For scienceblogs.com readers who have never been to an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, you are missing out on the world's greatest discussion of research and new ideas. In particular, I find that the meetings feature a one-of-a-kind forum for discussion of science and society issues, ranging from policy matters to public engagement. This year's meetings are in Boston, February 14-18. If the registration seems a bit pricey, believe me, it is well worth it to attend, plus you can build into the cost a year subscription to Science magazine.
At this year's conference, I have organized a panel that addresses the science and religion nexus and the relationship to public engagement. Titled Communicating Science in a Religious America, the panel features Brown University biologist Ken Miller, Vatican astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno, William & Mary anthropologist Barbara King, Kansas science standards chair Steve Case, and University of Wisconsin communication researcher Dietram Scheufele. The panel is moderated by David Goldston, former chief of staff for the House science committee, now a lecturer at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and a columnist for Nature magazine.
As part of the panel, I will be presenting on the topic of "The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science," a first paper based on a research project I am currently working on here at American University with the help of two graduate students.
Below is the synopsis for the full panel. It's scheduled for Sunday, Feb. 17 at 145pm:
Over the coming decades, as society faces major collective choices on issues such as climate change, biomedical research, and nanotechnology, scientists and their organizations will need to work together with religious communities in order to formulate effective policies and to resolve disputes. A major challenge for scientists will be to craft communication efforts that are sensitive to how religiously diverse publics process messages, but also to the way science is portrayed across types of media. In these efforts, scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs.Part of this process includes "framing" an issue in ways that remain true to the science, but that make the issue more personally meaningful, thereby potentially sparking greater interest or acceptance. With these themes in mind, the proposed panel combines the insights of scientists who have been successful at engaging religious publics with the findings of researchers on how media messages and opinion-leaders shape the perspectives of citizens. The panelists draw upon their experience working across the issues of evolution, climate change, stem cell research, and nanotechnology.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
I'm always amused how panelists on panel discussions in academia are almost invariably chosen to make sure real discussions do not occur. Whenever we have a 'panel discussion' on immigration here at UNL, for example, people who favor enforcing immigration law are always conspicuous by their absence.
So your discussion paper is about 'New Atheism'. Where's the new atheist to discuss it?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | September 14, 2007 2:50 PM
Dr. Nisbet wrote:
A major challenge for scientists will be to craft communication efforts that are sensitive to how religiously diverse publics process messages, but also to the way science is portrayed across types of media. In these efforts, scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs.
--------------------------------------------
Nope. There will always be another push, and another push, and another push *after that* by theocracy to find a "compromise".
Maybe you should read the fable of the camel and the tent again.
Posted by: Dark Matter | September 14, 2007 2:51 PM
I dont know anything about Case and Scheufele, but I hope that they are a counter to the opinions of you and the rest of your panel, or it's going to be a pretty boring discussion.
Posted by: Gordon S | September 14, 2007 2:53 PM
That Time cover is truly disturbing. The device starts at the top as a double helix, which I supposed refers to DNA.
The helices then turn into worry beads, which puzzles me. Is this supposed to mean that anxiety is in our genes? What a stupid idea.
And then, horror of horrors, the worry beads become a fob for ancient Roman instrument for torturing and murdering the poor. What exactly is the meaning here? Is this a warning that the rich plan to exterminate the poor?
Posted by: Globle Warren Terrizm | September 14, 2007 2:54 PM
This looks about as intellectually engaging as a panel discussion organized by the Discovery Institute to discuss the place of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in modern society.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 14, 2007 3:08 PM
If you're going to present a paper you should get the title right.
It's called atheism, not "New Atheism." There's nothing new about it.
Posted by: Callandor | September 14, 2007 3:15 PM
In these efforts, scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs.
Give us examples of these examples of condescension. That a few scientists are outspoken atheists is not doubted, but I fail to see where they report their science in condescending tones about the religious.
The most condescending atheist I know of is Richard Dawkins--as an atheist myself, I am still somewhat surprised by some of his blunt comments--but his outspokenness has always been in the context of the debate between religion and science, and certainly *not* in the reporting of new science.
What are scientists supposed to do when outfits like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute spin and distort the words and deeds of our scientists? Keep slient for fear of appearing to be condescending to their beliefs?
The intersection between scientists and the so-called "New Atheists" is vanishingly small, and is not as big a problem as you seem to imply. Sure, the internet will always play home to atheistic firebrands like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, but when you compare those few sites with the hundreds of science outlets available on the web they too are a tiny minority of opinion and reporting on science.
It would seem that this problem of which you speak is only a problem because of those religious people who choose to be offended by websites and outlets they could easily ignore without any noticeable reduction in the amount of science news available to them.
And, finally, I'll second Gerald's question. Where's the New Atheist on the panel to discuss their side of the issue?
