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

"The reason I brought it up was to point out the absurdity of using book sales figures as a metric of quality. Hello!!"

I was not using the sales figures as a metric of quality but as a metric of being listened to. It is you who seems to have missed the point.

Miller recently had a book out about his position on evolution and religion. It did not sell as well as either Hitchens' or Dawkins' recent books on belief in god. Which supports one of the points I have been making all along. At the moment the only serious criticism of radical religious positions is coming from atheists. If the moderate theists do not like that they need to up their game.

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

There is a difference between criticizing something from a scientific perspective and criticizing something from a moral perspective.

Yes, indeed. The major difference being that one typically works and the other typically doesn't. You're not going to get very far telling a religious terrorist that his actions are immoral if the religious belief system from which he derives his moral code says otherwise.

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 02:17 PM

Rob,

You assumption about my meaning isn't when I typed is is correct.

Ok, I know now where you stand. You do know though that your position is not the one that Dawkins, PZ et al are most concerned about, and that if religious people were like you they would not be as strident as they are ?

Can I ask if you have read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" ? I know at least one person who as attacked Dawkins's made a point of not Dawkins' personally over that book but refusing on principle to reading it. I do not consider that person to be honest. In the book Dawkins' makes it very clear that the book he wrote would not have been the book he would have written if religious people held views such as yours. Sadly most people, outside Western Europe at least, do not hold such moderate views. I have not read PZ be as explicit in how he regards moderate religion but I suspect his position would be similar to Dawkins'.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 02:18 PM

Insofar as there is any useful discussion buried in here, it just goes round and round the issue "is there anything worth knowing that isn't derived through the process of science?"

That's not the only issue. The more important question is, if there is some form of knowledge that isn't derived through the process of science, what process is it derived from? There has to be some consistent epistemology underlying this other form of knowledge, else it's all just arbitrary. May as well toss a coin.

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 02:21 PM

Hence the, "it feels right to me," argument.

Well, that's not epistemology. That's what's generally known as 'making things up.' It's a deliberate decision to engage with the world not as it is, but as we wish it to be. And now we get to find out how well your moral criticisms work, because I consider that to be deeply immoral.

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 02:28 PM

Reychel,

Dawkins and Coulter are hardly same when it comes to being tolerant.

Coulter is on record as saying the US should invade muslims countries and forcibly convert their populations to Christianity. That is clearly not a position based on being tolerant. It is also an indication that Coulter and sanity have departed company.

Dawkins is simply calling for a society where holding certain views on religious grounds is not a reason for treating those views with respect. He would also like to see a society where public confessions of faith are treated rather like we would treat someone who thinks aliens are visiting earth. He does not call for churches to be closed, or people be banned from being baptised. He does want a secular society where public policies are not decided on a person's religious views but on reason. That Bush has denied funding for stem cell research based on his ignorance of embreyolgy is Bush making policy in a theocratic manner.

The position Dawkins, PZ et al take is that their issues with religious belief will be taken care of by education and having a secular society. You only have to look at Western Europe to see this policy seems to work. Western Europe is not have a high level of religious belief, and what belief there is tends to be of the moderate variety. There are problems with the evangelical views of many in the US being exported (often with huge US funding I would add) but to be honest they are not a major problem as of yet, governments seem to be on top of the threat they pose, and the public tends to regard them as loons.

I cannot see how the two positions are at all similar in lack of tolerance.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 02:33 PM

Brandon wrote: Finally, are you guys freakin' nuts? There are no moderate religionists speaking out against fundamentalism? How about the entire Democratic party?

The Democrats have been falling all over themselves in an attempt to not alienate the moderate Christians in the hopes of winning enough votes to keep their majority in Congress. I have heard nothing from any Democrat that even smacks of speaking out against fundamentalism, and I live in a decidedly "blue" state. Even Al Gore (the closest thing to a paragon of reason the Dems have got) is more than happy to discuss his religious faith with the media. When I read an article in the New York Times stating that 90% of my countrymen would not be willing to vote for an atheist, I am not surprised at their silence. But, what do I know? I'm freakin' nuts, apparently.

