…and this is a 
Archbishop of Canterbury, anti-creationist
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 21, 2006 11:52 AM, by PZ Myers
Lots of people have been emailing me the story that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution. I have to confess to mixed feelings.
On the one hand, it's good to have a religious authority figure coming down on the side of sense. I applaud the sentiment of his statements, and hope they have some positive influence.
On the other hand, I don't give a flying firkin what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks, and would question his authority to even make such a pronouncement. If people are going to accept things because someone who wears a funny hat on Sunday says so, where are they going to learn the critical thinking to question when said funny-hat wearer announces that crackers magically turn into meat or that an omnipotent invisible super-being is very fussy about where you put your penis? I simply do not recognize the foundation for his authority.
To be honest, I much prefer stories where religious people in ornate garments say crazy stupid things, because I want to see their authority diminished. I will be very worried when the Mormon elders, Desmond Tutu, the president of American Atheists, the Pope, a voudoun priestess, the Dalai Lama, JZ Knight, the Archbishop of Canterbury, some dessicated ascetic hermit from North Africa, the Raelians, Pat Robertson, the Unitarians, etc., all get together and announce that they are going to simply acknowledge and accept the scientific and natural explanations for the origin and evolution of life and stop meddling in the materialist issues to focus exclusively on the purely 'spiritual' life of their flocks. If that day comes, I won't have any looney religious ideas to complain about, and there goes half the outrage that drives me to write. And I will also fear that the kooks and frauds are simply consolidating their power in claims beyond anyone's power to test.
I have those suspicions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, too—I think he's just trying to make sure his authority is based on ideas not subject to empirical testing.
Comments
In other news, the mormons have decided to ignore DNA evidence that shows that Native Americans are not descended from Israelis.
Posted by: frank | March 21, 2006 12:11 PM
I have those suspicions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, too—I think he's just trying to make sure his authority is based on ideas not subject to empirical testing
A wise move if your alleged authority rests ultimately on the whims of some invisible dude.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 21, 2006 12:14 PM
Same sentiment I felt...it's like when Republicans say naughty things about Bush...screw those people. They may be saying the right thing, but they themselves are so wrong & evil. meh.
Posted by: garth | March 21, 2006 12:25 PM
Just a question, what are the "ideas not subject to empirical testing." supposed to be ?
Something "beyond anyone's power to test" is also inevitably beyond any relevance for any practical issue, and thus someone "consolidating her power" as an authority in such things is about as worrisome, as someone "consolidating her power" over Tolkien's middle earth fantasy world..
Posted by: T_U_T | March 21, 2006 12:35 PM
The Archbishop of Can't!
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2006 12:38 PM
Fool! Keep thinking that way!!! Mwa-ha-ha!
-Sauron
Posted by: Jake | March 21, 2006 12:38 PM
The point isn't that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a weightier opinion than anyone else. His statement merely refutes the narrow claim that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. This claim hardly requies any further refutation, but as long as evangelicals continue to make it, there is some purpose to accumulating these numerous, numerous cases of Christians who are not Biblical literalists.
Quoting Republicans who disagree with Bush is analogous, though it refutes a different narrow claim. The narrow claim is that anyone who (like me) dares to cast doubt on Dear Leader must be a "Bush hater" rather than someone who used empirical data and objective reason to conclude that Bush is wrong about something.
If I say "Even Newt Gingrich says..." it is not because respect him or attach any weight to opinion but because I expect to disagree with him on many issues. So if Newt and I agree on something, the explanation is not because we start with the same ideological bias. I have therefore refuted a narrow but significant claim often made.
This is also not sufficient to prove that the assertion is true, only to rule out narrowly one suggested explanation for the assertion: namely that it could only be attributed to my ideological bias.
Posted by: PaulC | March 21, 2006 12:41 PM
on the pressing question of whether or not Henry VIII gets to annull his marriage, I shall yield to the authority of the Archbisop (although the Queen has the final say, no?).
Although I would like to see some labwork done before I'm convinced.
Posted by: mathpants | March 21, 2006 12:44 PM
Hey! For the records, we Unitarians already have:
(http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html)
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | March 21, 2006 12:54 PM
This has always been one of religions great absurdities. When a marriage ends it ends yet a few(not many but a few) nuts think it carries on in some bizzare manner. This to me has always been a case where reason and observation directly refute a religious idea. Your only truly married by contract, once it is dissolved your out.