Posted by: tacitus | September 14, 2007 3:18 PM
Atheists criticise religious people for starting with with word and then bending everything to fit their preconceived ideas. It seems to me to start a discussion when you already have the following sentence in mind is just the same:
"In these efforts, scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs."
Posted by: sailor | September 14, 2007 3:32 PM
Tacitus wrote:
What are scientists supposed to do when outfits like Answers In Genesis and the Discovery Institute spin and distort the words and deeds of our scientists? Keep slient for fear of appearing to be condescending to their beliefs?
End quoted material.
That's exactly one of the main themes of the panel. How can science effectively engage religious publics when groups like the Discovery Institute are twisting science in ways that play on their religious beliefs?
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 3:58 PM
I don't see anything wrong with addressing the framing issue. One of American science's biggest problems is how to explain to a huge portion of our fellow citizens why their beliefs are utter crap without, y'know, insulting them.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 14, 2007 4:00 PM
Gerard and Tacitus,
As I posted over at PZ's space, the focus of the panel is the public communication of science. The focus is not on promoting atheism or criticism of religion.
In your opinion, science and atheism might be one and the same. You have a right to express that opinion, but it is definitely not an official or consensus view of organized science.
Given that the panel is about science communication and not about promoting atheism, I didn't think it was necessary to invite a New Atheist to be on the panel.
Moreover, the paper I am presenting is not a criticism of New Atheism but rather an analysis of how it is portrayed in the media and the implications for how the wider public perceives science, scientists, and science-related issues.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 4:37 PM
In your opinion, science and atheism might be one and the same
No, they might not, because I'm not a complete idiot. Atheism is a conviction there is no deity. Science is a way of investigating the world. The two are not even commensurate, let alone the same.
Given that the panel is about science communication and not about promoting atheism, I didn't think it was necessary to invite a New Atheist to be on the panel. Moreover, the paper I am presenting is not a criticism of New Atheism but rather an analysis of how it is portrayed in the media and the implications for how the wider public perceives science, scientists, and science-related issues.
Regardless, you are discussing the 'New Atheism', with a panel of discussants that doesn't include a 'New Atheist.' Of course, that's exactly what I'd do too, if I wanted to preordain my conclusions. Are you so afraid of including one person who is actually a proponent of the style of communication you're discussing, on a panel of six? Sad.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | September 14, 2007 4:56 PM
And as I replied on my blog,
1. Science is a method and atheism is a conclusion. That makes it very hard for me to equate the two. Are you going to accuse everyone of thinking science and atheism are the same now?
2. The panel is about "Communicating Science in a Religious America", you've stacked it with religion-friendly panelists, you're going to be presenting a paper on the "New Atheism", and the first paragraph of the panel description talks about religion in every sentence. But yeah, it's only about science communication, and the "New Atheist Noise Machine" wasn't even on your mind when you thought about putting it together. How disingenuous can you get, Matt?
And I know it's not about promoting atheism, nor would I expect it to be. It's clearly about promoting religion, though.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 14, 2007 4:59 PM
@Global Warren Terrizm
Those aren't worry beads. It's a rosary.
Posted by: qetzal | September 14, 2007 5:29 PM
Matthew-
That's pretty disingenous. Given the known views both of yourself and of the panelists, it is a sure thing that the “New Atheists” are going to come in for a fair amount of abuse. You should have invited someone to counter that viewpoint.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | September 14, 2007 5:45 PM
PZ,
I admire your commitment to hard headed dogmatism. And as a rhetorician and polemicist, you are certainly skilled.
1. When I read the hatchet job you did on our Science article, I was at first a bit stunned. Here was a scientist and a professor violating all the norms of his profession, twisting and distorting to fit his ideology and to rabble rouse among his blog readership.
Moreover, in your complaints, you specifically focused on our suggestion at Science that in communicating about the teaching of evolution, the scientific community should emphasize that many religious leaders see no conflict between evolution and faith.
From that, I could only assume that you view the implications of evolutionary science as leading to atheism i.e. science and atheism are one and the same.
2.I don't understand what you mean by "religious friendly"? By that statement I assume that you think I should have invited someone on the panel who is a "religious enemy"?
That's an example of the basic flaw in your logic and rhetoric. You write about science and religion in binary terms, as a battle between black and white, reason and unreason, with nothing in between.
In reality, there's no "anti-science public." Even among devout Americans, when asked in polls generally about science, they perceive it as promoting social progress and the economy. In fact, these are shared values that almost everyone agrees on, and the central reason why funding for science is so strong in the US.
Sure, several interest groups and leaders have worked against specific science-related issues such as the teaching of evolution. Yet, it's in part because of the inability of the science community to effectively communicate that these groups have been so successful in building public support for their cause.