Posted by: PuckishOne | July 12, 2007 03:50 PM

Rob,

However, given the fact that PZ and others are out there regularly bashing religion under the banner of "good science" makes it impossible for us to say, in good conscience, "No, you're wrong, the pro-science forces aren't just out to destroy religion, they're out to promote good science."

You're exactly right about this. And while I have no statistical studies to support you, I do have about thirty years of work experience that backs you up.

For a number of years at the two-year college where I taught, I was the advisor for students who were later going to transfer to a particular Baptist-supported university for their four-year degree. Some of these had had very little exposure to non-religious-fundamentalist-based science and philosophy, with some having attended conservative church high schools and some having been homeschooled in the creationist approach.

Using the argument that science says nothing about religion one way or the other as the statement "God exists" isn't a testable scientific hypotheses, I was able to calm suspicions about science and lead many of these students into taking science courses (mostly biology where they would learn some sound science on evolution) they hadn't planned to take. I also coaxed a large number of students into taking a philosophy class where they would examine the major arguments for and against the existence of God and/or taking an ethics class in which, I explained, they would learn, among other things, about various ways that non-religious people make sound moral judgments. I persuaded many of these students to take history and sociology classes in which they would learn about other religions.

Is it so hard to see that that successful method of persuasion could be seriously undercut by having to say, "Well, yes, some scientists are out to eliminate religion apparently because they believe that a creature which has evolved in the most recent tiny percentage of the time the universe has existed has developed in the most recent small percentage of the time it has existed a particular method of thinking/working so powerful that anything that method can't provide evidence for is so unlikely to exist that only ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims - like you - could possibly still believe that it exists. But don't worry; this science class really, really is about biology and not about atheism (though some biologists believe those go together)so you should take it."

Somehow not so convincing to these young students.

Should atheists like PZ say what they think? Of course they should. Everybody should say what they think. Honesty matters. When someone is going to distrust what I say on other matters simply because I believe God exists, I'd like to know that up front. Does generalized and insulting anti-religious rhetoric from scientists, especially when it's claimed that science actually supports such opinions hurt the effort to get young fundamentalists open their minds to learning? Yes, it does; and that needs to be said too.

Posted by: JuliaL | July 12, 2007 04:21 PM

"Has anyone ever told you that confidence in negative claims requires voluminous data?"

Thankfully no. I may have been lucky in that regard and avoided being taught the sort of bullshit that claims they do.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2007 04:22 PM

1) Personally, I feel defending superstition does no service to ScienceBlogs or to science...

2) And that railing against people who forthrightly call superstitions, institutionalized or not, bunkum, can only reduce your aerobic capacity... besides undermining social mores, leading to bad sex, destroying the ozone layer, and killing cute, fluffy bunnies.

Note that the second statement is pretty much as well-supported by available evidence as are the endlessly repeated claims about direct criticism of religion creating trouble for the public acceptance of science.

The first statement, I stand by, however.

Beyond this, I think the compelling reason one should call religions bunkum is that it's an excellent description. And that a good part of the outraged reactions that follow from defenders of religion when such opinions are voiced is that they know this entirely too well.

But inventing excuses one should not call religions too directly what they so obviously are is such an established game. Ain't civil was one. Bad for your cause, another. You'll lose the election, one more. You'll just wind up talking to people who already agree, one more still.

Me, I think, in the face of a culture that for a very, very long time enforced an artificial 'respect' for superstitions that have managed to get themselves considered religions (and which still tries to enforce that same involuntary 'respect', here and there), however, none of these reasons are compelling enough to apply generally, even if the alleged dangers were actually real (which is probably variable, at best, depending on the situation). There is great value in our current cultural context in simply saying: yes, religions are delusions, superstitions, every bit as ridiculous as they sound, I don't believe a word of them, and I'm saying so.

Again, there are a few reasons there is such value. One is: it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Two is: saying it continues to establish that doing so is something people can actually do. It's within the bounds of reasonable discourse, despite the fact that there are a lot of people who seem to wish otherwise.

