Galactic Interactions

Mind you, just five days ago I read my letter to the editor in which I make no bones about creationists as being deluded and disingenuous purveyors of dangerous falsehoods...

And an excellent letter it is, too. But I'm not sure the creationists would agree. Indeed, on reading it some of them would probably conclude that this Rob Knop character is a bit of a blowhard and a jerk.

So is the problem here what PZ actually said, or simply the fact that he applied it to a group you don't think it applies to? And assuming arguendo that all religions are false, is what he said factually inaccurate, or is it the tone to which you object?

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 09:11 AM

"And, his battle against religion hurts the battle for good science by giving ammunition to those who claim (falsely) that scienceblogs.com and other science supporting sites are nothing but anti-religion sites. And, yes, his tone is a big part of the problem-- it greatly increases the appearance that scienceblogs.com is vitriolically anti-religious."

This was a claim made the other day by Brayton. He was asked, repeatedly, to support the claim. He was unable to do so. Are you able to do any better ?

And is it really you contention that belief in a supernatural entity that intervenes in the universe (let's b clear, that is the type of god the vast majority of religious people believe in ) is a rational position to take ? ie, one come to through evidence and reason ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 09:43 AM

yet another thing:

"And, yes, his tone is a big part of the problem-- it greatly increases the appearance that scienceblogs.com is vitriolically anti-religious."

Calling someone an asshole, a jerk and a blowhard is an example of the right tone ?

People call Dawkins and PZ rude. Yet the rudeness, from the anti-creationism side, comes from those who object to PZ and Dawkins. I am not aware of PZ ever calling you an asshole.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 09:56 AM

"I suspect that Brayton didn't bother responding to you because it's self-evident."

I did not pose the question, but yes he did say he thought it was self-evidence. He was told by more than one person it was not self-evident to them and he should support the claims he made. He refused to do so.

Now in Brayton's case that may be becuase he is not that bright in understanding evidence. I doubt that would be the case with you. So I ask again, can you cite any evidence ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 10:11 AM

Matt,

With regards to Ed, I think you are referring to the exchange between him and Jason. I'm not aware of evidence that exists to support Ed's claims, but conversely is there evidence to support the opposing view? As far as I am aware, not one has actually seriously, rigorously investigated the impact of Dawkins et al's language on religious people.

Posted by: SteveF | July 12, 2007 10:24 AM

My problem with PZ is twofold. First, and primarily, he is wrong. He characterizes all of religion by the excesses of an admitted large subset of the religious. He speaks from a position of ignorance with extreme self-assurance and with an air of utter authority.

Second, he's not fighting the battle I'm fighting. I'm fighting the battle for good science; he's fighting the battle against religion. Mind you, he thinks he's fighting the battle for good science, because he thinks that the battle against religion is the battle for good science. But it's not.

OK. Do you think that it's possible for a reasonable theist such as yourself and a 'militant' atheist who shares PZ's beliefs (but not his attitude) to have a polite, civil discussion about religion?

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 10:33 AM

But it's not true of all of us; some of us really are about destroying others' culture, irrespective of whether or not it's necessary or reasonably supported in the quest for good science understanding.

I think that's a touch hyperbolic... PZ (and others like him) are mounting a spirited and vigorous criticism of others' culture. I don't think that's tantamount to attempting to destroy said culture. I mean, I don't see any stormtoopers rounding up theists.

If a culture can't stand criticism, maybe the fault lies with the culture rather than the critics.

Posted by: Dunc | July 12, 2007 10:40 AM

Rob Knop, I sympathize with you. I used to be genuinely hurt by some of the comments on this site, but then I realized that, beyond scienceblogs.com, I've never had this problem. PZ Myers will call me corrupt and deluded, even though I've done nothing wrong, but people in real life don't act like that to me. Even the eeeeevil fuuuuundies (wiggles fingers) are kind and courteous as long as I don't wave my librul lifestyle in their faces. So I figure a) people are jerks on the Internet (which is true, anonymity does that), and/or b) PZ Myers and his gang is a fringe group who is bitter because they have no real influence.