Btw, want an example of the dogma and intolerance you are promoting by using your blog as an echo chamber for Don Imus atheism? Note comment #35 in your discussion thread:
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 5:59 PM
Matthew C. Nisbet wrote:
One of the best ways would be not to start off critiques with "you stupid idiot" or "you contemptible liar". Regardless of the accuracy of those epithets, they are alienating to both their targets and anyone who admires them. And yes, we need to reach some of them.
Resources structured as "talkorigins.org" are far more effective than the rant-oriented blogs, because it allows those willing to be educated to feed themselves at their own rate, without feeling assaulted. A good step forward would be to professionalize that site; it's not nearly as attractive or well-organized as those produced by some of the creationist organizations. The NCSE site is somewhat embarrassing, too, emphasizing the difference in resources of the pro-science crowd vs the anti-science.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 14, 2007 6:16 PM
1. There's very little point in trying to defend your revealed knowledge of my opinion, since I've already plainly stated that you've got it wrong.
2. The religion-friendly people you've packed your panel with will all begin with the assumption that religion is OK, and will not raise any substantial disagreements with your premise. The conclusion you will come to is foreordained; you won't even touch the possibility that a critic of religion would bring up, that the scientific method and the religious method do conflict.
I don't see any reasonable objection that you've made to that quote from one of my commenters. If somebody wants to believe in a cosmic fairy who grants wishes in response to prayers, that is foolish. The comment is neither dogmatic nor intolerant. That that person is quite forthright in saying so doesn't mean he's wrong. That you are more devious and less blunt in telling atheists that they must take a hike in this discussion doesn't make you right.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 14, 2007 6:19 PM
Jason and Garold,
Once again: The panel is about communicating science, not about communicating atheism or criticism of religion. The paper is a social science analysis of how New Atheism is portrayed in the media and the implications for public perceptions of science. It is not a critique of the ideas or the philosophy of New Atheism.
Moreover, the panel will have roughly 45 minutes for discussion and Q&A, anyone is free to attend and promote the New Atheist criticism of religion, though again, that would be off topic.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 6:20 PM
PZ,
As a fellow atheist, I am certainly not telling atheists to take a hike. However, while supporting your right to voice your opinion, I have an equal right to draw attention to the impact of your preferred brand of atheism.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 6:23 PM
"Given that the panel is about science communication and not about promoting atheism, I didn't think it was necessary to invite a New Atheist to be on the panel."
Title of session: "The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science".
Let me get this straight: you call the session 'new atheism' and there is no real representation on the panel? I know, I'll host a session called "The New Genomics and the Public Image of Science" but I won't invite any geneticists or biochemists, because, you know, it's about science communication. So much for the expert representative(s) to help explore what their field / attitude / approach really means, how is it being communicated vs their own reality, and WHY public perceptions are what they are or have gone astray.
Posted by: aiyiyi | September 14, 2007 7:27 PM
Anon,
To repeat again: The name of the title and topic of the panel is "Communicating Science in a Religious America." One of the papers presented is an analysis of how the media have covered the New Atheist movement and what it might mean for public perceptions of science. The other five panelists do no address New Atheism specifically.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 7:34 PM
Serious question: If one did want a so-called New Atheist on the panel, who would one invite? And is it realistic to expect one of them to accept the invitation?
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 14, 2007 7:40 PM
"In reality, there's no 'anti-science public.' Even among devout Americans, when asked in polls generally about science, they perceive it as promoting social progress and the economy..."
This confounds de facto and de dicto antiscience. (It may be that no one self-identifies as "anti-science," but then no one self-identifies as an asshole, either.)
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | September 14, 2007 7:46 PM
Give it up, Matthew. These people won't be happy unless your discussion was called "God doesn't exist even though I can't prove it!!!!" Unfortunately I cannot attend, but I wish you the best of luck.
Posted by: Brandon | September 14, 2007 9:00 PM
JJ,
Great point. Given the main focus of the panel, the criteria I used for inviting participants was that they had either done research on religious audiences or that they had been successful in communication with religious audiences about science.
So given that criteria, who among the New Atheists have been successful at communicating about science to religious publics?
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 9:41 PM
Er, Dawkins has written a book or two about biology. Can't believe that only atheists buy them.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 14, 2007 9:57 PM
Nathan,
And unfortunately, with Dawkins' latest book, the "poet for evolution" has lost credibility with many religious audiences.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 10:05 PM
No doubt. ;-) Is that the real reason for not inviting any "New Atheists"? Because of the potential hostility of the religious crowd towards them?
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 14, 2007 10:10 PM
In other words, you'd be willing to have a critic of evolution on the panel, except that anyone who criticizes religion has no credibility with the religious, and is therefore excluded. And of course the defining criterion for being on the panel in the first place is that one must not have ever offended the religious with their ideas.
