In response to the unwarranted flap over the education director of the Royal Society making comments that of course the media and the creationists spun to suit themselves, Richard Dawkins had this to say:
Although I disagree with Michael Reiss, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take. Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity. The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution. Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science -- so the argument runs -- and they'll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who include a worryingly high proportion of Christians and almost all Muslims, by the way). No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the 'sensible' minority of Christians turn out to be. The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is 'no conflict' between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn't deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.
Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prizewinning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste. Nevertheless -- it's regrettable but true -- the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!" If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would wish, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency. This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism's most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose. Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society's Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.
Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I'd rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?
Richard Dawkins FRS
Oxford
[See comment 41]
Let's look at the two comments I italicised.
Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity.
Oh really? Accommodationists respect creationists? Strawman much again, Richard? Accommodationists do respect those who have religious beliefs that do not interfere with their science, the way one respects a male magistrate thinking his wife is pretty so long as it doesn't make any difference to the sentences handed down to ugly defendants. It doesn't follow that they think the wife is pretty.
Dawkins wants to set up a false dichotomy under which he and all his cobelievers are on the Good Side, the sensible side, the rational side. And yet, these rational brights can call all religion ignorant and stupid without needing to know or appreciate the religious views they deride. Yeah, I know, Courtier's Reply, etc. Fairyology. Blah blah. But this isn't about what you and your friends think of religion, Richard; this is about whether what they think causes them to do with science. And guess what? Most religious scientists do great science. Most religious science teachers teach great science. I have known these "accommodationists" for forty years, and honourable men and women they mostly are; just as honourable as the atheists among them.
The division isn't Accommodationists versus the rest of you. It's between Exclusionists versus the rest of us. You want to exclude any religion from human society, including scientific society. You are whistling against the wind here. Religion is a fact of human nature and isn't going away any time soon, so if you want a science based society, and we do, learn to live with them.
Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty.
Again, really? And dividing the world into the Rational Atheists and the Foolish and Stupid Agnostics, Theists and Craven Cowards isn't? In what way can science declare that all religious belief is ignorant and stupid? What's the assay for that? What's the experimental protocol? Show me the measurements and the stats. Let's make this a scientific debate.
You can't, because it isn't one. It's a philosophical debate and you have fallen into the mistake made by the logical positivists in philosophy. This was a group that held that any knowledge had to be verifiable by scientific means. This was called the Verification Principle. Critics pointed out that the Verification Principle is not verifiable by scientific means and is therefore not knowledge. Logical positivism was self-defeating (although the version later called logical empiricism survives with much to recommend it).
Dawkins' view is self-defeating. He wants all knowledge to be positively scientific, using a principle that is not, itself, scientific. Gods are not vulnerable to scientific demonstration, one way or the other (avoiding the falsification debate). To say there are no gods is to make a philosophical claim, and it is not ignorant nor stupid to make philosophical claims for or against deities that do not require belief in falsehoods that can be demonstrated scientifically. Does Zeus exist? Well, not on the physical Mount Olympus, but on some spiritual Mount Olympus, who can say? Certainly not Dawkins. His "science is all the knowledge there is" view is either not knowledge, or it is false. If it is not knowledge, then by his own standards he is saying something that must be ignorant and stupid.
This is called, in logic, the tu quoque, or the Peewee Herman Move ("You are!" "No, you are!"). The scientific dishonesty of Dawkins is that he is trying to sell the idea that if some belief isn't an outcome of science it must be ignorant and stupid; but this is something science cannot itself show to be true; Dawkins merely believes that. Or else, put up or shut up - show us the scientific research that proves, to scientific standards, that no gods exist. No inductive arguments - they are philosophical. Show me the actual data. Or allow people of good will to say to those who are religious, "If you don't screw with the science, welcome, no matter what you believe".
Politics
Stumble It!
Comments
But isn't the burden on the person making the positive statement? If you believe in something, and you want me to act as if it exists, your job is to provide the evidence. If the believers in Bigfoot support biology education and don't insist that Sasquatch is taught as a primate, they are useful. But, there is always going to be the nagging fear that they will want their pet belief treated as scientifically viable, and they will turn on you at the first opportunity.
Posted by: Avenel | September 16, 2008 9:45 PM
While I love to read Dawkins, Myers and all them for science, often they just come across to me as just as insulting and immature and just a nasty as Ray, Adman, Gabriel and the other we see on Usenet. Snex is eve a better example of this, IMNSHO.
I just don't get how Dawkins, Myers and those like them think they can change other peoples' opinions by essentially yelling "Hey, moron! You're an idiot." Insulting the other side is only going to make them put up their shields and then you'll never convince them.
The people that Dawkins calls "Accomodationists" are really those that are willing to try and be polite and not engage in immature name calling.
Posted by: Cory Albrecht | September 16, 2008 9:50 PM
A chance to blunder again! Oh goody!
Copita de nieve dixit:
Dawkins' view is self-defeating. He wants all knowledge to be positively scientific, using a principle that is not, itself, scientific.
