…and this is a 
Our double standard
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: February 26, 2006 9:32 PM, by PZ Myers
I'm sorry, Josh, but while you introduce the issue well…
There's been a minor thing brewing in the last week or so between PZ Myers, Chris Mooney, and originally Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett (and by now the rest of the blogosphere) about "hiding atheists away" in discussions of evolution, the framing issues involved in calling atheists "brights" and other tangentially related topics. It taps into the deeper issues of the connection between evolution and atheism, how that impacts the Great Creationism Wars, and on and on.
…you then go on to perpetuate the usual misrepresentation of atheists in this debate.
If atheists make their atheism an issue in a discussion about evolution they're playing the same game religious authoritarians are, and making it easy for the authoritarians to push their religion. Evolution isn't a weapon to be wielded against religion, nor is religion a tool to be wielded against evolution, and the science class isn't where atheists and theists should have their squabbles.
That just isn't the way it works, and I'm feeling more than a little irritated at having to explain it over and over again.
You will not find me claiming that you must be an atheist to defend evolution, that only atheists understand evolution, or that Christians can't be on our side in the evolution debate. I do not tie evolution to atheism or vice versa. I preface my talks to students on the subject with the explicit disclaimer that they are not required to abandon their faith to support good science. I do think religious credulity is the antithesis of the kind of critical thinking we should be encouraging, and that we ought to be working to reduce the role of superstition in our culture, but come on, give us atheists some credit—we are actually capable of generating a focused argument on a topic. We do.
So could everyone please stop pretending that the atheists in the scientific community are all making some fatuous "Evolution, therefore god is dead" argument?
Seriously, we aren't saying that. We are making an independent argument for reason and atheism and against superstition; and the people who object to that are in essence suggesting that people who argue for evolution should keep silent. I could understand the complaint if it were against making bad arguments for evolution and atheism, but that simply isn't the case here.
I'm beginning to resent it. People who wouldn't think of telling a Jewish or Christian scientist to "hey, could you tone down any mention of your religious belief, anywhere, anytime?" think nothing of informing atheists that they shouldn't defend their unbelief, anywhere, anytime. I'm sure I'll hear that that isn't what Josh is saying, but it's hard to interpret it any other way when there are these vague expressions of disquiet over the presence of assertive atheists in our midst.
What makes it worse is the double standard. I have to pick on Mike for saying this most clearly.
I'm not a complete idiot; I realize the 'religious' right introduces religion into the debate to a far greater extent than the pro-science side. However, responding to that is an issue of tactics and framing, and is not what I'm discussing here. Personally, I don't think atheists should have to hide their beliefs. However, when explaining and defending evolution, getting into the 'God conflict' is not only bad tactically, but as I explained, simply not relevant. Tactically, the ability to shoot down the 'godless evolutionists' concept by proclaiming one's religious beliefs is, regrettably, a useful rhetorical device.
Got that? Statements about god-belief, pro or con, are off the table in arguments about evolution, except when those statements are pro-religion. Those are OK. Ken Miller writes a book on evolution that's also a defense of religion in general and Catholicism specifically, and do we hear these same people decrying the introduction of the theist/atheist "squabble" into the evolutionary argument? No, his book is recommended all over the place (even by me—the science is good, but the religion is bogus). We can praise the clergy for getting involved, but atheists? Regrettable. Tactically bad.
Tough.
We also get arguments that criticizing religion hurts the pro-evolution cause. So what? You could also say that criticizing creationism hurts the pro-evolution cause, because it pisses off all those millions of creationists. The claim completely misses the point. Atheists reject religion, so we aren't at all worried that the targets of our criticism dislike our criticism. We aren't going to stop.
Now Josh and Mike and Chris are smart people; but it's not at all clear what they hope to accomplish with these complaints. Is there some specific problem in mind, or is it just a general, fuzzy discomfort with all the vocal ungodly on your side? What is it that should change? Because I can guarantee that I'm not going to slack off on denying religion, loudly and proudly…and I doubt that Richard Dawkins or Steven Weinberg, a couple of rather more prominent opponents of religion, are going to back off either. So what's the gripe? Why shouldn't I feel that many who should be my allies are making excuses for a broader irrationality that undermines the more specific argument for evolution that they want to support? While utility in the short term is nice, I'm not in favor of losing to superstition in the long run.
Comments
"We are making an independent argument for reason and atheism and against superstition . . ."
Hear! Hear!
Posted by: Maven | February 26, 2006 9:45 PM
I'm with ya PZ. Godless and Proud!
Posted by: justawriter | February 26, 2006 10:00 PM
In my defense, I did say "If atheists make their atheism an issue ...." Whether in fact any atheists do, is a separate matter. Do I need to make it clearer (given the context) that I'm saying that discussions of atheism in the context of evolutionary biology are problematic.
I did say "That isn't to say that an evangelical Christian or an atheist shouldn't speak out about her religious beliefs or lack thereof. It just means that it's in everyone's interest to distinguish what we're talking about."
Which sounds like what you're advocating, too. Where's the beef? Where's the double standard?
Posted by: Josh | February 26, 2006 10:13 PM
That's my question. What are you and Mike and Chris complaining about? It's awfully nebulous...all I know is that my name and Richard Dawkins' tend to come up in these discussions about atheists hurting the evolutionist cause, yet no one brings up anything specific or makes any productive suggestions, other than to criticize stuff some hypothetical atheist somewhere is supposedly doing.