That's some catch, that catch-22.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 14, 2007 10:13 PM
Not at all. The panel is about communicating science to religious audiences. The criteria for speakers were people who have done research in the area or who have been successful in engaging religious audiences. The prominent New Atheists don't fit that criteria.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 10:13 PM
PZ,
Would I invite a critic of evolution? Of course not. The criteria is communication of *science* not pseudoscience. Last I checked, evolution as a theory was almost universally accepted among scientists.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 14, 2007 10:16 PM
No doubt. ;-) Is that the real reason for not inviting any "New Atheists"? Because of the potential hostility of the religious crowd towards them?
Funny: the AAAS never struck me as a particularly religious crowd :-). Mind you, I don't know any working scientists who attend their annual meeting, either.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison, FCD | September 14, 2007 10:31 PM
So given that criteria, who among the New Atheists have been successful at communicating about science to religious publics?
Er, that's 'criterion'. Gosh, I would expect quite a few religious people had read 'The Selfish Gene' and maybe even 'The Ancestor's Tale'. So your thesis is that religious people can't be expected to have read even very widely read popular expositions of science?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison, FCD | September 14, 2007 10:36 PM
Dear Dr. Nisbet,
I have sympathies with the positions of both you an Dr. Myers on this important issue. I think your intentions are magnanimous and are to be lauded. That being said, I think one of the strongest features of the scientific method is that if there is a substantive argument to be had, both sides of the argument need to be represented. With all due respect, sir, for you to present a paper on the so-called "New Atheists" without any retort is contrary to the spirit of science. I sincerely urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue. You could very well be right that Dr. Dawkins may lack credibility with the religious community, but I think that he has certainly demonstrated not only a profound grasp of science, but an ability to be even-tempered and reasonable. I also think it's an empirical question as to whether your assumption is true or false.
Thanks very much for your time.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 14, 2007 10:44 PM
Gerard Harbison wrote:
I gather that the religious population that is the target for this education isn't the AAAS, but the non-scientific public.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 14, 2007 11:10 PM
oxytocin wrote:
That is my impression as well. I think he could stay on-topic if asked to do so. I bet he has greater experience educating the religious public than almost anyone listed, except perhaps Ken Miller.
Now, if the conference reduces down to atheist bashing, I'm sure it would go much more smoothly without one in the room. :-)
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 14, 2007 11:17 PM
Isn't Nisbet starting from, and pursuing, an essentially religious, i.e., anti-science POV?
[paraphrase]
Scientists MUST craft communications that are sensitive to how the religiously diverse see things.
Scientists MUST emphasize shared values and broad appeal among-non-scientist publics.
Scientists MUST NOT seem (to non-scientists)to condescend to them
Scientists MUST NOT attack anyone's religious beliefs.
[/paraphrase]
All to the end of "potentially" sparking greater interest/acceptance?
Aren't these statements of (religious) dogma? Prescriptions for evangelists? "Holy" writ for True Believers?
I thought Scientists were supposed to ideate, hypothesize, experiment, test, theorize, and then explain to their peers in a manner that convinces such peers.
If someone were deeply (or even shallowly) interested in "Framing," i.e., scientific evangelism as opposed to scientific communication, wouldn't that someone be best advised to hire an evangelist, a "silver-tongued orator," who already knows the language of religiosity and is already accomplished in "spark[ing] interest or acceptance" in a religious audience? And shouldn't said STO be able to wow the masses, appealing with great sincerity to the AUTHORITY of science? Wouldn't that be far more efficient than collecting a bunch of mush-mouthed white-coats together at a meeting of other MMWCs to share their ignorance on how one acquires a silver tongue?
My sarcastic point is that if science needs evangelists (a point for which I've not seen Nesbit's evidence), then there are many many practicing evangelists (some of them call themselves marketers, but don't be deceived) who can probably do the job far better than any or all of the scientists who attend AAAS meetings.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | September 14, 2007 11:30 PM
PoxyHowzes wrote:
A better paraphrase, IMO, is this:
If you want to increase the acceptance of science among the population, you need to leave some wriggle-room that allows the faithful to keep their God.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 14, 2007 11:49 PM
The ultimate result of this kind of "compromise" will be
the kind of high school biology education I had in Texas: a
biology class in which the word evolution was never
uttered, with an instructor who made it quite clear that
the biology textbook chapter on "organic variation" was
optional reading.
Dr. Nisbet, do you intend to placate every religious group
that manages to gather enough members and money to form
a political lobby group? Should "framing" science for
believers be extended to accomodate scientologists,
wiccan witches, satanists, and Raelians as well?
Posted by: Dark Matter | September 15, 2007 1:02 AM
But the first class of gods is logically incoherent and is automatically excluded from our understanding of reality, and the second class, while possible, is an unnecessary hypothesis given the current data. If we can explain our observations by not postulating a phenomenon as easily as by postulating it, the phenomenon isn't supported by the observations.