It's almost funny how humans can be conditioned to think.:-) or not think.
Posted by: Uber | March 21, 2006 12:56 PM
I've always had these feelings about attending a Bible College. Even when I was a practicing Catholic, and I'm happy I gave that up, Bible College still made zero sense to me. (I graduated from the University of California.)
Now that I've completely given up on superstitious behavior, though, bible college makes even less sense. You go to school so you can become an expert on an imaginary diety? What for? So you can teach folks why Noah lived so much longer than you or me?
I guess it's progress that this Archbishop now says this, but wouldn't it be even better if he got up one day and said, "Sorry, folks, but your prayers will never be answered, because there's no one there to hear them. Furthermore, Grandma isn't in heaven making sure the kids are safe, because there is no heaven. Sorry. Go home. Go for a walk. Take up a hobby. You're only here for 50 or 100 years, so make the most of it. Don't waste 1/7 of your 50-100 years in this room. Thank you and good night."
Posted by: MikeM | March 21, 2006 1:02 PM
Lovely. Not only ignorance(the current Archbishop of Canterbury one of the great fighters for reason and liberalism in ANY church) but also lack of strategic thinking (you need religious figures like him on your side if you are to win your battles against the fundamentalists).
No wonder the bad guys are winning.
Posted by: Emma | March 21, 2006 1:06 PM
Many Church leaders don't follow the doctrines very closely and they have an opinion. Most times they have a solid education as well, and not only in theologies.
I'm not taking their word for anything only because they are the "Church", but I don't deny them a right to express themselves either. Never was a matter of black and white for me and if it sounds good it shouldn't be rejected on sight, or else I'd have to do the same for everybody.
Posted by: cp | March 21, 2006 1:08 PM
Emma,
What ignorance?
I think your missing the point.
Posted by: GH | March 21, 2006 1:21 PM
I think he's just trying to make sure his authority is based on ideas not subject to empirical testing.
Well... he is a religious authority, after all. The reason religion gets into so much trouble with science today is that people try to substitute religion for science. Isn't it appropriate that religious leaders have their authority based only on religious matters-- that, is, ideas not subject to empirical testing?
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 1:24 PM
I agree with Emma, you've lost me as a reader, I don't subscribe to bigots.
Posted by: Stewart | March 21, 2006 1:25 PM
Emma: the overwhelming reaction I've read has been "Good for him. Who cares?"
Are we supposed to throw a friggin party every time someone says something that makes sense? You're SUPPOSED TO MAKE SENSE. Whattaya want, a cookie?
If voodoo-believers want pats on the head for seeing the obvious, let someone else do it. I'm not handing out gold stars.
Posted by: garth | March 21, 2006 1:27 PM
On the other hand, I don't give a flying firkin what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks, and would question his authority to even make such a pronouncement.
PZ, just yesterday you were complaining that moderate Christians don't spend more time putting the smackdown on the nutty fringe types.
Now, when some prominent religious type does that, you complain.
What do you want? Well, I know what you want: you want religion to go away and everybody to share your atheism. Fine. You can want that, it's always nice when people agree with you. But, dude, there is some value in tolerance and acceptance of others who disagree with you on some topics, as long as it's not posing an immediate threat to you.
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 1:30 PM
Read the second paragraph of my post. It's short, it's not hard.
You can also read the rest and maybe tell me where the intolerant and unaccepting bits are. Is there some place between the lines where I call for the Archbishop's head and incite the atheists to riot and burn down a few Anglican churches?
I reject his authority. It's nice that he's using that authority for a good cause, but that in itself has implications. Should we merely accept his dicta because, well, he's the Archbishop of Canterbury! (I will also add that I would say the same thing if he were the Head Druid of Canterbury, or even the Lord High Atheist of Canterbury.) Or should we encourage everyone to question it?
Some people seem to be falling on the unquestioning acceptance side of the question here.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2006 1:39 PM
It's interesting that the same issue arises with regard to Islam and jihadists. Is the problem the religion, or the fundamentalist extremists? It is the fundamentalist extremists who want to execute apostates, who want Shari'a law, who push for teaching ID in biology, and who want to give legal rights to frozen embryos. The Abrahamic religions would be much less scary if it weren't for the political aspirations of their fundamentalist fractions.