It's so nebulous, that the only conclusion I can draw is that you're uncomfortable with the existence of us nastily aggressive atheists.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 26, 2006 10:18 PM
Amen, PZ! (And I use that term in a wholly ironic sense.)
I think Thoughts from Kansas and the others have a point only insofar as this: Scientists who are atheists should make it a point not to state or imply that only an atheist can accept evolution. This isn't true, and saying otherwise is playing into the creationists' hands, giving them ammunition they can use.
Other than that, I think scientists should feel free to speak out in defense of their personal views any time they want, in any way they want, even if they're atheists - especially if they're atheists. We need more promotion of atheism; the deleterious effects of excessive faith are way too obvious, and it's about time we stopped apologizing for living our lives according to reason and evidence. That is a positive, praiseworthy trait, and we ought to say so as often as possible.
I find the implication that atheists should keep quiet and let religious scientists handle the PR to be insulting, not just to us nonbelievers but to the public we're supposed to be reaching out to. Should we deceive them, paint a false picture of the way things are? That is antithetical to the spirit of open discussion that is such a crucial part of science in the first place. Let everyone speak out, and let everyone defend his or her convictions with boldness. If there are people who are so repulsed by atheism that they'll automatically reject anything an atheist speaks in favor of, we probably never had a hope of reaching them anyway.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | February 26, 2006 10:20 PM
I read Josh's sermon a few hours ago and I did not understand it the way you did. I think you are on the same page.
Posted by: coturnix | February 26, 2006 10:49 PM
I was making my comments in the abstract to note a general equivalence, not to criticize all atheists or to make blanket statements.
Examples aren't hard to dig up.
Dawkins to beliefnet: "My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
Can be summarized/interpretted (ungenerously I admit): Evolution therefore no religion.
Jonathan Wells: "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism."
Summarized: Religion therefore no evolution.
Both are flawed approaches. Evolution says nothing about religion and vice versa.
Putting the fight for evolution in a context of a fight against superstition (which you equate with religion) is different from putting it in a context of teaching science in science class. I prefer the latter, because the former puts evolution in conflict with religion. I don't want to fight that battle, and I don't want to be enlisted in it.
Ebonmuse: I don't think atheist scientists should keep quiet and defer to religious scientists. I think that when scientists are talking about science they should leave their religion (or absence thereof) aside, it isn't a relevant adective.
On the other hand, when talking about the ways that religious people can be at peace with evolution/science at large (note, different conversation!), do you think an atheist or a co-religionist is more convincing? Atheists are, for various reasons, at peace with evolution. They have worried about the Big Bang, the Anthropic Principle, and Plate Tectonics. Some religious people worry about evolution, and there are two conversations that need to happen with them. One is to show what evolution is, and religion is immaterial to that discussion (see above). The second conversation is about the way to reconcile their religious faith (superstition if you like) with the scientific data, and that's a conversation where religion matters, but professional scientific expertise (a smart layperson can handle the science side). Of course, if someone is both a religious and a scientific expert, you can get double duty out of them.
This is a framing thing for me. If we frame this in terms of evolution being one step in the grand crusade to end all superstition, even religion, it's no different than framing the battle for creationism as one blow in the DI's battle against "materialism."
That's all I'm saying. I'll let Mike and Chris speak for themselves.
Posted by: Josh | February 26, 2006 10:58 PM
Good post, PZ.
I see attempts to sweep the correlation between evolution and atheism under the rug in the mainstream media all the time. For interviews, news shows choose weak defenders of evolution who make the same irritating comments over and over and over:
1) They state defensively that they're religious, as though believing in the Holy Boogey-man is required for credibility.
2) One of their most common defenses of evolution (usually versus ID) is, "science can't deal with the supernatural." They implicitly concede that there is a supernatural in the first place and suggest that it's a weakness of science to be unable to deal with those aspects of reality. Nobody ever says, "hey, wait a minute, maybe supernatural is the same thing as fictional."
3) They spend half their time stating that evolution doesn't conflict with religion. That may or may not be true depending on how literally a religion is interpreted, but it shouldn't be on any lists of the merits of evolution or any other scientific theory. These people are more concerned about reconciling evolution with fiction than embracing its roots in fact.
The bottom line is that "God is in the gaps" in our knowledge, and by filling many of those gaps evolution further decreases religion's credibility. We shouldn't be hiding that like it's a dirty little secret. Evolution may be compatible with some amorphous forms of theism, but having a natural answer for such major questions does boost the validity of an atheistic worldview.
The religious people the press trots out to defend evolution have an inconsistent worldview; they allow irrationality and faith to govern some of their beliefs, and their choice to draw the line short of rejecting evolution is a fairly arbitrary one they can never explain coherently. This makes their arguments weak and painful to watch. Atheists with their self-consistent worldview are better suited to explain evolution's real merits, but they're usually hidden away in favor of confused "moderates" speakers.
Posted by: Troutnut | February 26, 2006 11:13 PM
I was making my comments in the abstract to note a general equivalence, not to criticize all atheists or to make blanket statements.
Examples aren't hard to dig up.
Dawkins to beliefnet: "My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
I realize that's what you were doing, Josh - no worries. I do agree that Dawkins has made some overzealous comments along these lines in the past, and if he does so again, we definitely should point out that he doesn't speak for all scientists. But neither should we treat his personal opinions as if they're less valid than those of any other scientist.