There is no wiggle room.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 1:19 AM
Matt
It would be good if you had an open athiest on your panel who disagrees with your approach. Maybe the best way to "communicate science in a religious america" is to undermine religion and "religious thinking" with constant, calmly reasoned criticism. By religious thinking I mean belief in things for which there is no evidence or which are directly contradicted by evidence just becuase we want those things to be true. This type of thinking is the opposite of science and it underlies many of our greatest problems in America today. This is bigger than getting religious people to grudgingly accept the less offensive aspects of evolution. It is about getting people to accept nature on nature's terms and reality on reality's terms. The first step in doing this is to help people to abandon religious and magical thinking. That is where the new atheists are coming from and they are dead right.
More people can be convinced to drop their religious beliefs than you might think. There are just very few people out there openly expressing skepticism with religion and making a clear compelling and appealing case for atheism. Once there is a critical mass of open atheists I think we could see a major period of enlightenment. There will always be the mentally unstable among us who need to hold on to these irrational beliefs, but they probably don't make up more than a quarter of the population. I think most people say they believe in God becuase everyone else does and they haven't really spent much time thinking about it.
I see your approach to be something like a "Fox News Democrat." Just going on Fox is giving credence to the claim that they are a serious news organization and not a republican propoganda outlet. Not only that but it undermines real progressives who are trying to convince others that it is a propoganda outlet. Once that version of reality is given credence then it is just he said-she said and people will choose the side that makes them feel the best or that requires the least amount of thought and uncertainty.
Similarly, saying that religion and science are compatible is virtually the same thing as saying that it is OK to be a fundamentalist. There can be no comprimise between the natural and supernatural approaches to reality. Once we say that a little supernatural belief is OK, then that opens the door for any kind of supernatural belief-even those that are directly contradicted by scientific evidence.
Atheists need to speak out about their atheism and criticize religion in a calm, appealing and reasoned way as often as they can. Our efforts are much better expended trying to topple religion than they are trying to coddle the religious and get them to accept the little bits of science that doesn't offend them.
Raindog
Posted by: raindog | September 15, 2007 1:21 AM
Caledonian wrote:
I know it's a logically inconsistent position for them to take, but most people have a large number of logically inconsistent viewpoints. We're not trying to turn everyone into scientists; moving large numbers of them from being YECs to theistic evolutionists would be a grand improvement.
The first goal is to get them to stop obstructing science, even if they can't fully grasp it.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 15, 2007 1:46 AM
You're not trying to turn everyone into scientists. What do you mean, 'we'?
YECs and theistic evolutionists both reject reason and the scientific method. What advantage is there to turning the former into the latter?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 1:57 AM
I gotta side with Gerry (see, I don't hate you Gerry) and PZ here, that you appear to be deliberately missing the point they are trying to make:
If you only have people on one side of an issue on a panel discussion, a rather large segment of the AAAS population is not heard from, who might have their own productive ideas on how to increase communication, or even bypass the communication issue entirely.
that you seem to completely discount that as merely "promoting New (?) Atheism" is more than a little disturbing.
good luck when you inevitably decide in your "discussions" to approach the issue the way Miller does, with the unavoidable conclusion, based on Miller's own writings, that "compartmentalization works!"
I see a grand discussion of the past and present, with very little if any discussion of the future in this panel.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:05 AM
I see your approach to be something like a "Fox News Democrat."
good point, but I would even stretch it to the dems in general, for about the last 10 years, for that matter.
"I'll take 'things without backbones' for 200, Alex"
(no offense to actual invertebrates)
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:09 AM
If you want to increase the acceptance of science among the population, you need to leave some wriggle-room that allows the faithful to keep their God.
for how long, Nathan?
until it becomes clear to even the dimmest that this is nothing but compartmentalization?
I thought we kinda tried that over the last couple of generations already?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:11 AM
listen to the words of Sean Caroll, Matt:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/02/14/thank-you-richard-dawkins/
I’m sympathetic to the argument that atheists shouldn’t be obnoxious and insulting; in fact, I think it’s a good strategy in all sorts of situations. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc. But it does not follow that we should keep quiet about comforting illusions because those are the only things standing between the poor dears and overwhelming existential anxiety. If people ask whether, as scientists, we believe in God, we should respect them enough to tell the truth — whatever we think that is. That doesn’t mean we have to go door-to-door spreading the good word of the laws of nature. It just means that we should be honest about what we actually think, giving the best arguments we have for whatever that may be, and let people decide for themselves what to believe.
THAT is the future, Matt.
your approach has already failed, even before you begin to discuss refining it in your panel.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:15 AM
Yep, and it didn't work.
So Matt's doing the only thing we can do when our strategy doesn't work: do it all over again, only trying twice as hard as before. That's sure to work!
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 2:22 AM
do it all over again, only trying twice as hard as before. That's sure to work!
LOL
yes, it sure does seem that way.