But all the Abrahamic religions have fundamentalists. That seems to be an innate problem to that style of religion. Prophets long to be taken seriously. Moses and Joshua massacred entire towns, including children. Elijah served teasing boys to bears. Mohammed conquered rival tribes. And all that is justified by the fact that they were doing what God ordered. The notion that revelation justifies any act is a core part of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. It is a short step from there to modern fundamentalism.
The moderates want secular folks to support them in their moderation. Of course. But just how are we supposed to do that? And would doing so in any form or fashion blunt the fundamentalists or lessen their numbers? The fundamentalists aren't surprised when secularists and moderates conspire. They don't view the moderates "real" believers, and they don't give two pence what a secularist says at all.
Posted by: Russell | March 21, 2006 1:43 PM
If people are going to accept things because someone who wears a funny hat on Sunday says so, where are they going to learn the critical thinking to question when said funny-hat wearer announces that crackers magically turn into meat or that an omnipotent invisible super-being is very fussy about where you put your penis?
Wrong examples. The Church of England does not use the concept of transubstantiation, recognizing that communion is a metaphor, not the literal consumption of the body of Christ. As for penises and their uses, the C of E has very liberal attitudes to premarital sex, women priests and homosexuality. There is a very real possibility that the English branch of the Anglican faith may break from the third world branches of the church over the ordination of gay priests.
Religious groups like the C of E don't bother me (as an apathetic atheist) one bit. The C of E is rather like a warm blanket that some people wrap around themselves to feel better. They don't want to change the way I behave, they don't want to ban abortions, they don't want to execute gays, and they don't want religion to trump science. To be honest, with all the genuine insanity in the world today (and yes, much of it inspired by religious fundamentalism), I really can't summon much energy to be angry at a group of people whose belief in some irrational things gives them comfort and strength, and I really can't find it in myself to reserve the same loathing for them as I do for the US Religious Right.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if you want to evangelize for science, then you want the Archbish inside your tent pissing out, rather than outside your tent pissing in. If you want to evangelize for atheism then feel free to dump on him all you want. I agree with Emma that you will make your job of evangelizing for science strategically harder if you try and go for broke and evangelize for atheism at the same time. That approach may be more ideologically pure, but it is far less likely to work. Whether that makes it more or less rational is your call.
Posted by: Andy Groves | March 21, 2006 1:53 PM
While I understand (and agree) that you do not accept the Archbishop's authority to make such pronouncements, if you do "give a flying ferkin" when church leaders come out against evolution, then you should, in turn, care at least a little when others support it.
My own belief (and what all fundamentalists fear) is that the more support evolution gains, from all sources, the more fundamentalism is called into question. We see it in many European nations (some of which are called "post-Christian" by the detractors) and, eventually, the same could happen here (though it will take a long time, I admit).
Posted by: tacitus | March 21, 2006 1:56 PM
"you're either with us or against us" seems to ring true for 'Liberals' in Americaas it does Conservatives
Posted by: Stewart | March 21, 2006 1:58 PM
Should we merely accept his dicta because, well, he's the Archbishop of Canterbury!
I think the problem is that you are thinking about the principle in isolation, rather than thinking of it as a marketing strategy. If you want to change opinions and behaviour in a target demographic, how do you do that? How do you prevent teenagers from smoking or doing drugs? How do you stop adults from drinkng and driving? How do you encourage mothers to get their kids vaccinated?
With the greatest respect to Richard Dawkins, if I wanted to dispel doubts about creationism in the minds of Anglicans, I would wheel out Rowan Williams before placing a call to Dr. D.
Posted by: Andy Groves | March 21, 2006 2:02 PM
Though as admirable as your cri de coeur is with regard to the implements of critical thinking you wish upon all your fellow humans, it is highly irrational to imagine that day will ever come to pass in a free society.
Besides religion what other forces inculcate irrational thinking in the mass of people? Let's start with advertizing....where is the outrage? Arguably it is much more influential on the population.
Can you ever imagine a day when the 'mental environment' is free of 'mental pollution' --- all those influences which hinder critical thinking...
Ad to those the quite natural influencers such as hormones which hinder rationality and you see why I think the idea that you will ever achieve a 'rational civil society' -- if we could just eradicate the influence of the funny hat brigade -- is a bit of a fool's errand.
Also, are all of our 'irrational thoughts and impulses' - bad? I hardly think so.