Ebonmuse: I don't think atheist scientists should keep quiet and defer to religious scientists. I think that when scientists are talking about science they should leave their religion (or absence thereof) aside, it isn't a relevant adective.
I couldn't agree more.
On the other hand, when talking about the ways that religious people can be at peace with evolution/science at large (note, different conversation!), do you think an atheist or a co-religionist is more convincing?
I see what you're getting at - I certainly don't want science to be a casualty in a debate about atheism. The thing is, I think we're setting ourselves up for disaster in the long run if we act as if only religious scientists can speak with authority on these controversial issues. That's not what science is about. Doing science means that anyone of any background can come to the table, as long as they have the evidence to back up their views. If we want to frame the issue, I think that's how we should be doing it - not by hinting that atheists are unwelcome among scientists (for the record, I'm not accusing anyone of saying this), but by making it clear that religious people are just as welcome as anyone else. We should say that some scientists are theists and some aren't, but they all accept these theories because the evidence points to them, and leave it at that.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | February 26, 2006 11:15 PM
*blinks*
*blinks again*
*rubs eyes with knuckles*
*sees the sentence is still there*
What, if I may be so bold as to ask, the fuck are you talking about?
Posted by: Chris Clarke | February 26, 2006 11:16 PM
Dawkins to beliefnet: "My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism."
Josh, Darwin knew full well how his theory of evolution would refute William Paley's natural theology, so I fully agree with Dawkins here regarding his conclusions about his own atheism.
No one claims that the theory of evolution invalidates fideism, which is faith that isn't based on reason. Which is not something that probably appeals to Dawkins either, obviously.
Posted by: David Wilford | February 26, 2006 11:17 PM
I wanted to comment further on Josh and this thread, and on another aspect to the debate happening here.
From a humble reader, who happens to be a scientist, and not religious but not athiest either... To be quite honest, the ScienceBlogs feed is getting increasingly, uh, strident, and it's beginning to turn me and a few others I know off. Yes, maybe the religious side of this debate is not playing fair... but there is a vibe going on here that is increasingly tending towards disrespectful, and I don't see that we need to sink to the level of some of what the anti-science people are doing. Yes, we need to vigorously defend science. No, we don't need to make it personal, even when they do.
Also, in terms of just sheer representation, I don't think most people are religious nutters, and I don't think most scientists are athiests. We need to have more consideration for that in how we discuss the debate as well.
I've personally come up against debates with people who, for a variety of personal, social, or cultural reasons, were unable to move past the dictates of their beliefs, even in the face of scientific evidence. Sometimes these people do come around eventually but it takes time, and it takes a non-judgemental atmosphere. For many it involves a heavy re-evaluation of their beliefs, their society, and their childhood. A lot of what I'm reading on ScienceBlogs is coming off more and more dismissive and disrespective of those who have 'irrational' beliefs. Unfortunately more of humanity falls into that category than not. By so virulently and personally attacking certain hard-core people who will probably never change, many here are inadvertently alienating many others on the fence who are trying to come around but are feeling, deep down, somewhat offended.
Just a few thoughts about this, take from it what you will.
Posted by: Jon | February 26, 2006 11:20 PM
Evolution says nothing about religion and vice versa.
not fundamentally, but for some people it does. to dennett it is the 'universal acid,' the acid will eat away religion. my own atheism precedes my deep understanding of evolution, but evolution is now certainly of the subcomponent vectors that contribute to my firm disbelief in man-made religions.
to some religionists evolution is orthogonal to their religion. to others, it contributes to their religion. to others it is in opposition to it.
there are many species in the waters here, and the whole argument is nebulous. i don't see that much genuine disagreemant there...but, i will offer that dan dennett specifically is a problem child here, because in darwin's dangerous idea he specifically did made pretty strong claims about evolutionary theory that exploded out of biology. that's his prerogative, and narrowly construed i'm pretty sympathetic to many of dennett's models, descriptions and heuristics, but the rhetoric can be problematic.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 26, 2006 11:24 PM
Has anyone tried to enlist you in the battle against superstition? I suspect not. Go ahead, sit it out. I've got no problem with someone picking their own focus.
Who is more convincing at making a religionist at peace with evolution? I'm going to make the counterintuitive suggestion that it is the atheist. Face it, lots of scientists are atheists, far more than is the case in the general population, and education and skepticism do tend to lead people far, far away from conventional religion. We know it, and most importantly, they know it. So let's not pretend otherwise, let's get atheists front and center, and let people see that we're human beings, too. I will bow to the needs of properly framing the issue by refraining from eating any babies in public.
It's also bad framing to set up a false equivalence. Our problem is, ultimately, with religion. The evolution-creation controversy wouldn't even exist but for religion. Ignoring the root cause of the conflict because you think that advocating the sufficiency of natural mechanisms makes us just like a bunch of godly yahoos who worship dogma is basically an attack on the whole principle of science. Beating the guys who want to shoot you by voluntarily slitting your own throat isn't much of a victory, I'm afraid.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 26, 2006 11:25 PM
http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/
most evolutionary biologists probably are.
most scientists reject a personal god and elite (national academy of science members) individuals overwhemingly do.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 26, 2006 11:27 PM
Come the Agnostic Revolution, Atheists will be first, well second... ummm... nth against the wall.
We demand rigidly demarcated areas of skepticism and doubt.