The angry athiest brigade has made it very clear that you are an enemy, and are just as much a problem as Osama bin Laden and Fred Phelps. So don't bother giving them advice; they won't listen and they don't deserve it. Just keep refuting them when you feel like it, and relax and move on with your life. If their group ever gets any political or social power, then you may be worried. Until then, just sit back and laugh, like I've been doing, and how desperate some people are to feel superior to those who don't think like them.

As for scienceblogs.com, I really don't think the issue is as bad as you make it out to be. Go to the home page right now and read through the headlines. I see a total of three mentions of religion: the "Athiesm and Civil Rights" blurb, an article on Creationism, and this here article. PZ Myers isn't even in the top five at the moment. So, although I sympathize with your sentiment, I don't think the problem is really all that bad.

Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2007 10:57 AM

"The biggest problem in communicating with folks like you is that you seem to implicitly (or, often, explicitly) think that the only thought worth thinking is scientific thought. That there cannot be any benefit of operating, or that there is no knowledge, that is not obtained in the scientific mode. If you are incapable of seeing that, then you will be incapable of seeing that perhaps reasonable people might come to a different conclusion about non-scientific matters than you have."

Correct. Which is why I find faith in a deity like yours foolish. Sorry, but that is how I see it. I see it as foolish like the way I imagine you would regard someone who insists fairies exist to be foolish.

"I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in spite of that."

Well at least that is honest, even if I cannot see the point of such belief. However that is not why a substantial number
believe. They think that there is evidence to support their belief.

Now I am sure you agree that where there is improper practice in science that the first people to tackle that improper practice should be other scientists. Well I view religion like that. I consider it the job of the moderate theists, like you, to tackle the idiots. Unfortunatly it seems that the moderate theists are not doing that very well as the growth in religion is coming in the more radical denominations.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 11:02 AM

Beyond that, do you deny that a lot of people out there claim and hold the belief that scientists are engaged in an all-out attack on religion itself?

Well, are there? I mean, many scientists are certainly happy to attack any religious belief which directly contradicts known facts. You're one of them, aren't you? So the problem is not that scientists attack specific religious beliefs, but that some attack religious belief as a whole. How many people are there out there who are really worried about that? How many Christian creationists do you think really give a damn about NOMA? If science had anything to support their religious beliefs, or contradict someone else's beliefs, I think most of them would get right behind it. It's not an abstract attack on religion as a whole that worries them. It's the very concrete attacks on their demonstrably false beliefs about creation that bother them, and those aren't going away.

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 11:04 AM

The biggest problem in communicating with folks like you is that you seem to implicitly (or, often, explicitly) think that the only thought worth thinking is scientific thought. That there cannot be any benefit of operating, or that there is no knowledge, that is not obtained in the scientific mode. If you are incapable of seeing that, then you will be incapable of seeing that perhaps reasonable people might come to a different conclusion about non-scientific matters than you have.

(For the record, I do not "think that the only thought worth thinking is scientific thought" - there's art, poetry, literature, love, etc. But when it comes to empircal questions, it's a different matter. There are some who seem to think that, but I don't think they're that common, so this is a straw-atheist in the same way that pretending that all theists are raving creationists.)

That's all very well, but what you seem to be suggesting is that those of us who have come to a non-theistic conclusion (by whatever means) should just shut up in case we hurt someone's feelings and thereby discourage them from listening to what we (or others perceived as being categorically associated with us) have to say on completely unrelated matters.

This cuts boths ways, you know. As a hard-boiled atheist, whenever a science educator starts on about the marvels of his religion or what a nasty bunch those loud-mouthed atheists are, I might (hypothetically) tend to devalue whatever scientific arguments they might make. You're hurting the cause of science education just as much as PZ (accepting, purely for the sake of argument, that he is), only in the opposite direction.