Posted by: cityzen jane | March 21, 2006 2:22 PM
I agree with you Andy. Fundamentalists tend to fear the more liberal strands of Christianity than outright atheism because they believe that the one leads to the other. I used to be one of those "wishy-washy" liberal Christians, but I often felt that there should be something more to my faith--more intensity, more commitment, more something. But when I sought and experienced that "more something" in the more evangelical and more "Bible-believing" churches I found I could not accept all the baggage that came with it. Bible-based Christianity made even less sense to me than liberal Christianity. Hence, I am now an atheist.
I guess you could call evolution a gateway drug. Fundamentalists are right when they claim that evolution is hard to reconcile with doctrines such as original sin. Obviously many people manage it (theistic evolutionists) but at least they are much more likely to be open to going that one step further and rejecting the rest of their Christian belief system.
Of course, the other question is, do we even want everybody to become an atheist? While I'm convinced that religion is an irrational belief system, we have no real way of knowing what a completely non-religious society would look like. We have been living with religion for so long, there is no guarantee that society would be better without it. (Before anyone brings it up, communism doesn't count in this discussion since atheism was imposed upon a highly religious populace, not freely accepted.)
Perhaps a sizable proportion of the population (maybe 10%-20% or so) will always need some form of religion in order to lead a fulfilling life. Searching for meaning in life can be a difficult proposition, and I understand the attraction of an off-the-shelf philosophy that promises eternal paradise (even without the 72 virgins in tow).
So, in my book, any moderation of Christianity in America would be a welcome change. Accepting science in general, and evolution in particular is just one step along that road.
Posted by: tacitus | March 21, 2006 2:41 PM
Hmmm. Maybe I spoke too soon about liking this blog. Prefering more examples of theistic excesses to the occasional expression of sound reasoning on the part of a religionist for the sake of scoring rhetorical points seems a little perverse. The less of that stuff the better in any circumstance, if you ask me.
As for authority to discuss matters related to evolution, the basics of the Modern Synthesis aren't all that difficult to grasp and appreciate, nor is the evidence supporting it at all difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to evaluate. The information is free and available to anyone who wishes to expound upon it, and I see nothing in the article that would indicate he is expecting others to go along with what he says just because he's an Archbishop. One can certainly disagree with and decry the Archbishop's specific failings, but the blanket suspicion suggests an unjust intolerance, which the world could use a lot less of from anyone. Maybe that's not the intended message, but one could be forgiven, I think, for having suspicions of their own after reading this.
Posted by: Dumb Biologists | March 21, 2006 2:44 PM
You missed the point of my examples: I know the C of E is relatively liberal and isn't hard-line on weird stuff like transubstantiation. What's to stop him from making such religious claims, though? (and actually, it would be very strange if he were not making religious claims in other contexts.) It's like everyone thinks we should just go along with people whose conclusions coincide with ours, without giving much thought to the process by which those conclusions are arrived at—which I think is the much more important issue.
And no, this isn't about advancing atheism. It's about assessing sources appropriately. It's also not about being "angry" at the Archbishop -- I certainly am not. I'd shake his hand and congratulate him on his wisdom if he were here. But I'd do the same for my local plumber if he said the same thing. I am simply objecting to the unwarranted and excessive respect for a religious authority figure I'm seeing everywhere.
And, you know, I'm not running for president or Pope. I'm one guy at a small rural college; I do not represent all of Science or Academia. I do not run this site to pander to the feelings of others, but solely to express my opinions, selfish as that might be. Suggesting that I ought to choke back on my forthright expression of what I think because, I don't know, some fence-sitting Christian semi-creationist might jump fully into the creationist camp because there are a very few, rare, uncompromising atheists on the science side is entirely contrary to my motives here, as well as improbable.
It's just plain weird for people to go to a weblog and tell the writer to gag himself.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2006 2:45 PM
PZ - you've gone too far this time. As A Unitarian I take great offense at your lumping us in with Pat Robertson. We Unitarians do support evolution but not because we feel we have special authority on the subject (some of us do others don't) but BECAUSE WE BELEIVE THAT SCIENTISTS ARE BEST EQUIPED TO MAKE JUDGMENTS IN MATTERS OF SCIENCE. Imn other words, we agree with your viewpoint 100%, so do a little research next time before you go shooting off like a lunatic.