And yes, saying you do not believe in a magical man in the sky is within the bounds of reasonable discourse. Saying you find it stunningly, comically silly to believe in such a thing is quite reasonable. And yes, even rubbishing the more ambiguous, vague, sorta but not really deist gods of certain mainstream believers, evolved, redacted and watered down as they are from the hairy old thunderers, con-men and conjurers of yesteryear, is a perfectly sensible thing to do, too, considering these, too, have as yet to provide any evidence for themselves--at least in the cases where the believers' version is such that they've even left evidence for their conjecture an actual possibility.

On that subject, the development of the modern, 'safe', vague gods, it seems to me, mirrors rather well the faster evolution of any crackpot argument in which the advocate is forced to concede he has no evidence for any of his originally more concrete contentions. Just as the crackpot makes his thesis more and more vague and non-negatable, until we've got a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing, the theological conjecture morphs rapidly--from 'my god controls the weather and made all living things' through 'my god wrote the physical laws'. At the end of the day, in both cases, you have a meangingless conjecture which explains nothing, and for which no evidence is even possible, but it's still held onto nonetheless.

Is it pride? Is it stubbornness? Who knows.

But it is silly, whatever else you call it.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 12, 2007 04:25 PM

Julia, The plural of anecdote is not data.

And the sky isn't green with purple stripes. Why do you make an obvious statement as though I, or anyone else here, doesn't know it?

As I acknowledged, there appear to be no statistical studies. Rob has offered an opinion based on reasonable thought. I replied that his opinion matches what has happened in my personal experience. I see nothing about that which qualifies for a generalized and condescending remark from you. Rather than implying that I am too ignorant and stupid to know the difference, how about contribute to the conversation by giving us examples from your own personal experience in which remarks like those that Rob quoted have contributed to a young religious fundamentalist agreeing to study science. Perhaps between my examples and yours, we could figure out some relevant issues to construct an actual scientific study.

I reply rather sharply to your remark because of another personal experience, one that has indeed been backed up by considerable study and research: generalized and mocking implications of ignorance and incompetance are frequently an intimidation technique used in an attempt to silence others. Women, especially of my age, have had much experience in receiving such comments where thoughtful replies would further a discussion instead of silencing it. Please don't go down that road. You have too much to add to a truly thoughtful conversation.

Posted by: JuliaL | July 12, 2007 04:56 PM

Julia: I believe that Matt's comment was meant to convey to you that an abundance of personal experiences does not constitute a valid data set. While there may well be validity in your personal experiences, such examples establish nothing other than that we have all had personal experiences. I would hope that there was no implication that you are either ignorant or stupid, for you do not appear to be either.

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

Julia: I believe that Matt's comment was meant to convey to you that an abundance of personal experiences does not constitute a valid data set. While there may well be validity in your personal experiences, such examples establish nothing other than that we have all had personal experiences.

Why yes, I agree that's what he meant. That's precisely what I was responding to. What else could he have meant? Oh - - I suppose someone could have read his comment as a statement on English grammar? I'm not sure. Anyway, we agree on what he meant.

Posted by: JuliaL | July 12, 2007 05:25 PM

Me:
"Has anyone ever told you that confidence in negative claims requires voluminous data?"

Matt:
"Thankfully no. I may have been lucky in that regard and avoided being taught the sort of bullshit that claims they do."

You should tell Stan Prusiner. If he had had you for an adviser, he wouldn't have had to publish hundreds of papers testing predictions of his hypothesis (prions don't have nucleic acids) and still won his Nobel Prize.

So, have you read Spong?

Posted by: John | July 12, 2007 05:36 PM

The other day, I saw PZ burning a cross at the local church. Rob Plop, have you ever considered that there ACTUALLY IS NO GOD? That MAYBE PZ and the rest of the real scientists are correct?

Posted by: Scholar | July 12, 2007 05:42 PM

The plural of anecdote is not data. But dismissing the data points that don't match the answer you want to get is not ethical treatment of systematic errors.