Posted by: John Wilkins | February 26, 2006 11:32 PM
Our problem is, ultimately, with religion.
pz, but the issue that it is a particular form of religion.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 26, 2006 11:35 PM
to be more precise, religion might be a necessary condition for anti-evolutionism (to a high probability), but it is not sufficient.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 26, 2006 11:37 PM
PZ--
What I think this neglects is the political situation we're in. There's no doubt about evolution in biology, yet a huge percentage of Americans don't accept it, and those numbers haven't changed significantly in years. The fundies keep coming back and picking at this sore, because they know it's a winner for them.
Why? Because our culture is divided over religion, and the evolution debate brings out that divide out forcefully. Personally, I'd like us all to be a little bit less divided, and a little more accepting of evolution. I'd like to escape from the vicious cycle that has been the evolution fight for decades upon decades.
That's why I'm recommending a new strategy, structured along the lines of a political campaign. It's not about telling atheists to shut up, but it is about having evolution defenders coordinate their messages to greatest effect.
I suspect that if such a political campaign is launched, and if it is based upon solid polling and other research, we will find that it treats the religion issue with *extreme* caution. That's really all I'm saying.
But for God's sake (or lack thereof), don't shut up! You're my favorite atheist blogger (and evolution blogger). You make it funny and a delight to read. If there's really something wrong with atheists in my experience it's that too many of them are crotchety, angry, no fun, and tend to alienate younger people. You've overcome all of that, and it's really magnificent to behold.
Posted by: Chris Mooney | February 26, 2006 11:40 PM
More seriously - some writers like Simpson, Dawkins, Provine and the like have indeed tried to show that their atheism and philosophical views are supported by evolution. So too did theists like Dobzhansky and Teilhard and Julian Huxley. So what? A scientist is like anyone else who thinks hard - he or she will use all the knowledge and implications thereof to formulate a coherent worldview. It follows that if they know a fair bit about the world, and its origins, that will factor in, whether they are atheists, theists, pantheists or Red Sox fans. [In Australia I'd say Collingwood fans, but you furriners wouldn't get it.]
Posted by: John Wilkins | February 26, 2006 11:44 PM
"but the issue that it is a particular form of religion."
Yes, but what you neglect to mention is that - at least in the US - this "form" is at least 50% of the whole. Lookup Gallup's statistics on Creationism.
It does nothing useful to defend some sort of anaemic religion with no observable consequences as being "consistent" with evolution, when your target audience sees what you're selling as new-age hippie feelgoodery.
Posted by: D | February 26, 2006 11:48 PM
Chris Clarke: Is the Big Bang a religious hoax?:
Similar objections had been raised to plate tectonics, which sounded too much like God parting the waters.
Coturnix: Yes, Dr. Myers and I are on the same side.
I think the reaction here to my post was a bit over-sensitive, but I also know that there's a lot of anti-atheist prejudice out there, and any minority religious viewpoint has to defend itself. It's easy and reasonable to be defensive.
I think Jon is responding to what I was pointing out in the first paragraph of my post (linked above):
I don't read blogs where the writer is trying to make me a Christian, and for the same reason I don't want my favorite blogs to evangelize for atheism. It's no different.
And Troutnut is doing what Myers and I are arguing against. Being an atheist or a theist makes no difference in how qualified one is to speak about evolution. Religion and science are orthogonal, and attacking religion along the way of promoting evolution is a bad idea.
Posted by: Josh | February 26, 2006 11:48 PM
Yes, but what you neglect to mention is that - at least in the US - this "form" is at least 50% of the whole. Lookup Gallup's statistics on Creationism.
It does nothing useful to defend some sort of anaemic religion with no observable consequences as being "consistent" with evolution, when your target audience sees what you're selling as new-age hippie feelgoodery.
1) the gallup numbers might be somewhat exaggerated, see chris' article.
2) even aceding to the validity of the poll (they do reflect something real), note that they also show a substantial minority of roman catholics also are creationist. why? is it a fundamental tenet of their religion? no. my point is that even within the subset who reject evolution because of putative "religious" reasons you can wedge into these beliefs pretty easily.
3) in ronald l. numbers the creationists he documents that mormon students at BYU went from being mostly pro-evolution in the 1920s to anti-evolution in the 1980s. did the mormons change their religious doctrine? not really, i think there were some cultural dynamics at work here.
4) this is where chris' 'political' strategy comes into play. i don't think rejection of evolution is something that is rock hard and deep. i do think there are innate biases against it, but the biases are those that favor people assuming that heavier objects fall faster. you can work against it, but you have to take their mental and social parameters into account before you figure the angle you can play.
5) fundamentalist ideologues will always be able to find atheist quotes from evolutionary biologists. the sample space is just too big to patrol, even if we wanted to. rather, the key is to be aware of the currents in the cultural waters we swim in. nothing revolutionary, just a little pragmatic reminders.
6) i think only a few people are 'problematic.' i think michael ruse overplays his hand, and some of the stuff he has said about w.d. hamilton for example i know to be misrepresentations, so that doesn't help his credibility, but i think in regards specifically to dennett there is an issue here of rhetorical overreach.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 26, 2006 11:58 PM
Josh said:
Dawkins to beliefnet: "My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism." Can be summarized/interpretted (ungenerously I admit): Evolution therefore no religion.
Let's be clear: that statement is misrepresented by the way you suggest someone might summarize it. All Dawkins statement says is that in his case understanding evolution began a thought process which resulted in his atheism. But that process is not guaranteed (ask Francis Collins or Ken Miller). Are you arguing that Dawkins, a prominent scientist and thinker, ought to be careful in discussing how his beliefs came about in his life just because someone might misrepresent him?