Posted by: Brian Axsmith | March 21, 2006 2:48 PM
The Register article doesn't really give enough context to what he really said. Did he say that evolution and religon are studies of different fields, and in no way contridict each other? In that case, CoE members should listen to him, as he *is* an authority on what contridicts religon. Did he say, I believe in evolution, and because of my pointy hat you should too? In that case, people should question those beliefs. He's not an authority on science, and people should draw their own conclusions. And when they do, they'll come down on the side of evolution too, but they'll get there through reason.
Again, I haven't seen the whole interview. I'd bet it's closer to scenario no. 1 than no. 2.
Posted by: Mike | March 21, 2006 2:49 PM
I think, PZ, that you can see the different parts of this and have addressed them, though clearly not to the satsfaction of all.
The Archbishop's statement, while not really based on any scientific rigor on his part, is a good example of what smart guy and noted not-religious-person Bertrand Russel referred to as an Argument from Opposition. Basically, he suggests having someone support your position from a clearly different foundation has great value in a rhetorical debate.
However, since the position we take on evolution is based on evidence, and reasonable scientific inference from that evidence, I think your readers can also see that his voice has no practical value outside a purely rhetorical or political discussion.
Since we know he is a religious person (publically) and is not likely to toss that out and declare himself a freethinker anytime soon, I think it may be better for society to have him and people like him publicly accepting the fact that organized religion has lost authority over biology the same way it lost its hold over astronomy: completely and irrevocably, to the point where continuing to retain its grip was costing it followers among the educated and wealthy, who are needed to perpetuate religion's lies in the first place.
You and I may prefer to toss all Bibles on the same shelf as Tolkein and The Golden Bough, and that may (slowly) happen yet, but it won't happen instantly, and where this guy removes himself and his followers form the fight, we have more energy to deal with the retards in our own backyards.
I strongly recommend downloading some of the late Bill Hicks' records to your ipod and enjoying his (long) rant about evolution and rednecks.
"All over the world people are crying 'Revolution, Revolution!' While in Tenessee they're crying 'Evolution! Evolution! We want our thumbs!'"
Posted by: Jason Powers | March 21, 2006 3:02 PM
"Besides religion what other forces inculcate irrational thinking in the mass of people? Let's start with advertizing....where is the outrage?" My domestic partner has been teaching media literacy to youth for years. There is outrage, but not enough from the parents, which would be a real start.
"With the greatest respect to Richard Dawkins, if I wanted to dispel doubts about creationism in the minds of Anglicans, I would wheel out Rowan Williams before placing a call to Dr. D." Everyone is picking on Dr. D.! I really don't get it. All he asks is, in the absence of evidence, what is the basis for believing one unprovable assertion as opposed to another? I asked myself that all by myself, at a very young age. I still ask myself that today--there are things that I would like to believe, but when I'm honest with myself, I must admit that were I to really believe these things, it would only be because I want to (and why?).
I think this what PZ's getting at. If evidence is enough, let it be enough. If it's not enough, why isn't it? Whence comes this "clout" outside of evidence, held by mere human beings, be they archbishops or whoever? Isn't that the old appeal to authority, no matter how moderate? Isn't that the flip side of the incomprehensible denigration of scientists in the United States? Either we make discoveries using the scientific method, on the clout and authority conveyed by the evidence, or we don't. That is "what we want."
Must we have a religious (or whatever) authority sign off on every discovery that science makes in the future as well, when they're almost always dragging their heels? It's frustrating. It's so frustrating, that is all.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2006 3:06 PM
To be honest, I much prefer stories where religious people in ornate garments say crazy stupid things, because I want to see their authority diminished.
Exactly.
As Homer Simpson once said, "You know me Marge, I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals flaming".
And I like my Christians evangelical.
Posted by: Bruce | March 21, 2006 3:15 PM
Brian wrote:
As A Unitarian I take great offense at your lumping us in with Pat Robertson.
I'm a Unitarian Universalist ("UU") as well. (Actually, I can't tell whether Brian is a European-style Unitarian--which is in fact a Christian denomination, albeit a very liberal one--or a North American-style UU.)
Insofar as UUs are concerned, I agree that PZ is generally mistaken to lump us in with Christianity, and specifically with the idea he's criticizing here ("I simply do not recognize the foundation for [the Archbishop's] authority"). In fact, less than half of UUs in the United States are Christians; almost all the rest are ex-Christians; and a big chunk of us are atheists.