Posted by: Dunc | July 12, 2007 11:08 AM

Matt,

I'm sure Dawkins is able to be friendly with religious leaders, because he is a nice guy (I met him once - very charming). However, for people without the chance to be able to meet him, I imagine his rhetoric could be rather offputting. Now, as we have discussed, there is no comprehensive evidence either way, so I must go from personal experience. The theists I know (sample size, if we include internet, of getting on for 50) are put off by Dawkin's message (or at least the tone of the message).

A practical example; if it were not for theistic evolutionists, there are school boards in the US that would be teaching creationism in classrooms. Bearing this, personal experience and what I believe to be common sense (I don't think most people like having their cherished beliefs sneered at) in mind, it seems reasonable to presume (in the absence of conclusive evidence) that a less verbally hostile approach is appropriate. Not that I wish to muzzle Dawkins or PZ; they are free to speak as they wish and there are undoubtedly circumstances where bumping up the public profile of atheists (and generally being loud and proud of our position) is a great thing. However, with specific regards to fighting creationism, I don't think it helps. I am more than happy to have my mind changed though.

Posted by: SteveF | July 12, 2007 11:13 AM

SteveF,

Maybe this a cultural thing. I live in the UK where thankfully creationism is nothing like the issue it is in the UK.The government here has been very clear in stating that ID is not science and has no place in the science classroom and that has been no need for legal cases. There main religions also reject creationism/ID as being science and were active a year or so ago when the issue of creationism was raised. The main religions have no problems with working alongside atheists in doing that, even ones who are considered outspoken. So within the UK Dawkins being outspoken is not an issue.

I accept the issue might be different in the US, but in that case I have to ask, where are the moderate theists ? Dawkins has recently topped the NY Times Best Seller list, as has Hitchens. Why is there no moderate theist with a book that deals with the more radical theists in the US ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 11:24 AM

Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but I am getting very annoyed at Seed and Scienceblogs in general having a bunch of non-scientific crap on them. At least with PZ it seems relatively obvious to me when he is posting his opinions versus scientific information, though I agree that he is rude and seemingly not interested in meaningful dialog with those who disagree with him.
Some people here are becoming just like the regular media--they see something that sounds interesting, and they spread it about like wildfire, whether it's science or total crap. I saw on a "Seed's Daily Zeitgeist" this article from PZ's buddy Dawkins' site. If he wants to promote real science over a bunch of random assumptions and speculation, then why would he post something like that? There are no scientific references, though the authors say mention some studies that don't really confirm their points, then they wildly extrapolate to explain how "science" shows whatever they were hoping it to show before they found the studies . . .
This is just an example that you don't have to be religious to make ridiculous, baseless arguments.
I have 2 other recent examples from Seed/Scienceblogs, but I should be working, so I will quit writing about this now.

Posted by: Lisa | July 12, 2007 11:52 AM

Rob, thank you, sort of...

Your position pretty much matches my own - believer in God with an absolute loyalty to the findings of science, and a loathing for those who reject or pervert science in the name of religion.

Like you, I do think PZ tends to go a little over the top in his reaction to religion. He, Hitchens and Dawkins don't seem to understand that they win no friends or allies by putting all God-believers in the same boat. The mind-slaves of Fundamentalist scumbags will not be freed by a PZ Myers telling them that the faith which has given them so much comfort over the years is a dangerous delusion; they are more likely to be freed by a scientist-believer whose theology is good enough to show them that the creatures who are holding them in thrall are nothing more than a bunch of f***ing hypocrites.

You can't fight false theology with science; you must fight it with good theology - a meticulous analysis of the Fundamentalist position that exposes it for what it is. At the same time, science is necessary to fight theology which is dressing itself up as science, by being brave enough to say "No, that isn't so", or to keep on asking for justifications, or both.

When PZ attacks the lunatic fringe that dare call themselves Christians, I am behind him 100% - but when he attempts to lump scientifically minded believers like me in with the truly deluded, then I take offence. I won't stop being on his side, but I might draw off a little.

I certainly think he is unwise to do as he does, but I draw the line at calling him a blowhard and a jerk. It isn't necessary. We're all on the same side, battling the same evil - name-calling and flamewars only hurt the cause.