Err...were anecdotes data points, the plural of 'anecdote' would be 'data.'

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 07:41 PM

Hence the, "it feels right to me," argument. If science (which is really just applied logic) fails, what else is there besides emotions?

Excuse me for coming back to this, but what exactly do I do if what "feels right to me" is contradicted by science? It's easy to say that the epistemology of science takes precedence, such that whatever knowledge is established by science trumps whatever I feel. But what happens if I feel that the epistemology of science has not been properly applied? The researchers who produced the data refuting my feelings may be biased, or worse, committing fraud. What if that feels right to me?

And this isn't just a problem for the "feels right to me" approach. It's a problem for all other ways of knowing. What stops these alternative approaches from utterly subsuming everything science applies to? That's a common creationist approach, after all. As far as some of them are concerned, science is great; it's scientists that suck. Science properly done supports what they know through other means. What argument can you offer against such a position that doesn't take your other way of knowing down with it?

Posted by: MartinM | July 12, 2007 08:48 PM

Ok, so over all I have issues with many of the things that militant atheists, such as PZ, have to say. Being a theist, I take serious issue with the notion of ending religion. But really, is it any different than the proselytizing that many theists engage in? Whether I agree with the notions of those who proselytize or not, I suspect that in large part, many engage in it, out of a sense of altruism. They see their world view or beliefs, as superior to anyone else's and wish to share that with everyone else.

I also see them as allies in political battles against dominionism, ignorance and bigotry. That they are fighting a larger battle, in which I am one of the enemy is irrelevant. They are helping, in their way, to fight against the same things that I am fighting. Too, they are also engaged in a battle for equality. While it is certainly true that they have certain legal rights and protections, in practice, those don't always mean a whole lot - at least in the U.S.

I think that the gay rights movement is a reasonable analogy, though not perfect. Were it not for a lot of angry, militant queens, most of my friends would be in the closet today. Too, were it not for less apparent, everyday average people, who also happen to be gay. Neighbors, coworkers, friends and family members, who simply be virtue of being and also being openly gay, most of my friends would be in the closet. It takes more militant voices along with more moderate voices, to make a movement.

Unfortunately, there are going to be those who could be convinced to accept science and reason, who will be turned off by rhetoric from the likes of PZ Myers (more likely from the rhetoric of more prominent atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris). This is more the fault of media and human nature in general, than the fault of those using strong rhetoric. The fact is, that people like controversy and aggression. The media puts it out there because it sells. The wonderful thing is, and also why I'm glad you posted this, is that we can respond to them. Though our voices may not get the same audience, reach as many people, if enough of us are out there, talking about these issues as much as we can, we will make a difference. And a more profound difference it will be. While the angry loudmouths have a huge audience, they are, for the most part, not talking to individuals, in person. Meanwhile, I am. At church and outside church, when I am spending time with friends who are also people of faith, I am right there, talking to them. About science and reason. About safe sex and the importance of making sure their kids understand that regardless of mom and dad's views on sex out of marriage, if they are going to do it, to do it safely. About the importance of making sure that every family, regardless of the sexual orientation of the heads of household, deserves and needs the security and legal protections that marriage provides. On down the line. Most importantly, I impart the notion that secular humanism and evolution, are not diametrically apposed to religious faith, indeed that that is a false dichotomy. I can also point out, that just as Robertson and Dobson, are not representative of all, or even most Christians or other religionists, neither are Hitchens and Harris, representative of all atheists.

It is the personal touch, that becomes far more effective than all the rhetoric of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Myers, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Kennedy or any of the other prominent voices, talking about faith, in the mass media. That many people never hear from more reasoned voices, is unfortunate. But short of a major overhaul of mass media, indeed of human nature itself, that is always going to be the case. Meanwhile, it behooves all of us who actually care, to make what difference we can.

