can accomplish it with the truth (scientific or religious), then I'm all for it. I've done worse things for less.

If I kiss ass and pretend their ideas are just as good as science, all I've accomplished is the perpetuation of inferior thinking.

First, who here is advocating "kissing ass and pretending their ideas are as good as science?" Second, you're not responsible for the "inferiority" of other people's thoughts, only for doing your part to get the right thing done in your lifetime. Third, since you seem both ignorant and uncaring as to exactly what others are thinking, how do you know their thinking is "inferior?"

It really isn't a coincidence that the most religiously-driven Presidential administration in recent memory is also the most anti-scientific.

Actually, it is. Jimmy Carter (to take just one example) was also religiously driven, but he had a totally different mindset from Bush's. Besides, just because a President doesn't wear his religious motivations on his sleeve, doesn't mean he has no such motivations. I'm religiously-driven too -- I want the freedom to preach and practice my religion, and not see anyone else tear my country apart with any sort of religious pogroms.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 15, 2007 8:40 PM

RickD -

I use the word "atheistic" to mean "lacking the need of a theistic hypothesis".

While in a purely semantic sense, that is correct, you should well expect people to take a very different meaning than that which you intend. "Atheist" is generaly understood to describe a lack of belief in theism or any supernatural agency - a philosophical position.

I feel entirely justified in saying that science is an atheistic enterprise. I would simply use the word "secular" but since the right-wing Christianists have been attempting to take over the government by equating "secular" with "atheist" I think it's more productive to take on that conflation head-on, rather than run away from the distinction.

Or in other words, your happy to let the right wing fundies frame the entire discussion, rather than making sure any sane person understands what your saying. Do you honestly not see that this puts you in a very similar catagory as the theistic rightwing nutjobs that have done so much damage to this country in the last few years?

I'm sorry that you have a problem with the concept of letting science simply be science. But as I see it, religion has no place in science.

Please explain where anyone has suggested that religion has a place in science. That has not happened here, because, I imagine, no one here believes that, not even Raging Bee. Nor has anyone suggested that science be anything but science.

I don't believe that religious leaders represent any sincere attempt to truthfully explore the world.

That's because that is not their job, though some are quite supportive of legitimate scientific exploration.

Rather, I find their maneuverings to be typically driven more by political egotism than anything else.

That is a very small minority of religious leaders. That the majority that fall into that catagory happen to be the ones with the most power, is indicitive of the corrupting force of power, not their profession. The same is true of secular politicians, secular business leaders, even those who inhabit the halls of education. Anyplace that allows people to gain some sort of authority and power, is touched by similar political egotism - it even exists in the HIV AIDS support group of which I am a part, an all volunteer dis-organization.

If I kiss ass and pretend their ideas are just as good as science, all I've accomplished is the perpetuation of inferior thinking. I realize it's considered impolitic to simply tell people that they are wrong, but when it comes to science, that is often the only path to take.

And who pray tell, is telling you not to be critical of religious belief? The only thing that anyone here is arguing is that it is ridiulous for anyone, least of all atheists, to perpetuate the false dichotomy that acceptance of science cannot coexist with theisim.

I am sick and damned tired of people trying to claim that it is impossible for me to believe in God and accept evolution. I am tired of theists claiming I will go to hell for it and I am tired of atheists claiming it's just not possible. Excuse me, but fuck all of you. I am who I am, I believe what I believe. I wouldn't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks, except that I, like I assume you, would like to see religion keeping it's paws out of secular culture and especialy secular law. One of the strongest tools for accomplishing that in the U.S. is to break down this idiot false dichotomy that is perpetuated by both extremist theists and extremist atheists.

Unfortunately, extremists on both sides are the ones that seem to be framing the debate and that is the real problem. In fact that is the real clear answer to Matt Penefolds enlightenment question - in the U.S., for whatever reason, extremists seem to be the primary source of the frames in which these discussions take place.

Posted by: DuWayne | May 15, 2007 9:00 PM

kehrsam -

Yeah, but I could really use a drink after that. Or, prefferably, a fat joint. Unfortunately, I have neither here, the pregnant momma is asleep and I don't like taking the five year old any of the places I could procur either. The five year old wants a tall glass of choclatey milk after that - at least one of us can have what we want. Unfortunately, I am also now stuck trying to explain what dichotamy means to said five year old. . .

Posted by: DuWayne | May 15, 2007 9:27 PM

One of the strongest tools for accomplishing that in the U.S. is to break down this idiot false dichotomy that is perpetuated by both extremist theists and extremist atheists.

Unfortunately, extremists on both sides are the ones that seem to be framing the debate and that is the real problem.