Evolution says nothing about religion and vice versa.
Neither part of that statement is true. Evolution (in partnership with geology) does say something about religions that deny evolution: it says those religions are promulgating falsehoods. Those same religions, via their spokespeople, do say something about evolution: that it is false and demeaning. Do you not live in the United States?
Posted by: cm | February 27, 2006 12:03 AM
Religion and science are orthogonal, and attacking religion along the way of promoting evolution is a bad idea.
they aren't always orthogonal. is religion that doesn't conflict with science the only authentic form of religion? no, i don't think so. i'm not trying to play both sides here: religion explores an enormous space of definitions. as atheists (i'm speaking as one to one here) we need to be aware of this range and play it to our advantage in whatever way we can. and we need to be more aware of reality than most, polling every atheist should know.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 12:04 AM
Religion and science are orthogonal, and attacking religion along the way of promoting evolution is a bad idea.
Given how many so many religions make claims that are flatly contradicted by the findings of science Josh, I respecfully disagree. Evolution does refute claims made by those who base their religious beliefs in natural theology, and to defend evolution it is necessary to confront the latest version of such arguments, namely intelligent design.
Posted by: David Wilford | February 27, 2006 12:05 AM
when a theist tells me that evolution necessarily implies atheism, i deny that, and state that there are "many evolutionary biologists who believe(d) in god." i point to r.a. fisher (anglican) and theodosius dobhzansky (orthodox) for example. when i say "many" i do this knowing that fewer than 10% of modern evolutionary biologists are theists. but, 0.1 X tens of thousands is still thousands. that's many!
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 12:19 AM
Josh, one crackpot webpage does not "atheists have worried about the Big Bang and Plate Tectonics" make, especially when it doesn't mention plate tectonics even once.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | February 27, 2006 12:22 AM
razib - let me respond specifically on the data, which are reasonably clearcut at least on the point of how many Americans are Creationists.
"God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" - 46% say yes
"human beings developed from earlier species of animals" - 48% say probably or definitely not true
"Would you say that you believe more the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism to explain the origin of human beings, or are you unsure" - Creationism gets 48%
I'd say these are quite consistent. There is some stigma attached to the word 'evolution' yes, but at least for the half of the population that thinks the world is 10000 years old, mere phraseology isn't the problem.
Posted by: D | February 27, 2006 12:37 AM
It is the definitive job of scientists to contribute to the ongoing refinement of the grand story of natural history, which is as close as it gets to the bible for atheists, and will continue to be until there is evidence for one or more gods which withstands peer review.
Sure there are professionally employed scientists out there who maintain religious beliefs, but they are just another symptom of our recent careerist preoccupations, doing science as a day job because it pays and not actually believing in it. The same has become unfortunately common in many areas of once worthy employment, areas increasingly subsumed by empire builders bolstered by the likes of flat earth economics and equally whacky notions of essential truth, many of which adopt the rhetorical style of science, sans evidence and rigour.
Science is not agnostic. As natural history it is definitively atheist. But that does not mean that science cannot often be ideologically or politically agnostic. Even the case for environmentalism is not an automatic product of science, nor especially is humanism. However I'm still enough of an optimist to see it being easier to use the science of evolution to support the case for pluralistic devolution than for fearful authoritarianism.
But science also needs to never forget that it is a work in progress and discoveries will continue to be made that were unthinkable according to prevailing wisdom a moment earlier. There is not a shortage of gaps, but neither is there a reliable supply of gods to paper over them with.
Our state of five million has been at a loss this past week over the news of six rural teen pedestrians killed by an out of control car. The funeral priest was happy to claim that his God didn't do it but was still there to help clean up, unlike the driver who ran from the scene. It is for times like that that we atheists are caught sadly lacking a story. Sure they live on through the memories of those who survive but sometimes our indifferent world just does what it does despite our best efforts to overreach the charge assumed and passed down by Abraham.
Posted by: Tony Smith | February 27, 2006 12:41 AM
but at least for the half of the population that thinks the world is 10000 years old, mere phraseology isn't the problem.
let me be frank, half the population can't really think. they have a 'gut' feeling, reinforced by some smooth propogandists. that's basically all there is. i'm not saying it is sincere, i'm not saying it isn't an issue, i'm not saying that it will be easy to change. but the question most of us are really concerned with, "but is it good for science?" i'm pretty convinced that the majority of americans are going to believe in some big magical guy in the sky indefinitely. assuming this as a structural problem, "what is good for science?" i'm willing to be somewhat whorish and try and convince some of them (the elite ones who make public policy) that the big magical guy in the sky is OK with science, even if i think that science basically implies that the big magical guy is a illusion.
i debated theists as part of an atheist club in college. yes, they really believe in the big magical guy. doesn't make me happy, but i've reconciled myself to this structural issue.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 12:43 AM
Science is not agnostic. As natural history it is definitively atheist.
who are you to render definitiveness? god :)
but neither is there a reliable supply of gods to paper over them with.
the bounty of imagination is endless. god(s) is a phoenix. (s)he rises out of the ashes of every age of reason.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 12:46 AM
"The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man." -- Robert G. Ingersoll
Posted by: Jenna | February 27, 2006 12:49 AM
Chris Clarke: You asked for an atheist with a problem with the Big Bang, I offered it.
As for Plate Tectonics, creationists claim they were there first. Until empirical evidence emerged, they were opposed. QED.