I don't think this is true. I just think that if you can't justify this knowledge, invisible pink unicorns and all that, then how do you call it knowledge? Metaphysical flights of fancy may coincide with reality, but how could you justifiably claim this? You can't empirically test it, thus you have no evidence, there's no logical demonstration that fixes it as necessary, thus it's all in your own head and not to be treated as knowledge. I think.
Posted by: Brian English | September 16, 2008 10:21 PM
The above assumes that knowledge is something that coincides with reality not by fluke, but by some understanding of reality. Of course, there are many believers who talk of other forms of knowledge, but these other forms of knowledge seem all to just boil down to an intuition based on previous religious commitments (i.e. Christians know that Jesus is talking to them or Muslims know that Muhammad was the best human that lived and the Quran is perfect. etc) and can hardly be verified in an intersubjective manner. I can't see how they know these things given the vagaries of the human mind and all that.....
Shoot me down. :)
Posted by: Brian English | September 16, 2008 10:30 PM
And how is Dawkins position not a positive one? And, by the way, how is acting on a "nagging fear" either sensible or rational?
I don't mind insulting the professional creationists -- they really are ignorant or stupid or wicked. But it is far from obvious that the notion that there is only two sides is any better.
Right on, John!
Posted by: John Pieret | September 16, 2008 10:33 PM
And, by the way, how is acting on a "nagging fear" either sensible or rational? It may well be rational if it's based on previous experience. If religious people before have let their convictions get in the way of good science, then would it not be prudent to fear that this may again happen? It could be quite sensible and normal to have this nagging fear.
Posted by: Brian English | September 16, 2008 10:40 PM
Quite apart from the justification that might lend to racism and the like, the rational response would be to endeavor to either confirm or deny the fear, not to attempt to oust someone from a position of trust before he or she had been shown to warrant the vague suspicion.
Posted by: John Pieret | September 16, 2008 11:02 PM
If religious people before have let their convictions get in the way of good science, then would it not be prudent to fear that this may again happen? It could be quite sensible and normal to have this nagging fear.
What, mistrust all religious people because of the actions of some? Mistrust Ken Miller because of Duane Gish? There's a word for that: bigotry. In this case, it stems from the perception that, because they have some common philosophical assumption, they will behave similarly in cases of interest to us. This is false: people in fact vary all over the map, and their actions depend on their presumed metaphysics a great deal less than one might expect.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 16, 2008 11:04 PM
I don't think that Myers or Dawkins have said that religious people are stupid. They do point out that they are ignorant, but that is not an insult. We are all ignorant, and ignorance is curable. Stupidity isn't.
Posted by: Avenel | September 16, 2008 11:14 PM
Which was probably why respect was in scare quotes. Some people are more inclined to make courteous noises in the hope that they will not frighten away a potential ally, that's all.
I'm not really clear on what this has to do with, well, anything. Dawkins is on record esteeming authors and musicians and visual artists as much as any public intellectual is; perhaps I'm being too generous, but I doubt he'd be overeager to judge an aesthetic question with the tools of a scientific laboratory.
Perhaps this is true of the gods summoned in the dark rites of philosophy departments, whose sacraments are the blood of undergraduates. The one who bestrides the collective consciousness where I come from is a different breed. Otherwise, why would all the people I knew growing up feel so threatened by such humble things as fossils?
Indeed.
The God Delusion, pp. 52–54.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 16, 2008 11:20 PM
Did you miss the first italicised comment?
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | September 16, 2008 11:20 PM
Well said, John, right on the money as usual.
For myself, I am both outraged and deeply disappointed at this shabby treatment of Professor Reiss. Outraged because, as Dawkins himself wrote:
and disappointed that men who have earned respect in other ways should have failed to stand up for the freedoms and principles on which science is partly based.Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | September 16, 2008 11:20 PM
Did you miss the praise of Ken Miller, "arguably creationism's most formidable critic" in America?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 16, 2008 11:22 PM
This is probably where I should trot out my standard list of disagreements with Dawkins: I think his characterization of cosmologists in TGD does not fairly reflect the reason why they have not all rushed to embrace Smolin's proposal for the natural selection of universes; I wish he had run TGD by a colleague in the history department; I am not enthused by his wilder excesses of adaptationism; I found The Genius of Charles Darwin bedeviled with "textbook cardboard".
I could probably go on, but no one is listening. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 16, 2008 11:27 PM
By "playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty." Faint praise indeed.
And there is a lot I like about Dawkins. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized when he's wrong.
Posted by: John Pieret | September 16, 2008 11:39 PM
Faint praise (and I won't argue that it's anything else) isn't equivalent to calling somebody "stupid".