The more theists that science has on its side, the better chance we have of weaning the sheep away from their demonic shepherds into greener and more open-minded pastures. The only thing that is going to win this war of thought for us is for the sheep (who truly are victims, of people like Falwell and Phelps) to see that one does not have to surrender one's faith to see the truth of science. PZ, Hitchens and Dawkins are trying to run before they can walk.

Posted by: Justin Moretti | July 12, 2007 12:01 PM

When you aren't whining about your funding or lack thereof, your science posts are few and far between.

An admittedly quick trawl through Rob's and PZ's front pages suggest fairly similar ratios of science to non-science posts, actually.

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 12:08 PM

Rob,

There must be a reason why Richard Dawkins sells more than Ken Miller.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 12:12 PM

"Which is all the more reason for the "moderate" Christians to speak up and let the rest of us know that their Christianity isn't the same as those on the margins. Why is that so much to ask, if indeed the "true" message of Christianity is inclusiveness and tolerance?"

That's not so much to ask! Indeed, many of us are doing that.

Where are the moderate reactions to any number of public figures whose hypocritical Christianity has been exposed when they are outed for any number of things they rail against as "immoral"? Where are these "believing scientists" to speak up when crucial funding is being channeled away from research that doesn't mesh with the superstitions of the current administration?

This sort of apologism always reminds me of the Niemoller poem:

"When [they] came for the communists, I remained silent, for I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

Substitute, say, "gays," "intellectuals," and "atheists," look around at the current political climate, and tell me again how active moderate theists are in speaking out against their fundamentalist brethren.

Posted by: PuckishOne | July 12, 2007 12:34 PM

Rob,

I don't think anyone is accusing you of letting some of the worst excesses of religion go unchallenged. What I am asking, and I suspect Puckish is also asking, is why moderate theists have no figure similar to Dawkins. "The God Delusion" as I am sure you know was not written to address the religious but as a call to arms for atheists. I am not aware of any moderate theist anywhere who doing the same for moderate religion. Maybe this is becuase there are simply to few of you.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 12:57 PM

Boohoo Rob Knop with the equivalencies.

Posted by: Brad S | July 12, 2007 01:08 PM

"Anybody like you"? Defensive much?

I actually had read your previous post, and I agree that children should be shown that marketing does not a science make and that you clearly demonstrate a moderate Christian view. However, one post here and there will not be enough -- and that's hardly an unfair standard to set. To think that the occasional "phew, whatta bunch of loonies!" comment from the occasional moderate is going to have any effect is, at best, misguided. It will take a concerted, organized effort by the mainline congregations -- publicly, plainly, and en masse -- before the point is received by the fundamentalist sects (and the population as a whole) that the message of religious intolerance and intrusion is not a welcome one in this country. This is what I've been looking for and not seeing.

Posted by: PuckishOne | July 12, 2007 01:13 PM

When you aren't whining about your funding or lack thereof, your science posts are few and far between.

Posted by: llewelly | July 12, 2007 01:22 PM

one side lumps me in with immoral atheists because i trust science, and the other lumps me in with the ignorant superstitious because i believe in, for lack of a better word, gods

meh, even if there were a third side, they'd just lump me into some other category ("deluded pagans"? "unsaved but spiritual"?)

Posted by: skyotter | July 12, 2007 01:39 PM

"I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in spite of that."

Um, that's bad science. You just killed one of your arguments. If you can't view the world logically, why should I trust your science analysis? Clearly you are easily swayed by things with no evidence.

See, you're doing the exact same thing. You don't say, "I don't believe in God." You don't say, "There is no evidence for God." You say, "There is no God, and anybody who disagrees with me is delusional." Let me repeat that: "There is no God." You are making a statement with exactly the same amount of evidence as Rob. But, since Rob doesn't agree with you, he is obviously wrong, right?