I'm not a theologian, but I've chatted with some, and they agree that religion (theology) and science are, properly speaking, orthogonal. When the two are allowed to become non-orthogonal is when we get problems.
Theology aims to answer "ultimate" questions: Why are we here (in the broadest sense)? Science is there to answer proximate questions: Why do humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?, why did the genus Homo originate in Africa?, etc..
That's where the orthogonality comes from. It inheres to both fields of study. Science is "limited" to proximate questions, but science gets to test itself empirically. Theology gets "ultimate" questions, but doesn't get empirical evidence. It's worth noting that this is the argument that the judge in Maclean v. Arkansas relied heavily upon in his ruling. Don't knock it.
I think one can recover natural theology within this framework. Calvin, no pantheist, once said "I admit, indeed that the expressions 'Nature is God,' may be piously used, if dictated by a pious mind." So we get the result that by learning about God's world and works, we learn about God. This doesn't yield the castrated designer of IDolatry, but a robust and transcendent God that touches everything.
Note that I'm not advocating this, just pointing out an array of options.
To be clear, when I say science and religion are orthogonal, I'm basing that not on my view as a scientist (though it matches well with my professional understanding of what I'm doing) but on the professional views of theologians with whom I've discussed this issue. People who try to create a connection between them (whether they're atheists or theists) are not supported by science or theology.
The political processes behind the creationist movement are beyond the scope of a comment on a blog, but I will say that it is a political process, not a religious process.
Posted by: Josh | February 27, 2006 12:54 AM
Also, by and large I agree with you when you say "i don't think rejection of evolution is something that is rock hard and deep."
I don't think these people wake up every morning wanting to make a serious and earnest effort to somehow not be taken in by evolution. After all, rejecting practically all of science takes work, and is probably intellectually and emotionally taxing.
My point rather is that they are committed to a literal and work-for-word understanding of the Bible (except for the bits about stoning adulterers and keeping slaves only in such and such a manner, but that's a story for another day). Anything that undermines this belief is a threat to their religious identity and that's that.
Simply saying "look! you can believe in evolution and still believe in the Bible provided you take nothing in it literally and actually think for yourself" ain't going to cut it. You might as well go around telling them that they should become liberal Christians or Unitarian Universalists. They don't wanna.
The Dennetts and Dawkinses of the world probably do not make it any easier for these people to buy evolution, but I doubt THAT is what is causing fundie-ness in your average fundie. If you don't address the root problem of fundamentalism you're practically saying you'll make no difference. At least a Dawkins tries to get other intellectuals worked up about religious literalism.
Might as well accept that different scientists have different views on religion, let both the Dawkinses and the Millers say what they think, and leave it at that.
Posted by: D | February 27, 2006 12:56 AM
D, we are aiming at different audiences. i don't think the fundies are THAT important. as i said, they can always find what they want. the key is to hold the line at waverers.
josh, theology is not the totality of religion. it is the tip of the iceberg. conflating theology with religion is like conflating musicology with music.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 1:04 AM
My discipline's problem with the credulous is sort of the opposite. They like archaeology a lot. People who believe in things like Odin, Aryan racial purity and the immortal essence of nations tend to be really interested in new archaeological results. They'll put a weird supremacist spin on them, but you won't find them opposing our basic premises. Strange bedfellows, as Swedish archaeologists tend to be agnostic liberals.
Link
Posted by: Martin Rundkvist | February 27, 2006 1:09 AM
biology, analogy, we should switch to various facultative strategies, rather than fixing on obligate alternatives.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 1:16 AM
"theology is not the totality of religion".
Yep. As they say, "theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church". Many kudos if you know where that comes from
Posted by: D | February 27, 2006 1:30 AM
I just can't udnerstand why the religion, or lack of same, of scientists are important to anyone other than themselves. And if religion and science is orthogonal, then religious people should have no problems with scientists talking about their religious feelings, or lack of same. There seems to be a double-standard ehre, as PZ says.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | February 27, 2006 1:54 AM
there is a double standard. but we are caesar's wife.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 1:55 AM
"Yep. As they say, "theology is a device for helping agnostics to stay within the Church". Many kudos if you know where that comes from"
It's also about as distant as one could be from what actually goes on in the mind of the average believer (or rather, what doesn't) as I can conceive and still be speaking about the same topic. The average believer, to the degree any thought if given to this stuff at all, has more in common with the typical uneducated journalist who makes a healthy living as an apologist. But in defense of said journalists, theology is just a fancier form of what they do.
Posted by: Samnell | February 27, 2006 2:09 AM
"Both are flawed approaches. Evolution says nothing about religion and vice versa."
Nonsense.
It's time to face up to the central issue here: almost any religion is seriously threatened by science and advances in our understanding of the world around us. Almost any religion has as part of its core functions to provide its believers with an explenation of the world around them and its origins.
With every scientific advantage and explenation that does not require a god to be involved, this need gets less and less urgent and this leaves many religions with a gaping hole at the centre of their beliefs.
In a sense, the history of Christianity, especially Catholicism since the time of Galileo has been a frentic attempt to come to terms with this process, to redefine Christianity in a way that does not require god to be involved so personally in his creation yet does not remove him so far from the affairs of humanity that it becomes pointless to worship him.
Posted by: Martin Wisse | February 27, 2006 2:12 AM
"Both are flawed approaches. Evolution says nothing about religion and vice versa."
Nonsense.