OTOH, it might be a meeting for merely self preservations sake; Miller's latest defense of his compartmentalization is sure to be on the forefront of discussion.
oh, btw, is this blog a safe have for Don Imus Atheists?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:41 AM
Caledonian wrote:
Because the theistic evolutionists don't actively interfere with the scientific educational process.
I don't approve of compartmentalizing either, but not everyone is willing or able to apply rationality to all aspects of their lives, and I don't think that's going to change without some genetic manipulation.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 15, 2007 2:41 AM
Ichthyic wrote:
How long has it taken Europe to move towards its current religious orientation? When did they last have our level of religiosity?
Posted by: Nathan Parker | September 15, 2007 2:49 AM
and I don't think that's going to change without some genetic manipulation.
Now yer talkin' SCIENCE!
*sigh* I guess the bottom line in my mind is exactly what Sean Caroll said, and since I can't word it any better, I'll just repeat the bit that fits:
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc. But it does not follow that we should keep quiet about comforting illusions because those are the only things standing between the poor dears and overwhelming existential anxiety. If people ask whether, as scientists, we believe in God, we should respect them enough to tell the truth
the idea that we somehow need to change the message science sends shouldn't even be on the table, science is what it is. It's the religious that should be having panel discussions to figure out how to deal with the reality of an ancient superstition that has long overplayed any functionality it ever had.
instead, we find the DI actually winning the apparent media battle, and shaping the discussion, not because of what scientists are doing, but because of what the mainstream religious majority are NOT doing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:51 AM
How long has it taken Europe to move towards its current religious orientation? When did they last have our level of religiosity?
and when did they start moving away from it (hint, it was quite a while ago)?
why should we wait any longer, then, becomes the obvious next question.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 2:59 AM
What I find bizarre about some of your arguments as I see them is the following:
1. You are not being very specific about your goals (long term and short term) of communicating in a certain way, nor are you acknowledging that others may have different goals. For instance, you and your opponents here would agree that we want the public to have a positive image of science. However, PZ and etc. have a larger, long-term goal in mind of increasing the prevalence of reason, critical thinking, and awareness that a significant contingent of atheists exist (and why it is important to organize). I think in this case you underestimate the power of media- "extremists" and radicals get attention. Would there be attention paid to atheists now if it weren't for the few who are skilled and willing to speak unabashedly for their cause? I think we need both types of communication strategies- atheist/critical thinking/skeptcism awareness that realizes it must work within the reductive frames of the media, and scientists/communicators who reach out to the public and religious groups so they have a positive view of science and environmentalism.
2. I fail to see evidence that scientists are radically communicating in the way you describe, for the most part. Some are radical atheists and get attention, but many more in their communication strategies simply talk about science, how cool it is, and why it's important without delving into religious topics. PZ and etc. are speaking to a base that mostly agrees with them in order to give them tools to increase their and others' critical thinking. I imagine PZ harbors no illusions that he's converting Christians with his blog, and he doesn't need to. That's not the role he's chosen for himself.
I personally believe we need both strategies, for short term and long term goals. We also need to consider the audience. For instance, if I were a science teacher, I wouldn't tell my students that science is incompatible with faith, even though that's close to what I believe. In that case, the overriding goal is keeping smart, interested kids to stay in science and not reject it while their minds are still being heavily influenced by parental beliefs. But as a public figure speaking to adults, I could take one of several paths, based on the particular goals I had.
3. I would like to see evidence that the public, in general, make as strong a connection as you seem to imply between atheism and science. Many well-known atheists use the tools of reason and the scientific method to argue their point, but the main point that gets filtered to an ignorant media and public is not "science is incompatible with religion" even if that's what Dawkings etc. are more tacitly arguing. Religious people are adept at cognitive dissonance, and can easily see a program on atheism on tv and completely disagree/harbor ill will toward the atheist then see a program on science and appreciate our ability to cure diseases and the amazingness of god's creation (for instance).
That said, because I don't have evidence right now of this point, prove me wrong. I would like to see research asking religious viewers, after seeing a program about atheism, whether this made them less favorable to science. I get the feeling, although I'm not certain, that believers don't have the same knee-jerk reaction to science that they do to other moral issues. They don't understand evolution very well, so they see no reason it can't be compatible with religion.
For an example, see this discussion.
Posted by: leandra | September 15, 2007 4:10 AM
I have two questions, that might make it easier to understand things from your point of view.
1. Put idealism aside. Look at the world the way it is, not as it should be. With that in mind, why do you think it's easier to convince someone to give up God than to convince him to reconcile God and science?
2. I have no problems with people being outspoken. You should be proud of who you are, and I'm glad athiesm is being talked about in the public square. PZ Myers isn't just proud, though, he's an ass. And if anybody suggests that he shouldn't be an ass, he says the only alternative is to be a meek little sheep. I see a lot of this, people thinking that being loud equates to being a dick.