It also behooves us, if we really care, to accept that we will have allies in our political battles, that we may be diametrically apposed to in other battles. I certainly do it in other political arenas, notably, I am allied with libertarians in many civil liberty battles, while being apposed to them in battles over state interests in welfare and business regulation. That I am apposed to them on those fronts, doesn't mean that I let that get in the way of working with them to fight for civil liberties.

Posted by: DuWayne | July 12, 2007 08:58 PM

Rob unfortunately appears to be unfamiliar with the proverbial exhortation to stop digging when you're in a hole.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 12, 2007 09:28 PM

Enough with the Dawkins already. Anybody holding up Dawkins as the ANGRY ATHEIST WHO ALIENATES SOCCER MOMS either a)never read or heard anything he ever said in its original context or b)just can't handle atheism being spoken in their presence. The guy's gentle as a kitten and not at all contemptuous of the faithful, and I should point out that I'm talking to commenters here and scattered throughout the tubes, not necessarily to this Rob cat, since he didn't bring Dawkins up.

PZ and Hitchens are assholes, yeah, but it's a form-meets-function thing. Dawkins thinks religion's bad, the other two think that promulgating it just by virtue of believing is bad, so they're mean to you guys. I happen to think they're on to something, but I'm an asshole so, y'know, grain of salt.

But Dawkins isn't, was my point.

Posted by: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short | July 12, 2007 09:43 PM

Here I am a liberal to moderate Christian, and when I read something like "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies" on PZ's blog it makes me laugh. That's how he sees it, plenty of others see it differently, and a plurality of those aren't even crazy wingnuts, just regular folks. I don't need PZ or Dawkins or anyone to agree with me on that. Reading blogs generally isn't a good way to find self-affirmation, and taking it to heart or extrapolating from the general to oneself personally is inadvisable.

I guess some people might be put off of Science Blogs by PZ's fightin' words, but as people mention, a lot of others are drawn in. He isn't boring, that's for sure, and no, I don't think he is the analogue of Coulter or Limbaugh. Rhetoric here is actually pretty civilized compared to some sites.

Posted by: Anna Z. | July 12, 2007 09:56 PM

Give me a break. PZ is saying what PZ belives. What book is he selling? Oh yea, he isn't. Like him or hate him, it's nothing more than him being honest about his belief that religion is doing damage to this (and all countries).

Posted by: rmp | July 12, 2007 10:11 PM

With or without Hitler, he has lost this argument. But perhaps he doesn't know it yet.

Posted by: rmp | July 12, 2007 10:21 PM

OK, here's our assignment. If we believe religion to be a net negative to our world, how do we aggressively say that without being 'rude and uppity'?

Posted by: rmp | July 12, 2007 10:31 PM

from your last post

"Before I start, I want to make it clear that I comment as both a scientist and a Christian"

except you have previously shown yourself NOT to be a christian as you DISAVOW most of the main tenets of xianity.

just to keep it straight.

Posted by: Kevin | July 12, 2007 10:44 PM

drk, the fact that you have a thread about stupid religious people was the choice of Rob.

Posted by: rmp | July 12, 2007 10:53 PM

and this one again:

"as you DISAVOW most of the main tenets of xianity."

and yet you still bray that you can wear the label. Its as if you run around saying "I'm a jew! I'm a jew!" and your mother was a metodist.

Posted by: Kevin | July 12, 2007 11:08 PM

At the risk of being an "atheist dittohead" I must say that this exchange is reminiscent of the whole Brayton-PZ brouhaha from a while back.

...yawn...

Posted by: Daniel M | July 12, 2007 11:28 PM

Kevin -

All you are doing is showing a rather extreme ignorance. I too, am a Christian. I also happen to reject the notion of revealed religion and reject the vast majority of Christian dogma. It is the fact that I believe very strongly in much of what Christ had to say, enough that I have devoted myself to doing my best to live by those notions, that lends me to call myself a Christian. The fact that you, in accord with a lot of fundamentalist Christians, don't believe that I am a Christian, doesn't change that. It just puts you in line with Christian fundy thinking.