It's time to face up to the central issue here: almost any religion is seriously threatened by science and advances in our understanding of the world around us. Almost any religion has as part of its core functions to provide its believers with an explenation of the world around them and its origins.
With every scientific advantage and explenation that does not require a god to be involved, this need gets less and less urgent and this leaves many religions with a gaping hole at the centre of their beliefs.
In a sense, the history of Christianity, especially Catholicism since the time of Galileo has been a frentic attempt to come to terms with this process, to redefine Christianity in a way that does not require god to be involved so personally in his creation yet does not remove him so far from the affairs of humanity that it becomes pointless to worship him.
Posted by: Martin Wisse | February 27, 2006 2:12 AM
Almost any religion has as part of its core functions to provide its believers with an explenation of the world around them and its origins.
no. i argue that that is an atheist intellectual's understanding of religion. see the naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of science.
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 2:21 AM
I think PZ is absolutely right about this one: science is in inevitable conflict with any religion that insists on a particular origin story and some kinds of claims about who we are and how we work. (I think that there are a lot of religions which don't trigger this condition, since they involve natural and/or supernatural forces not tied to a particular set of historical claims and willing to deal with natural processes as discovered and explained by science. They just happen to be all very much fringe views in America. And I do realize that PZ disagrees, and would simply put us lower on his enemy list. :) )
The thing that troubles me about the "oh, there's no necessary conflict here" approach is that involves distorting the practical reality both of common religious belief and the normal experience of scientists...and people can tell. They know perfectly well, if they're like most American Christians, that the statements in Genesis are supposed to mean something more than just feel-good assertions of general vibeness, and even if they know very little about science, they know that in practice, things kind of hang together - that if you keep refusing to look at potentially difficult implications of one part of a job, you're going to end up not doing the others as well as you should. American folklore places some value on the straight-talking guy who looks a difficult subject in the eye and deals with it, rather than dodging it, even though most of us hope a lot that we don't have to be that one very often.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | February 27, 2006 3:25 AM
They know perfectly well, if they're like most American Christians, that the statements in Genesis are supposed to mean something more than just feel-good assertions of general vibeness
the same could be said for many passages in the bible.
in any case, a problem here that i see is that many people accept that fundamentalist christianity is somehow more authentic and "straight talking." i think we have to careful about this assumption. this is one area where atheists and fundamentalists both tend to agree....
Posted by: razib![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 27, 2006 3:37 AM
The very reverend Richard Harries, bishop of Oxford, had a word or two to say about this.
He appeared on a public platform, with Richard Dawkins, to denounce the young-Earth Creationists, and, come to that, creationists.
He said that true christians will accept Evolutionary theory - we don't have a problem with it....
So some people need to beware of how the evangelists, especially in the USA are succeeding in bending peoples minds, so that evolution = atheism has become an almost default mode - even though it is wromg, and untrue.
Posted by: G. Tingey | February 27, 2006 3:48 AM
I recommend living in a completely different culture for a few years, say Japan. Then you'll come to understand deep down in your being that people who live without a Christian or Semetic god are just people, the same as everyone else and you won't feel the need to tip toe around belief in god because of some semi-conscious fear that you'll somehow upset the foundations of society. You will have the courage to tell all the religious nuts who belive that your Japanese friends are going to burn in hell that the Japanese are just as good and just as bad as they are. (Probably better, actually. You just have to look at the crime statistics to see that Japanese people are less bad than most countries people.)
Posted by: Ronald Brak | February 27, 2006 4:52 AM
Evolution says nothing about religion and vice versa.
but that's just the thing: evolution does say that religion is impossible or wrong -- for those expressions of religion that require literal belief in and adherence to a [translation of a] two thousand year old book.
atheism and theism here are more than just two sides of a coin. when you say, "i'm not going to be quiet about my atheism" it is *exactly* the same as those who say, "i'm not going to be quiet about my theism!"
I do not tie evolution to atheism or vice versa.
(...)
We also get arguments that criticizing religion hurts the pro-evolution cause. So what? You could also say that criticizing creationism hurts the pro-evolution cause, because it pisses off all those millions of creationists. The claim completely misses the point. Atheists reject religion, so we aren't at all worried that the targets of our criticism dislike our criticism. We aren't going to stop.
but neither will they. you may not tie evolution to atheism, but consider both evolution and atheism as aspects of your faith in Science; and consider it in parallel with creation/theism as aspects of faith in God and the Bible. of course atheists are capable of generating a focused argument on a topic -- you're using the language of science to create an argument in favor of a scientifically supported premise. and what are creationists saying? how can both camps start addressing each other with relevant language? and how do you change faith?
if we imagine this debate as simply evolutionists versus creationists (and not as it is, a great wide spectrum of degrees of belief in many facets of both of these ideas and their contexts), surely you must see that you're no more likely to be swayed to support ID, God, and creationism through their use of pseudo-science and faith as arguments than they are to be swayed to support evolution through your use of Science. you're speaking different languages, and you're each trying to shake the other's faith. why should you question your faith because of some nutbag who clearly doesn't know where you're coming from, and who doesn't understand what you believe in?
it's my opinion that debating whether to include ID in curricula is already giving it far more credit -- and credibility -- than it deserves. so then: how can we persuade the legal system to laugh out loud at the idea of teaching religion in public schools? how can we ensure that private religious schools will teach science? we'll accomplish nothing by slinging mud at each other. all of us. nothing. my question is: where else can we fight? where will they understand our language and have the power to Make Changes for the future?