Precisely, DuWayne. Thank you for saying it so clearly. Until the last few months, I really thought the central issue for me was explaining to other Christians that science does not equal atheism as it seeks to describe nature and how nature works. I thought that any scientist would agree that science does not attempt to investigate or establish the existence/non-existence of God. But now it seems to me that the idea that science says nothing about God has to be argued with some scientists also.

It's really taken me by surprise to discover that some science-oriented atheists agree with fundamentalists of various religions about the interrelatedness of science and religion. I was ignorant enough not even to realize that some people (appearly) take the position that the oh-so-recently-evolved human brain has developed a thinking method so powerful that only a liar or a moron would express an opinion that there seems to exist something beyond that method's present/ever ability to pinpoint.

Posted by: Julia | May 15, 2007 10:10 PM

I wish I could post something here, but the cosmic irony of this thread is just too perfect for mere words.

Enough said.

Posted by: Poly | May 15, 2007 11:01 PM

Coin:

Aside from the SBC, there are the Pentecostalist and charismatic movements, which are more movements than distinct denominations but which the literalist wings within are nonetheless basically equal in size to many other "major Christian churches".

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all of those movements are on the side of ID.

So how big are those groups? In percentage of population, in 2001:

Baptist (which includes American Baptist, but we'll throw it in for luck): 16.3%

Pentecostal/Charismatic: 2.1%

That's 17.4%. Still smaller than the 24.5% of population who are Roman Catholic, and it's not close to a majority of the 85% of Americans who self-identify as Christian. It's not even a majority of the 44% of the US population who regularly attend a Christian place of worship!

Dawkins' claim that "decent, understated religion is numerically negligible", quite simply, does not reflect reality.

Matt Penfold also hints at it being untrue, in the UK:

In The God Delusion Dawkins explicity refers to moderate Anglians, the type he and I grew up with. He says his argument is not with that form of relgion [...]

If the moderate Anglicanism that they grew up with is now "numerically negligible", then clearly some kind of religious catastrophe has occurred that I haven't heard of.

Posted by: Pseudonym | May 15, 2007 11:07 PM

Yes, and by the link you cite this places them in size neatly between the Presbyterians and the Episcopals. So I'd say, as I did before, that if we were to lump them together, they would clearly qualify as a major Christian denomination.

(Just to be clear, both instances of "them" in this quote refer to the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement.)

Posted by: Coin | May 15, 2007 11:33 PM

Matt P., I just have one question. Why, when I keep making points about Myers, do you reply with discussion of The God Delusion? Do I have to say again that Dawkins and Myers are not the same person? For one, Dawkins is a much better writer.

Posted by: Chris | May 16, 2007 12:38 AM

I'ld be interested in knowing which claims you consider implausible

A brief list would include: survival of consciousness after brain death (including transference of that consciousness to another body, as in re-incarnation, or another state, as in the afterlife); human virgin birth, especially that produces a male child; various religion-specific events that contravene known scientific principles (parting of seas, transmutation of substances such as water into wine, creating mass as in multiplying foodstuffs, etc). Christianity is of course not alone in its anti-science.

I'll pick just one of the above, Human Virgin Birth of a Male.
Does science deny the possibility?

Firstly XX genotype does not always result in female phenotype in humans, articles below from pub med and American Journal of Medical genetics give details and are two of many.

If we were to look at non-human mammals this mix up has been found there as well.
Some mammals, i.e. some voles, have even lost the Y chromosome completely, there XX = female X = male.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16556678

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110519915/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

We know that chimera exist, at least in some species and that they can reproduce parthenogenetically (most famously Komodo Dragons). Yes I do know that they are WZ = female ZZ=male so aren't the same as mammals; however it can be induced in some mammals, though not very succesfully.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3528971&dopt=Abstract

We know that cloning is possible without the need for male sperm for activation of the egg in some mammals (i.e. sheep), though it does require human intervention.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

I would add the fact (well I believe that it is a fact) that all living things are related and that evolution by natural selection is true, so comparing what occurs in other animals can add to our understanding of what can/may happen in humans.
Of course, sometimes the inferences aren't valid.

When I say all living things I really mean those on Earth only; life elsewhere in the universe is likely to differ somewhat. I am also discounting (with no good reason, apart from laziness) the possibility of multiple origins (see June 2007 Scientific American - A Simpler Origin for Life, the possibility is mentioned in the side notes) for life.

So can we, categorically, deny the possibility of a human virgin birth based on science's present understanding?

Given all the problems with cloning and mammalian parthogenesis, I would say that it is highly improbable to have a human virgin birth naturally. But, is it beyond the bounds of consideration?