Naturally. I'm just a little confused how exactly going off on a tangent about the Demarcation Problem, the difference between verificationism and falsificationism, and what flavour of tea Zeus is drinking out of Russell's Teapot as he orbits the Platosphere does any good in that regard.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 16, 2008 11:48 PM
Quite apart from the justification that might lend to racism and the like, the rational response would be to endeavor to either confirm or deny the fear, not to attempt to oust someone from a position of trust before he or she had been shown to warrant the vague suspicion. Racism is based on appearances, not expressed beliefs, so that's a non-sequitur. The rest of your argument I agree with. I never said to oust anyone, I said that if in your previous experience you've had trouble with people expressing certain beliefs, that it would be wise and prudent to worry about the next person expressing those beliefs. The way to allay those fears, which I never discussed, would be what you just said. Talk about jumping to conclusions.
What, mistrust all religious people because of the actions of some? Mistrust Ken Miller because of Duane Gish? There's a word for that: bigotry. Rubbish. People throw the word bigot around to silence views they disagree with. You'd be a liar if you said you didn't take peoples prior commitments into consideration when dealing with them, it's both rational and a good (but not fallible) way to avoid being screwed.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2008 12:03 AM
that was 'but not infallible' of course. Sorry, about that, but the people who created a strawman out of my comment got me in a hurry to post.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2008 12:06 AM
to Corey Albrecht - -
I (and hopefully you) have read The God Delusion, but I don't remember any "name-
calling" in it. Maybe its religious readers
just "feel" like idiots after Dawkins keeps
destroying their religious arguments that have
gone unchallenged for too long in polite
society.
Posted by: Ed Myob | September 17, 2008 12:07 AM
At lunch I was thinking about John's comment regarding 'people of good will' and the thing that came to mind is that most theists hold that there is a soul, an entity that is unmeasurable or immaterial, but yet this entity interacts with the material (energy/matter). This violates the scientific principle of conservation of energy. This doesn't seem to create too many waves, but it's interesting that these people of good will hold, and surely some teach, something which violates a totally uncontroversial tenet of physics based on zilch but religion. I can understand why this gives some scientists the worries......
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2008 12:12 AM
Brian English:
If you really want to tip over into paranoia, you can start fretting over whether future discoveries will push the people who today are defenders of science into a mystical camp. Science does not stand still! The more we learn about the brain, for example, the more Francis Collins might feel himself on edge.
Like I said, it's basic paranoia, and I certainly don't want to condemn anyone now for what they might hypothetically do in the future — but in the abstract, it might be worth mulling over.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 17, 2008 12:53 AM
Blake, that sort of plays into my point about the soul. Someone like Francis Collins must on some level believe the science incorrect or wrong when it comes to the soul or an interventionist god (god would need to violate the law of conservation of energy if he answers prayers, etc). I'm not doubting the biology he does, but when he tells someone the soul is real, or that it's a reasonable belief and not contrary to scientific knowledge or that science is wrong on this score then that would seem to me to be violating John's accomodationists whose "religious beliefs that do not interfere with their science". Though you could argue that because he's not a physicist, it's not a problem.
Anyway, I must be wired different from the majority here. If a person (or persons) who has previously expressed a viewpoint, and in acting on that viewpoint has caused difficulties beforehand, then the next person who espouses the same views would give me a moment of pause. Not that I wouldn't give that person a chance, as actions speak louder than words, but I think I'd be a fool to ignore it. It's hardly paranoia, forewarned is forearmed and all that.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2008 1:05 AM
Brian #20: a soul, an entity that is unmeasurable or immaterial, but yet this entity interacts with the material (energy/matter). This violates the scientific principle of conservation of energy. This doesn't seem to create too many waves, but it's interesting that these people of good will hold, and surely some teach, something which violates a totally uncontroversial tenet of physics based on zilch but religion.
That assumes that physicalism is a complete description of reality. The following is a line of reasoning why I suspect it may not be. This is not intended to be a proof of any kind, just a line of philosophical reasoning that might lead one to argue against physical completeness (actually, I wish someone would conclusively shoot it down, since the deterministic nature of physicalism is far more comforting than some possible unknown alternatives):
1. Everything that is known or can be known (science, math, philosophy, religion, history, art, logic, etc), is all a part of your first-person experience, and always has been (the realization of that is also first-person experience). What you perceive as reality in its totality (noumenal and phenomenal), has never actually been separated from that experience. Not ever.
2. If there is a noumenal reality, it follows naturally in view of #1, that one must ask, why this reality is being experienced (observed) by the particular physical individual you refer to as "me", from the perspective of that particular body, at its particular location in time and space, and in this particular universe (assuming a real multiverse). It is a completely arbitrary perspective. The experience of other minds (if real), is still always inferred by you, and is not direct experience like yours. That is simply what is being observed.
3. In the physicalist model, there are no preferred points in space and time (well, assuming block time). Nor is there a preferred universe (assuming a real multiverse).
4. Yet, there very obviously is a preferred point in the multiverse: where you are. That is simply what is being observed. Its perspective can be changed only through imagination, but not in reality.
5. If physicalism were a complete description of reality, i.e. no preferred locations, then this subjectity problem should not exist. We should be zombies. Hence, physicalism is not a complete description of reality.