Moreover, we don't tend to be fans of the Argument From Authority that PZ is attacking here. There's nothing in UUism that gives the Archbishop, or anyone like him (including any UU), any particular authority to make pronouncements on nearly anything. A UU minister's ideas stand or fall on the same grounds one would apply to anyone else's ideas (which sometimes makes life extremely tough for UU ministers). Finally (FWIW), for all but a tiny proportion of UUs, appeals to the supernatural are a total loser.
I'd like secularists generally to know that there are thousands of UUs--including yours truly--who are pretty literally "atheists who haven't kicked the church habit." Philosophically I don't think there's nearly any real difference between UU atheists and non-UU atheists: the only distinction tends to be that lots of the UU type spend more time hanging out with groups of (liberal) Christians, Pagans and other theists, especially on weekends. (That certainly doesn't mean we think their beliefs are peachy keen!)
Arguably "not kicking the church habit" lends credence to various belief systems that use churches to flog stupid Arguments From Authority--but I plead not guilty.
do a little research next time before you go shooting off like a lunatic.
Oh, come on. PZ doesn't know all there is to know about Unitarians/UUs. That doesn't make him a "lunatic."
Posted by: Rieux | March 21, 2006 3:19 PM
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1735857,00.html
The transcript of the interview
Posted by: Dave | March 21, 2006 3:23 PM
It's just plain weird for people to go to a weblog and tell the writer to gag himself.
Oh, I don't know... You're always going to get some number of people who agree with most of what you say but believe that your more strident views are counterproductive to what they perceive to be a common cause.
I'm probably as strong (if that's the right word) an atheist as you are, PZ. I just happen to disagree with some of the things you say. But "heaven forbid" that I would in any way wish you to gag yourself. It's all part of the discourse.
Anyway, where else are we boring people going to be able to express our views are get them read by likeminded people. We aren't all blessed with the gift of rhetoric required to sustain a popular weblog :-)
Posted by: tacitus | March 21, 2006 3:26 PM
I made one mistake in that list: I should have included "atheists". I am adding it now to correct the misinterpretations. I am not saying that Unitarians are like Pat Robertson. I am saying that any metaphysical authority, whether it is earned, bestowed, inherited, or elected, simply is not a qualification for authority in matters of science. This should not be news.
Similarly, a religious background doesn't automatically disqualify one. I'll listen to Francisco Ayala on evolution respectfully—he's smarter than I am—but it won't be because he's a former Roman Catholic priest, which doesn't give him a bit of credit in science.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2006 3:34 PM
Rob
Wait a minute here. Can you point me in the direction of just exactly where he put the "smackdown" on his nutty brethren?
This:
Doesn't fall into any definition of "smackdown" to which I'm ken.
Posted by: haliaeetus | March 21, 2006 3:41 PM
PZ, you're really not getting it, darn it, and you are immensely bright. It's not a question of listening to them; it's thinking of them as fellow travelers in the road to MOVE THE GODAMNED FUNDIES out of the way. BUT, as most people don't like to be kicked in the ass and talked down to, you are not likely to get allies by dissing them.
And allies we need.
Posted by: Emma | March 21, 2006 3:43 PM
Posted by: JP | March 21, 2006 3:43 PM
What "strident views"?
I'm pretty much live-and-let-live. People can hold whatever religious views they want, all I say is that they should not be used as the basis for any kind of rational policy.
I'm just consistent and willing to say what I think.
It is always strange, though, how a post that says nothing more than that I do not accept the authority of a religious figure is interpreted by readers to be an intolerant rant, as if I were demanding the Archbishop's resignation, or planning to run down to the nearest church with a bullwhip.
Nope, sorry, I mean what I said. I think the Archbishop's credentials are awfully thin and suspect on this matter, so I'm unimpressed at what he said -- it's just ordinary common sense.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2006 3:50 PM
PZ - So far we have public statements (twice) from the Catholic church, again the Anglican, already the Dalai Lama, already the Mormon elders, and already the Unitarians. In fact about 80% of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim organized religions agree with a statement that upsets you:
"There is no conflict between the religious teachings and the sciences. One of the proper roles for man is to gain a scientific understanding of the universe. None of the current or proposed theories of evolution pose any conflict. No conflict is anticipated as scientific understanding grows. Therefore, the religions will continue to stand aside and express no opinion on scientific issues.