I am a physicist. I am also religious. I believe in God because until somebody proves to me that God does not exist, the God theory is just as valid as anything else, and that is the theory that makes me happiest. I admit that line of reasoning is irrational, but as a human being, I understand that "emotional" does not equal "bad". Because I cannot prove God, I do not try to force my opinions on others or belittle them for disagreeing with me. Now, would you be so kind as to explain to me how my belief in God hinders my ability to solve Schrodinger's equation, or build a circuit, or do a Fourier transform? Explain how, because I believe certain things with no evidence behind them, I must then believe certain things with evidence opposing them and therefore cannot contribute to the scientific community.

Finally, are you guys freakin' nuts? There are no moderate religionists speaking out against fundamentalism? How about the entire Democratic party? And as cephyn said, there is no such thing as militant moderates, especially since the very basis of moderation is opposition to extremes. This analogy is wrong, and you're only making yourselves look idiotic by using it.

Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2007 01:44 PM

Puckish,

You are doing OK yourself!

MartinM,

Well Brayton is a total prick, so maybe that explain it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 01:47 PM

See, you're doing the exact same thing. You don't say, "I don't believe in God." You don't say, "There is no evidence for God." You say, "There is no God, and anybody who disagrees with me is delusional." Let me repeat that: "There is no God." You are making a statement with exactly the same amount of evidence as Rob.

Perhaps you know cephyn from somewhere else, but here, he made no such statement.

I believe in God because until somebody proves to me that God does not exist, the God theory is just as valid as anything else, and that is the theory that makes me happiest.

OK. Some people believe in a God who wants them to murder others, apparently. We can't prove that such a God doesn't exist, so I guess that's as valid as anything else. If that belief makes them happy, we have no grounds to criticize it, eh?

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 01:53 PM

Brandon,

As far as I can tell you take this position:

I can believe in what I like as long as there no evidence that shows what I believe in is wrong. I assume therefore that you think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, since there is no shred of evidence he does not. I also assume you believe that there invisible pink unicorns in your garden.

Bradon, as for you comment about moderate theists and Democrats, have you not noticed how the last two presedential elections in the US went ? If they are speaking out they are crap at it. Speaking out is not enough is it ? The moderate theists need to be effective. You may hate Dawkins, PZ, Hitchens but there is no doubt they are effective at being heard.

If believing in things for which there is no evidence either way is acceptable then what place is there for reason ? There is no evidence that god did not fake the scientific evidence that the earth if 4.5 billion years old. Some creationsists indeed claim that he did. Using your logic we should give that credence.

Bollocks. Evidence counts for something. Absence of evidence does suggest evidence of absence. If despite years of searching there is no evidence to support a position then it is reasonable to come to conclusions based on that lack of evidence.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 01:58 PM

I think that what bothers Rob, is the strong linkage between science, and the anti-religious movement that is occurring. Rob doesn't like to go to church and be accused of being one-of-them. Personally I think this linkage is risky (for science), even though I occasionally enjoy PZ. I usually get quite a few chuckles out of reading him, and his commentors.

PZ I do think it is healthy to have an aggressively pro-atheist movement. I'd just like there to be enough separation between science and the movement, that the former doesn't suffer from blowback.

Posted by: bigTom | July 12, 2007 02:00 PM

OK. Some people believe in a God who wants them to murder others, apparently. We can't prove that such a God doesn't exist, so I guess that's as valid as anything else. If that belief makes them happy, we have no grounds to criticize it, eh?

There is a difference between criticizing something from a scientific perspective and criticizing something from a moral perspective. Even if God appeared in front of me and told me to kill people, I still wouldn't do it. No, I won't criticize the idea that if you suicide-bomb innocent people you'll be rewarded in Heaven with 72 virgins, because I can't prove that wrong. But that doesn't mean I don't want Osama bin Laden behind bars.

And what happens when a scientist runs an experiment he believes should work - and no evidence arises that it does - should the scientist disregard this and continue believing? For how long?

Fine, by your defintion I am indeed delusional. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident then explain to me how being delusional about God makes me delusional about other things.

Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2007 02:05 PM