(Actually, I could skip 2-4 and it would probably still work for me.)
There is also the problem of just what exactly defines a "conscious" physical system, and makes it self-aware, and the boundary problem - i.e. what keeps it from diffusing into other physical things. Neurons are changing and dying all the time, but awareness does not shift from one body to another or diffuse into other physical things, as far as we can tell. Therefore, physical identity and conscious identity are two very different things. As the pre-socratic philosopher Anaxagoras (456 B.C.E fragment 12) put it, in the language of his time:
"While all other things contain a portion of each thing, the Mind (Nous) is without bounds and self-determined - mixing with nothing else, but being alone by himself. For otherwise, were he not self-contained but mixed with anything else, he would be drawn into everything, since in all things there is a portion of any other thing, as I mentioned. Whatever intermingled with him would prevent him from continuing to have power over everything as he has now".
Posted by: jeff | September 17, 2008 1:34 AM
I'm sorry, but believing in the Big Man In The Sky is stupid and ignorant. No, saying that is not polite, it's not likely to win many friends, and it is likely to "alienate" people. So be it. It's true.
It's high time to take off the gloves and stop pretending that belief in a creator, or some sort of cosmic intelligence, is a respectable and defensible view. It's not. And no, John, I don't care if that upsets other well-meaning people who do believe in God, but fain to practice science in their other compartment. Yes, it's a direct insult to believers - I mean it to be. Yes, I know it will put off people who want to be "nicer" about the issue for practical or political reasons. I don't care. Enough is enough.
You know full well that there isn't any "sensible and rational" side to the religionists bleating about how they're "mistreated." You won't admit it (but you know you're not a believer, and you don't really "respect" them, no matter what you write in your blog), but you know they're full of it.
You carry on believing that "respecting" peoples' idiotic, ignorant, retrograde ideas makes you a good world citizen. It doesn't. Rationalists will carry on pointing out that "respecting" idiocy is a fool's bargain. And no, John, I'm not advocating being a big old nasty "meanie" just for the sake of it. I am advocating calling somebody a big bloody fool when they deserve it. While you go on ringing your hands about alienating people, irrational voters and citizens just clamor louder.
Posted by: JoshS | September 17, 2008 1:56 AM
Actually, I'm even more astonished at your post, John, than I realized at first. Is this *really* just a philosophical game to you? Do you really think the average person makes decisions based on these philosophical niceties? Do you really think the average reader, or voter, is making the sort of decisions you describe?
*RING, RING* . . . CLUE PHONE: IT'S FOR JOHN - Mr. Wilkins, the average voter is calling for you. She's asking why she should vote for the candidate who can prove God does or doesn't exist. She's also asking why she should care about tax rates, womens' right to choose abortion, or why she should care that Republicans give her rich relatives tax breaks while she can't get unemployment.
Mr. Wilkins, she says she doesn't understand what this has to do with why she can't feed her kids. She says she believes in God, but she's a little bit confused about how this is going to help her family. . what should I tell her? Mr. Wilkins? What? Could you repeat that, Sir?
Posted by: JoshS | September 17, 2008 2:08 AM
That assumes that physicalism is a complete description of reality. All I'm saying, given the assumptions that science approaches reality (which it seems to as it works), and that there is something that is material, an assumption that not too many question, is that the law of conservation of energy is, as our knowledge now stands, correct. Until it's shown to be in incorrect (law of conservation), any claim against it that offers no evidence or argumentation, except arguments to ignorance, e.g. you can't prove certain brain states are my thoughts yet, or arguments to incredulity, e.g. I can't believe it's all material and I need to believe in an immortal soul, is an unsupported claim against science. In fact, if the claim of soul never offers a positive argument or evidence, and only rests on incredulity or ignorance, then it is forever outside knowledge whether physicalism is correct or not. We are ignorant of so much about the universe, that doesn't mean we can claim that ignorance as positive evidence of things we feel must exist. It reminds me of people who can't believe of uncaused entities thus declaring that every effect must have a cause. Ignorance and incredulity, nothing more. I wasn't there at the big bang, I haven't seen everything being caused, I don't see the level of the quark or understand what it's like to travel at the speed of light, nor what gravity really is, thus I can't ever make concrete claims on these scientific facts of nature, unless they can be shown to be logically necessary and logical necessity can be shown to rule the universe and not just be a product of our evolved brain.
In short, lack of evidence and positive argumentation is lack of justification.
Posted by: Brian English | September 17, 2008 2:46 AM
I understood Dawkins to have written
(emphasis added) in reference to creationism, not religion. Reiss (in what he said originally, whatever 'clarifications' came later) proposed accommodating creationism as a 'world view' in science classes - creationism, not religion. On that reading, this whole post and most of the comments have done no more than smoke out the hair-trigger Dawkins-haters. Read what Dawkins wrote again, and consider whether you got it wrong.Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | September 17, 2008 3:23 AM
Dawkins makes it quite clear that "this issue" is this:
It's not about accommodating creationism; it's about accommodating religious believers per se. And it is bigotry.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | September 17, 2008 3:33 AM
To make this an issue about demarcation is beneath you John.