It's time to face up to the central issue here: almost any religion is seriously threatened by science and advances in our understanding of the world around us. Almost any religion has as part of its core functions to provide its believers with an explenation of the world around them and its origins.
maybe it's time to call all religion "mythology." mythology's place in peoples' lives can go unchallenged for "what's the meaning of all this" and "but *why* are we really here?" but let's leave to science that which can be observed.
Posted by: katie | February 27, 2006 5:45 AM
OK, here's a question for Mooney and Josh: if we attempt to lay off religion in the name of avoiding antagonising believers, I'd agree that that'll probably speed up acceptance of evolution. But doesn't this just mean that we'll have to go through the same rigamarole of appeasement the next time science comes up with a discovery that doesn't play well with religion*? Isn't this going to waste a lot of time in the long run? Is it fair on our intellectual descendents to land them with the same burden we're stuck with?
In short, isn't it misguided to attack the symptom (anti-evolution) rather than the cause (blind faith)?
This is not a rhetorical question - I'm not sure of the answer.
* I don't know what it'd be - strong artificial intelligence, maybe, or a vastly better understanding of how the universe began. Whatever it turns out to be, you can guarantee that the religious nuts (and even the relatively-sane-but-brainwashed ones) will be in an uproar of righteous indignation.
Posted by: Corkscrew | February 27, 2006 6:24 AM
I'm with you PZ; but do not try to make me give up eating babies.
Posted by: Mark Trodden | February 27, 2006 6:57 AM
Ok - imagine, everyone, that your argument (if you're making one) is being used by a creationist, from random YECers to some DI shill. Obviously, science and creationism aren't mirror images, or, for example, opposing political parties - differing fundamental assumptions - but it's an interesting way to get a bit of distance . . .
The reference about Plate Tectonics is supremely unconvincing - although I do like the fellow's idea that rugged Western landscapes could *not* have been produced by slow moving plates colliding over vast stretches of time, but instead "[w]hat we see here is evidence of a high-speed collision. The North American Plate hit the Pacific Plate very fast and very hard."
(I also am rather . . . impressed . . . that he reads references to the earth as a "Living Machine" in a online geology textbook as hardcore New-Agism . . .)
But - is there any *real* evidence that scientific resistance to plate tectonics was motivated by 1)nervousness that this sounded too much like religion and/or 2) dismissal of an apparently crackpot idea?
*****
Obviously one of the keys to this whole teapot tempest is: what exactly fuels anti-evolution sentiment/activity (and how do we manage to teach science)? Certain varieties of (fearful fundamentalist literalist) religion, sure, but it's more complex that that . . . (that's ironic - people opposing scientific study of biological change because they're all ambivalently freaked out about social change. Ha.)
"let me be frank, half the population can't really think. they have a 'gut' feeling, reinforced by some smooth propogandists. that's basically all there is"
I won't say can think but the gut feeling bit seems to describe quite a few people. Still more complex, though, since there's explicit rational thinking and 'gut thinking/feeling' - inculcated attitudes, assumption, and inclinations (from which spring rationalizations). I mean, my opposition to drilling in ANWR, or chopping down old growth forests, for example, is fundamentally based on gut feelings.
Anyway, reading the plate-tectonics& evolution-denier made me think of something. He - like similar anti-science folks - keeps going on about secular science - "a typical secular geology textbook" and such like. Perhaps we should try to reclaim 'secular', which of course has a distinct meaning besides "a bad, bad word synonymous with atheism." (Perhaps that's why it's treated with such venom - the idea that science/evolution/Darwin is trying to destroy religion is comprehensible, fits well into dualist mindsets, is a backhand compliment - look how important we are! The idea that people might actually want to talk about something else, that religion might not be seen as relevent on some level - that must be, for fundamentalists, either incomprehensible or infuriating. Hey, I never got that before (ok, not brighest bulb in the box here) - *that's* why we have folks flipping out over "happy holidays" - it can't be about tolerant and non-exclusive public spaces, it has to be an attack on . . . oh, it all makes sense, now!
Oh, but anyway - for the people we can reach, perhaps stressing the positive ideas of secular science - open to anyone, etc., etc.?
(The bit about how the anti-uniformitarianism plate tectonics guy is all upset that Wegener gets credit when other people - and Genesis - floated the idea of moving continents earlier - that also shows up a major misunderstanding of science that isn't helping matters. If you don't get why Wegener gets more credit then all the other folks who looked at a map and went - hey, it almost looks like Africa and S. America once fit together! - (and assuming you have basic info and actually care) you don't get a lot about how science works. . .
Posted by: Dan S. | February 27, 2006 7:31 AM
"In short, isn't it misguided to attack the symptom (anti-evolution) rather than the cause (blind faith)?"
I find it hard to believe that we can manage anything - absolute best case scenario - beyond getting most people to sort of blindly accept evolution, putting it on a par with heliocentrism and germ theory and etc. (I'm not saying that most people are dumb; they just don't care.) At best, I would think we can contribute to the weight of blind faith and etc. being lifted off evolution's arse and shifted elsewhere. If our mission is (or requires us) to eliminate superstition and blind faith, rather than basically pestering it until it moves a bit, I think we're in trouble . .
Posted by: Dan S. | February 27, 2006 7:48 AM
Corkscrew wrote:
Yes you will, and sooner than you think......
From Yahoo News:
Calif. Stem Cell Agency Fights for Life
From the article.....