Is it not possible to be assertive without being aggressive? You can stand on a mountaintop and yell, "I am an athiest!" without adding, "and everybody else sucks!" Are there any studies showing that throwing insults at people actually helps them come to your way of thinking?
And before you respond with the obvious: I'm not trying to convince you to think like me, just asking some questions here.
Posted by: Brandon | September 15, 2007 4:30 AM
Matthew C. Nisbet:
The two forms of atheism that I'm seeing are the open (PZ) and the dishonest* (Nisbet). Of the two, the open stance seems to create more social change since it cannot be ignored just like "coming out of the closet" affected the gay movement. There are still detractors but it is now socially acceptable to be gay which would be a good goal for atheists.
On the other hand, the two forms of science that I'm seeing are science as a method that results in knowledge (PZ) and as a body of knowledge divorced from the method** (Nisbet). Of the two, I would prefer the public to understand the method more than knowing individual facts from memorization (i.e., people should be taught how to reason with evidence instead of just being taught that these facts are True).
So, my primary problems with the frame proffered by Nisbet (and co.):
1. If you're a scientist and an atheist, it says stay in the closet. Don't be honest and forthright about religion instead pander to religious biases in order to get support.
2. It focuses on teaching scientific facts instead of the more useful goal of teaching the scientific method, reason, and critical thinking.
* By dishonest, I'm assuming that in Nisbet's opinion an atheistic scientist should publicly respect a religion even when they really don't.
** This conclusion comes from the fact that Nisbet believes that atheism and science can be equated in some fashion which implies that either atheism has a method like the scientific method or science is built of conclusions without a method specified. (see Janus' comment)
Posted by: Jared | September 15, 2007 5:27 AM
They are actively trying to convince people that science and religion are compatible. Even the fundamentalists are honest enough to recognize that there's a problem there - the two are diametrically opposed approaches to the nature of truth claims and justification. You can't practice one AND the other, and if you try, you end up practicing neither.
Theistic evolutionists further believe that specific nonsensical statements have meaning. The erosion of standards and critical analysis that would reveal the meaninglessness of the claim adversely impacts the ability of people to distinguish sense from nonsense.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 10:34 AM
Whom you should invite? How about Dan Dennett. A philosopher, so not strictly speaking a researcher, but he has outlined, very thoughtfully, the sorts of questions that research on religion and cognition needs to address to increase our understanding. He is also the most cautious and even-tempered of the so-called "New Atheists".
If you are not willing to invite anybody to present the contrarian view, then the message you are sending between the lines is that the best way to communicate science to the public is to exclude from that "public" everybody who has problems with it.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 15, 2007 1:09 PM
Bullfighter,
Again, the panel is not about communicating atheism or criticism of religion or what a particular scientist might personally believe is the case against religion.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 1:29 PM
Matthew,
Based on the rest of PZ's comment, it seems clear he meant to write "critic of religion" there.
Posted by: Morgan | September 15, 2007 1:46 PM
Just what is the panel supposed to be about communicating?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 2:01 PM
Caledonian,
The panel description is in the post. It's pretty clear:
Challenges and strategies for effectively communicating science to a diverse American public. Issues of focus include evolutionary science, science in general, and nanotechnology.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 2:36 PM
Nexus?
"Relationship to public engagement" sounds very nice, but what does it mean?
Why do scientific organizations need to work together with religious communities to form effective policies. And resolving disputes? Between whom? What do religious organizations have to do with disputes that scientific groups would need to resolve?
Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2007 3:19 PM
And what do the polls tell us about public support for, say, methodological naturalism?
Posted by: MartinM | September 15, 2007 3:26 PM
Anonymous,
What do religious groups have to do with science policy and debates? See for example science education, climate change, stem cell research, other areas of biotech, nanotechnology, environmental conservation, to just name a few.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 3:28 PM
MartinM,
The 2008 edition of the NSF's Science Indicators survey will provide some public opinion indicators related to methodological naturalism, exploring various dimensions of the cultural authority of science. The report is due out in the spring.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 3:33 PM
Sounds interesting. I suspect what you'll find is that a fair whack of those who consider themselves 'pro-science' are thinking of a substantially different definition of 'science' than most scientists, however.
Posted by: MartinM | September 15, 2007 3:38 PM
(The previous Anon. was me, by the way. Must've forgotten to put in personal information.)
Yes, and why do scientific organizations need the assistance of religious groups in setting policies and having debates on those things?
I think the idea you want to convey - without explicitly saying so - is that scientific organizations need the cooperate with religious groups in order to influence politicians and public policy. In other words, scientists need to pander to religion so that they can influence the government.
Does that about sum it up?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 3:42 PM
Caledonian,
We live in a pluralistic democracy where collective decisions have to be made about policy and social problems. If we are going to make democracy work and solve these problems, scientists, religious groups, atheists, and others have to work collaboratively together, emphasizing shared values.