If you read the God delusion, you would see that Dawkins specifically takes on deities that have an impact on the physical world.
I am sure we agree that the physical world falls squarely within the realm accessible to science? Any deity that have an impact on the natural world is therefore open to falsification.
If your deity says the world is 6000 years old, it is wrong, and such a deity must be false.
Concerning "Does Zeus exist? Well, not on the physical Mount Olympus, but on some spiritual Mount Olympus, who can say? Certainly not Dawkins."
Well please read the god Delusion and you will see that Dawkins agrees with your position. Modern deities living in the halls of academia and in the minds of theologians, have excused themselves from making any falsifiable claims, and as Dawkins says, science can say nothing about them.
It can however say a lot about Dembski little meanspirited tinker deity, Ken Hams incompetent deity and other deities that necessarily must be false, since their narrative (which is the only thing identifying them) is falsified by science.
And it is a cop out to say, that perhaps my god didn't make the create the world 6000 years ago as it says it did, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes it does mean it doesn't exist. You can't define something as one thing, and then remove all definitions, just leaving the name, and then insist that you have been talking about the same thing all along.
Posted by: Soren | September 17, 2008 3:48 AM
Maths teachers don't make special allowances for a child who has a worldview that 2 2=5. It's flat wrong.
Likewise, creationism, irrespective of whether it is true or not, has no place in a science classroom. Creationism, and religiosity in general, are worldviews which are deeply unscientific.
This may not be an error of logic upon the child per se, but rather an error of indoctrination by the parents. However, while creationism v. evolution would be a fine topic to show how the scientific method works, it's only purpose in a science class should be for dissection, not instruction.
We should not, as Reiss suggested, try to teach them science DESPITE their worldview, within a science class we should be instructing them IN a worldview, a reality based, observation driven, evidentiary backed worldview.
Posted by: Your mighty overload | September 17, 2008 3:57 AM
"Belief" is itself not scientific in the sense that you have the suspend the normal "understanding" of quanta to fill in the void between such quanta. To know that quanta are connected without any element existing between them is to invoke a "belief" of element, however intangible and unknown. This has been the cause for argument between quantum theorists and super-string theorists.
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | September 17, 2008 4:49 AM
If science is about evidence and rational argument, both this article and the comments bring shame on all of you.
Put to one side the point that appointing an ordained minister as head of education at the UK's flagship science club is strange. That's a separate issue.
Reiss is being attacked for what foaming-mouthed Science-Or-Nothing zealots want him to have said, not what he actually said. Engage Maximum Persecution Mode!
Reiss didn't advocate teaching creationism. He didn't suggest any sort of pandering to creationists. His point was to suggest that he thought it was appropriate for teachers to mention why creationism isn't science, especially if a student brings up the topic. That isn't pandering to any interest group or irrationality, it's called "education".
There will be religious kids in many classes. We don't burn them at the stake, literally or metaphorically.
Posted by: Sam C | September 17, 2008 5:52 AM
Sam, I'm intrigued to know why you think my article brings shame to me. I said exactly what you just did. Perhaps you didn't read it carefully.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | September 17, 2008 6:10 AM
Re comment #28
The group the accommodationists court are:
Religious who believe in evolution (minority)
In the hope of combating:
Religious who believe in creationism (majority)
So you see that both groups are religious. So no it's not about bigotry, read your own post for heavens sake.
Dawkins disagrees with this strategy and he has explain why. It is not bigotry and to level that charge without even doing the man the courtesy of digesting his words does yourself a great disservice.
Posted by: clatz | September 17, 2008 6:16 AM
Brian English:
What I said was that a position that it is okay to suppose that simply because one or more people had done wrong in the past makes it wise and prudent to worry about the next person who shares some trait with those people lends support to racist thinking. For example, African Americans share a culture different than the racists who fear them. To those racists, those are different beliefs that are being expressed every day by thinking and acting differently than the racists. And some black people commit crimes and other bad acts.
If it is okay for society (in the person of schools and prestigeous scientific organizations) to lump people together and treat them as "the other" based solely on their sharing a "different" set of traits, why should the racist think what they are doing is wrong?
Besides, do you really think Ken Miller (or Reiss, for that matter) share the same beliefs as Duayne Gish or Ken Ham? That sounds more like an appeal to "appearances" than substance to me.
Posted by: John Pieret | September 17, 2008 6:38 AM
John's right, but I would add the following caveat: as long as your beliefs do not contradict established science, you should be "accommodated" (whatever that means). Maybe you entertain some wild or untestable scientific hypotheses (string theory, for example), but is that really so different from holding some wild or untestable metaphysical views? You have your own reasons for believing what you do. As long as your views are consistent with established science, you should be accommodated (that would not include hardcore creationism).