Religions may sponsor scientific activities, but when a scientist is expressing their opinion on science, this is a scientific and not a religious matter even when the religion is sponsoring the scientific research."
It is clear that you cannot accept that there is no conflict between science and religion, but your arguments on the point show the same lack of understanding as is shown by the creationists foolish "controversy" arguments against evolution. Just as you find the gross misunderstandings of biological science so annoying, the religious find your gross misunderstandings annoying. The request is not that you gag yourself, but that you represent the theological arguments accurately. You yourself ask the same of the creationists when they mangle and misrepresent the biological sciences.
The recent emphasis by all these religions on the evolution issue is a response to the gross misrepresentations by both the creationists and the atheists of the majority religious views. Staying silent has not stilled the lies, so more and more public statements are being made. Only a few religions see any conflict between science and their religious teachings. These few have seriously distorted the religious beliefs held by most of the world.
Posted by: rjh | March 21, 2006 3:53 PM
However, in specific instances, such as when religious people unconstitutionally misappropriate tax dollars for the express purpose of destroying public school science, then I do worry, and I am gratified to see people like PZ fighting the good fight.
Now I think PZ's view is different in that he views religion as both more harmful and less inevitable than I do. Which is why this part puzzles me:
These "flocks" are huge, encompassing the majority of Americans. If religion is that harmful, isn't it kind of a looney religious idea in itself for all of these people to be accepting spiritual guidance from a religious person? Isn't it a severe incentive distortion for all these people to be expecting some kind of eternal reward or punishment, for instance? I really find it hard to believe that PZ would be satisfied if religious people merely stepped aside from interfering in spheres outside their faith. If you begin with the assumption that religion is a pernicious influence, you have to include that the most pernicious part is its effect on the behavior of believers. The effects of these religious leaders occasionally stepping outside their sphere and kibbitzing on science and politics is a second order nuisance by comparison.
Posted by: PaulC | March 21, 2006 3:59 PM
I am not fishing for allies. I am not a leader of some movement. I have no position in the AAAS, the NCSE, or the local dogcatcher's guild. I do not have any influence. If you called up the Archbishop of Canterbury and said, "PZ Myers does not respect your authoritah!", he would reply, "Who?" Telling me to be tactful and diplomatic and culture allies on the religious side is a waste of time -- if I had them, where would I be leading them?
All I can do here is represent me, the Cranky Outspoken Atheist Party (membership:1). This is not a membership drive. Operators are not standing by. I do not have to compromise.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2006 4:01 PM
So far we have public statements (twice) from the Catholic church, again the Anglican, already the Dalai Lama, already the Mormon elders, and already the Unitarians.
Just to pipe up again--a large proportion of Unitarian Universalists in the United States think that PZ is right on this point and many related ones. Please don't lump us in as reflexive defenders of religion. (Whether UUism even is a "religion" is entirely debatable.)
Posted by: Rieux | March 21, 2006 4:03 PM
I've come late to the discussion and just finished reading tacitus posted at 3:26 PM.
This is a great string of comments both for the intellectual content and the reasonable restraint in the way the comments were written. Religion (or its lack)is a touchy subject with all sorts of, speaking for myself, rational and irrational reactions, even with those who agree with you. I'm used to impolite people telling me I am going to hell for some reason that seems trivial.
Given that context, this discussion above smoldered without bursting into flames which isn't our current cultural norm, either on the internet or the rest of the world. I suspect we will all be back at Pharyngula to see PZ's world and to react like this.
Volvox
Posted by: Volvox | March 21, 2006 4:07 PM
As a Englishman living in the UK, i agree with PZ. Yeah compared to your US fanaticals he is liberal, and yeah i can see the points some are making, but why in holy crap are these people listened to in the first place? If you give them credence then their more reactionary fellows will follow through the door. Better to slam the door in their face (politely of course) and say, well actually Bish, you don't know f all about evolution so we don't give a figs arse about your opinion on it. Sort of, very politely in the UK, naturally, but wot PZ said anyway!
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2006 4:19 PM
"There is no conflict between the religious teachings and the sciences. One of the proper roles for man is to gain a scientific understanding of the universe. None of the current or proposed theories of evolution pose any conflict. No conflict is anticipated as scientific understanding grows. Therefore, the religions will continue to stand aside and express no opinion on scientific issues."