It might actually raise interesting ideas for Christians, Jesus would combine male and female as well as the divine.

but as this isn't the subject of the thread

But in a real way it is -- if the religious approach to the world is inherently inimical to scienitific thought, then ultimately theistic evolution isn't a friend of science. In the short term it may be possible to use it as a political expedient, but in the long term, it is either fundamentally at odds with science, or so lacking in the "theistic" part as to not really be religion.
Posted by: Tulse | May 15

A religious philosophy (Theistic or otherwise) is not inherently inimical to scientific thought, nor is religion necessarily anti-science. This is simply a wrong belief.

If the only understanding of religion comes from those who despise it or from reading about YECs or IDists and what they've written then I can understand the comment.

However, I would suggest that reading and thinking about religion without making the assumption that philosophical materialism/naturalism is obviouslly correct.

It measurably isn't the case that all people agree with this philosophy, in fact I'ld warrant that not even all Atheists agree with it. I know that all Agnostics don't.

It also doesn't require "cognitive dissonance" for a Theist to practice methodological naturalism (i.e. science).
The person simply has to have come to an understanding (reading St Aquinas on the natural sciences might help) that the natural world is lawful, effects have causes, it is understandable and that God wishes us to know & learn about it, wherever it might lead; "ad majorem Dei gloriam" as the Jesuits say.

Posted by: Chris' Wills | May 16, 2007 7:25 AM

Posted by: DuWayne | May 15, 2007 09:00 PM :I am sick and damned tired of people trying to claim that it is impossible for me to believe in God and accept evolution. I am tired of theists claiming I will go to hell for it and I am tired of atheists claiming it's just not possible. Excuse me, but fuck all of you. I am who I am, I believe what I believe.

but DuWayne, if you don't pick a side how will you know whether you have the right flavor of absolute truth? Surely you aren't suggesting trying to understanding things on your own? Shocking...

----------------------
Posted by: RickD | May 15, 2007 07:28 PM You know what? Let's say somebody comes to me and asks me: how can I reconcile the creation myth of Genesis with the commonly accepted scientifically-grounded notions that the Earth is several billion years old

Rick, let's say no one asks you, but instead you go hunting around looking for anything anyone might say that is different than what you think and ridicule it, correct them, teaching them to think properly about everything you think is important. If they react negatively to you, you accuse them of avoiding debate, or being immature and deluded.

I'm curious, what kind of credentials do you have that lead you to believe that theists would be swayed by your ideas? You seem to want them to accept your authority about the way things are, to abandon what seems right to them for your views. What authority do you think is sufficient to cause people to substitute your judgment for theirs?

I understand you get a wonderful feeling from silencing your opponents with your rhetoric. This is your version of the most important battle, right?... not allowing theists to villify atheism by silencing theists wherever you meet them with your arguments. I know that wonderful feeling you are talking about, it's the one you get from beating somebody, from proving that you are better and stronger by making them submit or run away. It's great for the ego, but I have to tell you, in my experience, it doesn't do much for society, and it doesn't actually take away their power. It does make them hate and resent you, though... so there's that.

Posted by: John B | May 16, 2007 9:56 AM

...But, at root, all religions are committed to anti-naturalism is some form.

In other words, you'll stick to your overly-broad generalization, even after quoting sufficient evidence to prove it suspect, if not altogether wrong. (And there's plenty more such evidence that you did not quote.) With the vague weasel-words "in some form" stuck on as a further dodge.

And, in the end, this means that any religion is at best a temporary partner of convenience in any fight for science.

When, exactly, is "the end?" And when, exactly, are we supposed to ditch the allies who have so far proved indispensible to our cause? If you can't give us a timetable, at least try to describe some benchmark events to look for.

Posted by: Raging Bee | May 16, 2007 11:02 AM

Raging Bee, I didn't see any evidence offered against the claim that all religions are committed to anti-naturalism in some form. You said that "Different religions have different approaches", which is vague in the extreme and doesn't directly address the claim. If you want to offer an example of a religion with no anti-naturalistic commitments, by all means do so. But making assertions is not evidence.

(In its most academic, intellectual, Westernized form, Buddhism might count as a religion without anti-naturalistic assumptions, although I'm not sure that form actually counts as a religion -- my practicing spouse would certainly argue that it's not. And the weakest form of clockmaker Deism might also count, although without an afterlife, or miracles, or any form of divine intervention, I'm not clear why one would actually hold such beliefs.)

And I agree that the issue Ed addresses in the original post is partly, or even largely, political, and that thus (as I noted earlier) it may very well be temporarily expedient to ally with those whose religious beliefs are less overtly hostile to religion. Even Dawkins has said that he wouldn't have written The God Delusion if he only had to deal with religious moderates, and he seems willing to be a bedfellow with moderates when they fight against extremism. PZ takes a different view, one that is far more militant, but also I think far more long-term in its approach. We can certainly debate which is more likely to succeed, and in what timeframe and using what criteria. But in the end, the original claim still stands -- any religion, by their very nature, has core assumptions that are anti-naturalistic, and therefore will, at some point, be in opposition to science.