Posted by: jeff | September 17, 2008 6:39 AM
Strangely enough, from whatever is available on the internet, Reiss did NOT advise accomodation at all. Reiss said that if a student bring up questions along the creationist line, those questions should be answered and not relegated to the waste basket.
Richard Dawkins' tack on accomodation is therefore off-topic. It functions as a smokescreen to the actual issue,that Reiss is the subject of a witchhunt. The witchhunt might have as cause that as a CoE minister, Reiss is per definition distrusted by zealous atheists.
The honourable action for Richard Dawkins to take was to defend Reiss.
Posted by: Heleen Oudenaerde | September 17, 2008 7:16 AM
Heleen, that is my point about the flap being unwarranted. But as to ministers in science, a friend of mine is an ordained minister of the Anglican Church of Australia, and has a PhD in physics and another in the history and philosophy of science. His views on philosophy and theology do not - so far as I can tell - affect his views on physics or science in general. And it is not "accommodation" to accept and defend his place in scientific discourse simply in virtue of his being ordained and trained in theology.
I no more care if a scientist or scientific advisor is a theologically trained minister than I care if they are qualified flight instructors or know how to play chess. Nor should anyone else. And this is a witchhunt, all right.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | September 17, 2008 7:30 AM
Back to that magistrate for a minute. I would certainly respect his "belief" (opinion?) that his wife was pretty, but then, that's an aesthetic rather than a factual judgement. If he believed that his wife could fly ("I've never actually seen her airborne, of course, but I just KNOW that she can do it provided there's a bit of wind to help her take off") I would not treat that particular belief with much respect. I might however respect the magistrate for his other qualities, which basically sums up my attitude to people like Ken Miller and the Anglican clergyman with two PhDs. I think it's important to distinguish between respecting unjustified beliefs about the universe (bad idea) and respecting otherwise sensible people who might hold those beliefs (good idea).
With that said, I agree that Reiss is the victim of a witchhunt. Public opinion, at least in English-speaking countries, seems to get more vindictive and less forgiving of mistakes and misunderstandings with every passing year. It's depressing.
Posted by: C. Sullivan | September 17, 2008 8:19 AM
The accommodationist reference by Richard Dawkins is completely valid. And he explains why.
He also mentions that the whole affair smacks of a witch hunt.
He didn't spell out why Reiss is an accommodationist to be sure, but that's because he doesn't have to. Reiss is an accomodationist ... with himself!
Dawkins calls him inconsistent, and he must be if he holds the Christian faith AND be a true spokesman for the Royal Society � not the parts of science that are combatable with his beleif. The Archbishop himself said that he believes in Evolution, but that somehow God intervened and gave us souls. Can you have the Royal Society saying tripe like that? How about a spokesperson that actually believes it even if he doesn�t say it?
That is what people are worried about. Dawkins fears some have been overzealous, and I agree with him.
Posted by: clatz | September 17, 2008 8:40 AM
IMHO, it's worse than you think, Dr. Wilkins ...
Let's see now. If one feigns respect for creationists while disagreeing with them, one is in the former camp. However, one can pretend to respect people (or even respect them for real) without respecting all their beliefs, so those in the former camp can easily be in the latter camp as well. Dawkins then proposes to divide scientists into two camps which are supposed to be mutually exclusive ... except that they aren't. He can't even get his false dichotomies straight. We can suss out what he probably means, but he's not really talking sense.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 17, 2008 8:43 AM
Apologies for the duplication in my post.
Posted by: clatz | September 17, 2008 8:55 AM
I fixed it for you.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | September 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Sure, religious beliefs are consistent with science. Any belief is consistent with science. Young earth creationism is. For example, God could have made the universe in whatever state he wanted 6,000 years ago, in the same state that scientists *think* the world was in 6,000 years ago. So what?
One can find a way in which any chosen belief is not disproved by the facts. Scientific reasoning, or any honest reasoning about the world, is inductive. Not being disproved is not enough. At some point some claims get improbable enough that you can just say no, that's not true.
Sure, many scientists are religious and still do great science and great science advocacy. That doesn't make them right.
Posted by: Brendon Brewer | September 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Thank you John.
Brendon, no one has said anythign about courting creationists. The accomodationists want to court religious evolutionists to combat creationists.
This doesn't sit well with many people, but it's not as devisive a strategy as it may seem because in the end both camps want the same thing (that population studies the science and holds evolution to be true), however they disagree on the best strategy.
Posted by: clatz | September 17, 2008 9:15 AM
Blast now I have made another mistake!
Meant to say JJ - not Brendon.
Sorry Brendon.
Posted by: clatz | September 17, 2008 9:18 AM
I think you have that backwards. To say there are no gods is simply to make a claim from within the physical world about the origins of a physical world. To sidestep the physical evidence, in favor of the gods, is a scientific claim.
Since one metaphysical being is as good, or real, as another, then you can also accuse all the world's religions of making contrary philosophical claims. This post-modernistic type of thinking has no boundaries, limits, or rules. And according to your logic, to hinder it in any way is to make a another philosophical claim.