This is another interesting parallel I have seen little of before. Usually atheists who like to agree with fundamentalist religionists like to perpetuate the notion that acceptance of evolution, is inherently atheistic. The other one that I see, rather less frequently, is the notion that secular humanism is inherently atheistic. I can't say whether the urge to laugh, is stronger than the urge to cry, when I see extremist atheists, agreeing with extremist religionists in that way. It's a lot like seeing Jews, Muslims and Christianists standing hand in hand - to bash gays.

Posted by: DuWayne | July 12, 2007 11:54 PM

Scholar -

Rob, the "moderates" I talk to have no idea that they are enabling the fundamentalists. You do realize that enabling fundamentalists is a side-effect of moderates, don't you?

Ok. so lets take that analogy into the realm of politics, where it applies just as well. Do you honestly think that moderate liberals, enable extremists, who believe in extreme socialist philosophies? Do moderate conservatives enable extreme neo-cons, who would strip us of our civil liberties, by mere virtue of believing in certain conservative principles? Do you believe, that in spite of the difference being like night and day, that any of these folks actually enable those who take those beliefs to an extreme?

Bullshit. The moderate religionists (of many different religions and creeds) that I work with, along with a number of atheists, in an interfaith coalition for the separation of church and state, do an effective job of fighting dominionism. We don't get the mega-phones that Hitchens, Harris, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson have. Rather, we go back to our places of worship, our workplaces and the public square and talk to people one on one. We help each other hone arguments and strategies for fighting dominionism in the places it rears it's ugly head.

We also help each other find ways of encouraging religionists to accept that bigotry and ignorance are not requisites to being people of faith. We hone strategies for teaching our co-religonists to teach their children about safe sex, without having to give the idea that they should go out and have sex, now that they know how to do so safely (not that I actually believe that's necessarily wrong).

We, as religious moderates, are very effectively fighting extremism, not by any stretch, enabling it. Any more than I, rather more than a moderate liberal, am enabling Hugo Chavez to creep Venezuela towards a totalitarian socialist state.

Posted by: DuWayne | July 13, 2007 12:50 AM

Duwayne, please read this, so I don't have to paste the whole thing here. And no, RELIGION AIN'T THE SAME AS POLITICS (although these days...), YOU WASTED YOUR BREATH!

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/69-religious-moderates-enable-religious-extremists

George Locke
My understanding of the argument is that absolute religious tolerance provides a protective shield behind which any manner of extreme or anti-social religious belief may hide; hence, when moderates promote this form of religious tolerance, they are protecting extremists.

Religious tolerance is on the one hand very valuable for a society that wishes to maintain diversity. Certainly, a government that lacks a hefty dose of religious tolerance can only be described as fascist. On the other hand, if I say that I believe X because God told me so, are there no circumstances in which my belief may be challenged, even by private individuals? According to convention, the answer seems to be no, but I for one disagree with convention.

Any and all ideas should be held to scrutiny, as to whether they are soundly reasoned and as to whether their application benefits society. Religious ideas must be held to the same standard.

Posted by: Scholar | July 13, 2007 01:16 AM

Brandon says... 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.

Brandon, I think you are exactly wrong here. To me, your explanation of why you believe in a god seems just nearly about the only rational, reasonable, understandable and truly honest reason there is. It is certainly much moreso than the usual "reasons to believe in god".

Lets just compare:
- Because the Bible tells me so
- Because it is obvious
- Because the evidence for god is all around us
- Because bananas fit nicely in my hand
- Because lots of other people seem to think so
- Because of pascal's wager

Versus:
- Because it makes me the happiest.

So go ahead, and don't go half way about it. Really. And drop that first bit too -- it is okay to believe things even if they are demonstrably false, so long as you realize that you are duping yourself.

Because you know what -- there are all sorts of odd, unexplainable things that make people happy. And I have no more qualm with someone who believes in god "because it makes you happy" than with someone who justifies their squid fetish with the same reason.

And as we all know, those squid lovers can do pretty good science. At least, those of them that, when pressed, can admit that in the objective world outside of their tentacle-crazed dreams, squid love just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It might have tentacles, but without meatballs, who cares?