Posted by: Tulse | May 16, 2007 11:52 AM

But in the end, the original claim still stands -- any religion, by their very nature, has core assumptions that are anti-naturalistic, and therefore will, at some point, be in opposition to science.

It rather depends upon what "naturalism" is taken as. If you mean "philosophical naturalism", the sort that says that there is nothing besides the material universe, then, yeah, most if not all religion is at issue with that. But then you can't claim that opposing that equals opposition to science, because science does not entail philosophical naturalism. If you mean "methodological naturalism", then there are plenty of religions that do not have a problem with methodological naturalism, so the claim that all religion must be in opposition to science fails there, too. So I'm hard up to see in what sense, that is, with what definition of "naturalism", the claim could even possibly be true. A winning definition would be something that (1) all religions reject and (2) is an entailment of science and (3) is reasonably called "naturalism". Help me out here.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | May 16, 2007 12:57 PM

..But in the end, the original claim still stands -- any religion, by their very nature, has core assumptions that are anti-naturalistic, and therefore will, at some point, be in opposition to science. Posted by: Tulse | May 16, 2007 11:52 AM

You still haven't offered a scientific proof or any proof at all of your claim.
You are, of course, free to believe anything you like but I suspect that you are confusing science with your personal philosophy.

Science is not a philosophy, science is a method (methodological naturalism).
I did point out why a Theist can happily practice science with no cognitive dissonance.

But as you appear to believe that science = atheism perhaps you need to re-educate yourself as to what science is.

Posted by: Chris' Wills | May 16, 2007 1:19 PM

Tulse -

Belief in miracles is directly opposed to science. If you genuinely belief that an extra-natural agency intervenes in nature, then that's an anti-scientific view. Sorry.

No it's not, it is a non-scientific view, that has nothing to do with science. I am not saying that any science or scientific process can prove my belief. I even accept that science may well disprove my belief in the future, in which case I will accept that I was wrong. Indeed, when I was a child I firmly held that the biblical description of creation was the absolute truth. When I learned otherwise, I accepted that I was wrong and my beliefs changed.

The fact that I reach a conclusion that is not based on the scientific process does not mean that I am anti-science - any more than my conclusion that believe that a business that takes care of its employees, developes and operates on a sustainability model, as opposed to a growth model that the vast majority of business is based on, can and will be more likely to survive in the long term, is anti-science. I have not used the scientific process to come ot that conclusion, I have no quantifiable evidence to support that conclusion. The fact that I came to that conclusion without using the scientific method, does not mean that that belief is anti-science.

People reach conclusions that are not derived from the scientific process every day. This would include scientists. Do you hold political views? If you do, you have reached them without using the scientific process, even if some of them are based on science. Do you have your own political theory? Again, it is impossible to develope such theories, using the scientific method. Does this make you anti-science? Of course not. Reaching conclusions outside the scientific method, does not in itself make one anti-science. Reaching conclusions that ar diametricly apposed to scientificly proven facts is anti-science.

Like I have repeatedly said, I have no quams with people criticizing anyone's religious beliefs, including my own. My problem is with extremists take philosophical positions that are derived from their understanding of science and couch them as absolute, scientific truth. Science has shown that miracles are highly improbable, not that they are impossible.

Posted by: DuWayne | May 16, 2007 3:39 PM

Tulse:

This has just been too delicious watching you dig yourself into a hole. But my baloney meter went completely off the scale with this nonsense:

If you believe in methodological naturalism, you believe miracles are impossible, period. (To be completely accurate, science hasn't "shown" that miracles are impossible, but rather it takes that as a core assumption of methodological naturalism.)

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along, or did you actually study the philosophy of science and forget most of it? Because to be really completely accurate about it, this is just silly.

A methodological presupposition implies absolutely nothing about epistemology or ontology. Zero. Nada.

If you want to make the statement that that knowledge about S is impossible, you can't make it based on a methodology that presupposes the exclusion of knowledge about S.

If you want to make the statement that S is impossible, you can't make it based on a methodology that excludes the possibility of S.

And just so you know, positivism died a much deserved death quite a while ago. There were good reasons why it died, and the reasons had almost nothing to do with religious opposition to that worldview. You can look it up. But don't let that stop you from digging that hole deeper.

Posted by: Poly | May 16, 2007 8:02 PM

So what you meant was that if you believe in methodological naturalism, it's impossible to use 'the miraculous' as the justification of a belief?

Posted by: John B | May 17, 2007 11:46 AM