Science is limited to the material world, while the study of the metaphysical is limited to the human imagination.
To proclaim the gods as nonexistent is a conclusion based on (and limited to) the material world, a conclusion which interferes with a presupposed and unverifiable metaphysical realm. It is the UNVERIFIABLE part that religion uses as a shield. I can neither prove nor disprove the monsters living under my bed. To entertain their possible existence is silly if there is no evidence for them, other than my imagination. I think this is all Dawkins is saying.
You are stretching Dawkins' argument in to a bigger target than it was intended to be. To say there are no gods is a claim about the material world (about a creation), based on material evidence. The fact that it infringes on amorphous theistic beliefs is the fault of religion, not science. Religion keeps moving the goal posts, and Mount Olympus keeps rising higher into the sky every time someone says they can't see it.
Posted by: MarcusA | September 17, 2008 9:20 AM
Can't a guy speak in an informal manner to get a point across? OK, OK, let's say there are 1000 camps. Do you feel better now John? Now for the sake of reading Dawkins' response try the mind experiment of dividing the 1000 camps into two large groups for 60 seconds. You talk of building bridges with creationists and you get you panties in a bunch over some semantics in a letter? Really?
Really?
Posted by: andrew | September 17, 2008 9:38 AM
A few questions:
1) What do you think the quotation marks around the word "respect" in Richard Dawkins' comment could mean and have you considered those when writing this entry?
2) Do you think there's much religious belief out there that does not contradict science, or interfere with people's actions and decisions?
3) Are you sure you're avoiding the falsification debate, or are you just making a statement that would avoid the debate, if there weren't many good reasons to question it?
4) What do you think Richard Dawkins means by saying "Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them" (particularly referring to my emphasis)? How would it apply to your analogy about the pretty or ugly wife?
5) Have you read "The God Delusion" (past the title)?
6) How do you think the words "creationist's most formidable critic" about Kenneth Miller and "Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America" relate to your claim that "Dawkins wants to set up a false dichotomy under which he and all his cobelievers are on the Good Side, the sensible side, the rational side"?
7) Do you honestly think "learn to live with it" is good advice? Will you also tell me to "learn to live" with homophobes because I happen to want to marry my girlfriend and they obviously won't go away any time soon because they're part of human society? Will you tell a child to "live with" bullies at their school because - let's face it - every school has its bullies. "Learn to live with x" is something you can say about your boss' quirks, your partner's untidiness or the mosquitos by the river in summer, but not about backdated ideas that have huge social and political influence.
Posted by: Raiko | September 17, 2008 9:55 AM
#44 Bredon B
"Sure, many scientists are religious and still do great science and great science advocacy. That doesn't make them right."
If scientists do great science and great science advocacy, this should be sufficient to others. Whether anyone is religious at the same time is not for others to base their judgment on, definitely not is science matters.
Posted by: Heleen | September 17, 2008 10:44 AM
Heleen-
"If scientists do great science and great science advocacy, this should be sufficient to others. Whether anyone is religious at the same time is not for others to base their judgment on, definitely not is science matters."
Whether or not they are religious is certainly a factor when the person in question is discussing the introduction of creationism into the science classroom, regardless of to what extent they are advocating that it be discussed. Their religious persuasion is likely to be a significant factor in their thinking in this regard, and thus cannot be simply dismissed as an irrelevancy.
Posted by: Jonathan | September 17, 2008 10:56 AM
Raiko:
It doesn't make much difference if Dawkins is saying that "accomodationists" respect creationists or only pretend to respect them. Neither statement is a good match to reality. For example, Duane Gish isn't getting much love from Eugenie Scott. Why should it matter, unless you are suggesting that Dawkins' public statements, including those that don't refer to TGD at all, can only be criticized by those who read his book? Because Dawkins' praise amounts to saying that Brutus is an honorable man.
There is a huge difference in saying that humans will probably always have some false or unverifiable supernatural beliefs--which can and will vary widely in content, and saying that humans will have a particular prejudice.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 17, 2008 11:02 AM
Why, yes, John has:
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/what_is_an_agnostic.php
I won't speak for John, but I certainly do ... including in the person of some of the great names in science of the last century.
Why do I have this suspicion (hey, it's okay to base beliefs on suspiction, right?) that what you mean boils down to act differently and think differently than you do?
Do you mean the people Dawkins labeled the "Neville Chamberlain atheists" as opposed to the "Winston Churchill atheists"? No good side / bad side there!
John didn't say "learn to live with it" or imply in any way that people should accept creationism or not work against it. He said "live with them." And unless you think that mere reason (which has been practiced, as far as we can tell, from the dawn of our species) is likely to suddenly overcome religion (which has been practiced, as far as we can tell, from the dawn of our species), then the only alternative to learning to live with believers is for the "rationalist" to kill them off ... or vice versa.
Posted by: John Pieret | September 17, 2008 11:20 AM
Well, to quote John Wilkins...Strawman much? We aren't exclusionists. We just think society gives far too much credit to bogus ways of addressing problems, and it's past time to criticize and rebuke religious ways of thinking. They're simply wrong.