Posted by: Kevin | July 13, 2007 02:17 AM

buh bye

Posted by: pansauce | July 13, 2007 02:29 AM

Honestly, I could have just cut and paste this entire comment thread from the comment thread of a previous post I've made.

Oh, dear! How can you be so disrespectful to all your commenters and me especially. :-)

(I would have added something about blowhard and jerk, but it has probably been said already.)

Posted by: Torbj�rn Larsson, OM | July 13, 2007 02:35 AM

howie -

Moderates enable extremists by endorsing the method by which they claim to know the will of God--religious faith. If one man's faith is as good as another's, then the beliefs of religious extremists about God's will are no less worthy of respect than the beliefs of religious moderates. Therein lies madness.

This is a much more reasonable response than any which I read at Scholar's link to asktheatheists.com. Certainly more concise. Unfortunately, it still rest on the erroneous assumption that those at the aforementioned link are making. Or, more likely, we are using very different definitions for religious moderates.

Religious moderates, as I define it, do not claim to know the will of God. They may believe that it is likely that the holy texts they follow, or their interpretation of them, is the will of God. But they do not have the certainty of fanaticism. That knowing is impossible in the face of our increasing understanding of the natural world, which often directly contradicts the truths of their holy texts.

By definition, a fundamentalist is a person who accepts without question, their interpretation of the will of God, most often found in some sort of holy text or claims by religious leaders. Usually those claims by religious leaders are backed by their interpretation of some holy text. I think it's relatively rare, that people claim to know the will of God, simply because God "spoke" to them, without some backing in religious text.

The other problem with the notion that religion is the root cause of so many ills, is that it ignores the illness, the wrong thinking, assuming rather, that removing religion from the equation will make everything better. The problem with that, is that the ills are still going to be there, with different hosts to help perpetuate them. Hosts such as nationalism, or political/ideological extremism.

Look to the Soviet Union, religion was pretty violently oppressed, atheism was strongly encouraged, mandatory for party membership, yet bigotry, ignorance and repression flourished. Look to the most secular countries in Europe, where the very ignorance and bigotry we decry here, are being barred from the free market of ideas, where they could be shredded in the open, for all to see. Instead driven underground, into hiding, where they fester, where no one can really attack them, because they are not a target that anyone is allowed to engage. There, in the name of enlightened secular humanism, words are a crime, ideas can get one imprisoned.

When it comes to the ills "caused" by religion, religion is merely a tool for perpetuating the ills, not the cause of the ills. In the absence of religion, other tools can and will be found. One must keep in mind that behind most religious rules, their is, or was at one time, a purpose based in secular power. Either that, or there is a God and said God did in fact, make all those rules.

Posted by: DuWayne | July 13, 2007 04:21 AM

More blog-fighting, eh?? It's like the enormous group of kids who gather around in a circle to see the new punk on the block fight with the most popular, well-established punk. What an extraordinary waste of time. I used to spend my life doing this kind of thing on Daily kos (under a different alias!!) in ancient days. You get some attention, PZ gets more attention and then the whole thing fades. Gets boring and meaningless after a while though, doesn't it?

I don't like your ad homs and insults, but I cetrtainly do agree with you about one thing: Why don't you scientists stick to writing about science? The anti-religious shit bores the hell out of most (atheist) people like me after a while, I think. Then there's the anti-creationism over and over and over again. Preaching to the choir....and giving the nuts unneeded attention and legitimation. Boring!!

Posted by: Francesco | July 13, 2007 06:14 AM

"The anti-religious shit bores the hell out of most (atheist) people like me after a while, I think."

I've come up with a cutting-edge new procedure that should ameliorate all your difficulties.

Step 1: Grip mouse with dominant hand.
Step 2: With mouse in hand, guide cursor to the "X" botton at either the top right or left (Safari) corner of the browser window.
Step 3: Left-click.

This is more effective than the usual procedure of whining about content you don't like on blogs you voluntary access.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 13, 2007 07:03 AM