I'm not sure where your use of the term "pandering" fits into that reality.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 3:55 PM
What good is emphasizing shared 'values' when there isn't a shared understanding of reality? Two groups can have absolutely the same values but totally different worldviews and advocate totally different actions as a result.
Religion includes countless different worldviews that are mutually exclusive. Which of the many different religious systems are you claiming the religious need to reach consensus on, and how do you suggest scientific organizations can assist them in this necessary task?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 4:29 PM
MCN:
You directed this comment to me, but how is it connected with anything I wrote? You are supposed to be an expert in communication, but I don't see you communicating in this thread. You seem to be saying the same thing regardless of what other discussants say.
So what is the panel about? Your descriptions have been extremely vague. What is the objective? Presumably it is how to "communicate science" effectively, but you haven't defined "communicating science". For starters, is it about its results or its methods? Again, what is the objective? Why do we need effective communication of science? Is it so that more kids can do well on exams and get into careers in science and technology? Or is it so that more people embrace critical thinking? Or is it to improve the socioeconomic position of existing scientists? Or something else? Those are varied goals, and the choice of effective methods of communication will obviously depend on the goal.
The success of your research should be evaluated with respect to its stated goals. If your goals are vague, how can we tell if you are achieving them?
Posted by: bullfighter | September 15, 2007 4:30 PM
MCN:
Again poor communicating. What does it mean to "make democracy work"? You should know that that means very different things to different people. Your rhetoric works for politicians, but you can't sell that to me (and, I suspect, to most readers of ScienceBlogs) as an argument. You are just making an appeal to fear. Ohmygod, if we don't do X, democracy will not work. Please.
The rest of your argument only makes sense with a false premise that most people can be defined as belonging to the groups you listed (and other similarly classified groups). But in reality, a person can be a scientist, an atheist, a liberal, an educator, a parent, a Texan, a Greek-American and a tennis player, and that person's goals in various social contexts will be highly dependent on which of those facets is most relevant for the situation in question.
There is no reason one should not attack religion in some situations and seek common ground with religious people in other situations. (Hey, how did we win WW2?)
Posted by: bullfighter | September 15, 2007 4:46 PM
Bullfighter,
The panelists probably define science communication in different ways, so I will not speak for them.
But if you want to know how I define science communication, instead of reproducing what I have written or discussed about the topic across multiple outlets, I will draw your attention to where you can find the full text or audio.
-->You can read our Science and Washington Post articles linked at left in the side bar, our reply to letters at Science, or listen to the NPR interview also linked. Moreover, there is a longer interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast.
-->The forthcoming cover article at the October issue of The Scientist more fully lays out how I define science communication. In addition, the tab at the top of my blog "Framing vs. Popular Science" also explains my views.
-->Related to science communication, the link below to a previous Skeptical Inquirer Online article that I wrote explains the multiple meanings of science literacy and public understanding of science, as it is defined in the academic literature:
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/definitions/
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 4:59 PM
Bullfighter wrote:
But in reality, a person can be a scientist, an atheist, a liberal, an educator, a parent, a Texan, a Greek-American and a tennis player, and that person's goals in various social contexts will be highly dependent on which of those facets is most relevant for the situation in question.
End of quoted text.
When you read what I have written about science communication, you will see that this is exactly what I argue. Effective communication turns on understanding under what contexts and issues certain social identities are more salient then others and then crafting a message to resonate with that social identity. I encourage you to read what I have written and report back.
I'm actually on deadline right now with another forthcoming magazine article, so unfortunately I do not have time to debate much in this comment thread.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 15, 2007 5:05 PM
Some social identities are fundamentally incompatible with certain messages, no matter how they're expressed.
So the question becomes: do you try to change the message so that it becomes compatible with the social identity you're trying to utilize, or leave the message constant and shift to a different target instead?
If we have to change the definition of science to get religious groups to accept it, we're not accomplishing anything proscience.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 15, 2007 5:16 PM
Ah. So you won't commit to a definition, but you're adamant that the 'new atheists' haven't done it, whatever it is.
Bloody hell, man.
Posted by: MartinM | September 15, 2007 5:28 PM
Again, the panel is not about communicating atheism or criticism of religion or what a particular scientist might personally believe is the case against religion.
and again, Matt, that wasn't the purpose of the post you are responding to, nor was it the purpose of PZ's post, nor of the numerous others challenging you to have a more diverse panel which you posted the same non-response to.
do you enjoy exposing your inability to understand an oft repeated point, or is there some other reason you are applying a stock non-answer that doesn't even apply to the question?
for someone with a PhD in communications, it's funny how much you let your emotions interfere with your judgement on this issue.
btw, you didn't answer my question I asked you earlier:
is this a safe haven for Don-Imus style New Atheists?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 15, 2007 5:35 PM