I'm always hearing this strange claim that "religion is a fact of human nature". It's not part of my nature, or the nature of a good 10% of the population. Are we not human? Doesn't that suggest that religion is not intrinsic to our nature, but is instead a kind of imposed twist on our way of thinking, one that is entirely optional and that many of us can eliminate without pain or damage to our functioning?
This is how you rescue religion from irrelevance and inanity, by simply transferring any claims it makes about the real world to unevidenced, ineffectual fantasy domains? Come on. We're not talking about this naive scientific positivism that you're railing against. The real problem is that religious claims have no bounds -- you can just wave away any argument against them by inventing some silly rationale. Sure, let us posit some spiritual Mount Olympus, or metaphysical Mount Olympus, or 72nd Etheric Plane Mount Olympus, or the Holy Invisible Pink Mount Olympus -- it's all a shell game. It doesn't rescue religion at all, it just sends it hurtling deeper into empty inanity.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 17, 2008 11:21 AM
John, I believe Dawkins has never said that. I believe he takes the stand that if a belief contradicts known reality, it is then ignorant and stupid. Creationism contradicts known reality. So do most claims of religion (claims that make it religion).
Posted by: severalspeciesof | September 17, 2008 11:39 AM
So what percentage of human beings think scientifically? Does that imply that scientific reasoning is not intrinsic to our nature, but is instead a kind of imposed twist on our way of thinking, one that is entirely optional and that many of us can eliminate without pain or damage to our functioning? And yet people have been thinking scientifically (though, obviously, not under that name) as long as the species has been in existence. Isn't that reason enough to think that it is tied to our very nature?
Which inanity you detect by reference to a "real world" as determined by knowledge that has to be verifiable by scientific means. That's some serious irony.
Posted by: John Pieret | September 17, 2008 11:41 AM
Ok, I guess I have to ask - what exactly is a "spiritual Mount Olympus"? Seriously, wtf does "spiritual" even mean? How does it describe reality? Do you mean it is a mental construct, part of our imaginations, and therefore has no external reality, even though belief in such a thing can influence the way that they respond to the real world, perhaps passing "laws" in the UN (I forget the real term, but it isn't a law) that make it a crime to disrespect Zeus? Maybe the belief in this spiritual Olympus means that it is ok for a believing pharmacist to not sell birth control products, or help rape victims. Maybe this belief in Olympus merely annoys your friends when you talk about such delusions as their dog liking you because of your aura, or that you were friends in past lives, or other such garbage.
Of course, I'm probably bigoted since I've gotten tired of having people shove their un-evidenced illusions down my throat as reality, where people have fleeced millions with homeopathic garbage, fraudulent prayer-rugs, faith healings that are 100% faith and 0% healing...and the rest (cue Gilligan's music). Dawkins refers to the larger issue of fantasy vs reality, not just the evolution vs creation issue - everything I've read by him says as much. Evolution vs creationism is a smaller symptom of a larger ill, and he wants to vaccinate the world, with it's consent, which is what a lot of us have been trying to do. And, since it's goals are different, there will be conflicts as those indicated by the "accomidationists" bit.
But then...what do I know?
Posted by: Badger3k | September 17, 2008 11:46 AM
You don't rescue the idea that religious delusion is a natural human state by telling me that thinking scientifically is not a natural human state. Not only is it a non sequitur, but it's not even an argument I've ever made. We have brains that are shaped by our upbringing: they can be warped by religious error, or they can be brought up skeptical, inquiring, and open. Neither is natural, but I can be pretty confident about which one is better for the individual and for society.
And no, the inanity in religion is detected by the fact that there are no criteria for assessing the validity of religious assertions at all -- you are free to make up anything, such as a 'spiritual mount olympus' -- and we're just supposed to accept these claims as equivalently true. The reason isn't that you're just supposed to accept science as true, but that you ought to have some rational, consistent, epistemological method to what you accept as valid.
(Now I expect you'll complain that having a reasonable epistemology is another expectation of those damned scientism-preaching positivists. But then that admits that I'm right, and religion is inane.)
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 17, 2008 12:01 PM
Interesting that you do not think that being competent at communicating your ideas is an important skill in a Director of Education for the Royal Society.
Or are you going to claim the misunderstandings were none of his fault ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 12:11 PM
What's the point of the "[See comment 41]" appended to Dawkins's sig above?
J. J. Ramsey's post seems neither outstandingly good or bad, and the same applies to the formerly duplicated post by clatz apparently previously occupying that position.
Brian English @ # 22: ... god would need to violate the law of conservation of energy if he answers prayers ...
Not necessarily: if she answers your prayer by, say, causing a neuron to spark gratuitously, she might simultaneously inhibit one of mine. Y'know, that explains a lot...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 17, 2008 12:31 PM
The fact that individual humans vary widely from a norm hardly means that the norm doesn't exist.
Further, it's telling that as secularism has progressed,