This statement is patently untrue for many religions, including many of the Christian denominations and sects. Consider the Catholic Church. While they are "on our side" regarding evolution, they are adamantly opposed to the use of condoms in AIDS-torn Africa, in spite of the scientific research that supports claims that they would help to reduce the number of infections and save many lives. Several cardinals have gone on record to argue, against overwhelming scientific evidence, that condoms are all but worthless in protecting someone from AIDS during sex.
While it is true that you can have religions that don't conflict with science, they are fewer and fewer in number as our scientific knowledge increases. Religions like Christianity have to continually adapt to this new knowledge if the want to remain in harmony with science. I'm sure that people in Jesus's time would be appalled by what many Christian today accept because of advances in science. More and more of Christianity is being forced into the believing in the "God of the Gaps" as science continues to invade areas once dominated by religion alone.
There will always be enough of these gaps to accommodate some religious belief, and you will always get those who deny any evidence shoved under their nose, but to say there is no conflict between religious teachings and science is simply wishful thinking.
Posted by: tacitus | March 21, 2006 4:21 PM
It's also not about being "angry" at the Archbishop -- I certainly am not. I'd shake his hand and congratulate him on his wisdom if he were here. But I'd do the same for my local plumber if he said the same thing. I am simply objecting to the unwarranted and excessive respect for a religious authority figure I'm seeing everywhere.
The difference between the Archbish and your local plumber is their capacity to influence public opinion. You may bristle at the idea that people change their opinions (or are at least receptive to hearing different opinions) from public figures without engaging the full extent of their critical faculties. To tell the truth, it bothers me too. But to deny the power of celebrity - whether it's a President, a religious leader, a rock star or a widely-read blogger is just silly. Which brings me to my next point:
I'm one guy at a small rural college; I do not represent all of Science or Academia. I do not run this site to pander to the feelings of others, but solely to express my opinions, selfish as that might be. Suggesting that I ought to choke back on my forthright expression of what I think because, I don't know, some fence-sitting Christian semi-creationist might jump fully into the creationist camp because there are a very few, rare, uncompromising atheists on the science side is entirely contrary to my motives here, as well as improbable.
I think you doth protest too much. This "small guy at a rural college" writes what is one of the most widely-read science blogs on all the Internets. Whether you like it or not, you do have a huge audience, an audience that many science educators would kill for. Moreover, I'm pretty sure not all of your audience are atheistic evolutionists.
I'm not going to tell you what to put in your blog (with the possible exception of lobbying for more cephalopod copulation). But I do reserve the right to point out the occasions when I think that your stated goals as a science educator are sometimes compromised by your more outr�e posts on religion. The irony that I'm writing this as someone who has never worshipped in a church in his entire adult life is not lost on me.
Peace.
Posted by: Andy Groves | March 21, 2006 4:21 PM
That's why I made the self-deprecating joke about such a state of affairs removing my sense of outrage.
You may find it hard to believe, but no, I would be satisfied. If somebody finds some misplaced consolation in faith, if they want to say a prayer before eating, if they get together for fellowship with like-minded people…no problem at all. Lots of people find happiness in that illusion of spirituality, and I don't begrudge them that a bit. If they wanted to talk about it, I'd poke and prod and wouldn't hesitate to say I think it's all kind of silly, but I wouldn't intrude if they didn't feel like arguing.
Unfortunately, I also think that people who put themselves in the state of credulity where they believe in ghosts and deities are also opening themselves up to exploitation by religious leaders, so I don't believe that we will or can ever achieve the utopia of a society with religious beliefs that never intrude on government or education, and the battle will never end. People who make the effort to keep their religion and keep it to themselves, though, must be tolerated.
I got the same weird disbelief when I expressed reservations about the treatment of Muslims in Europe. It's not because I respect their goofy and often destructive beliefs at all, but because it was verging on oppression of a minority's right to think as they wanted. I'd feel the same way and oppose any effort to outlaw Baptists, for instance.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2006 4:23 PM
No, it's not an anti-religious rant. But it does fail to credit sensible comments by an "authority figure" who, like it or not, persuades a good many folk. I never quite get why PZ is so tone-deaf politically, why he can't just say "good going" when excellent remarks are made by the archbishop, without, of course, pretending to agree with the archbishop on the other stuff.
If we believe shows like "Yes, Minister", and "Yes, Prime Minister" (and I do to a point), we're hardly talking about much of a religion with regard to the Church of England. Sure, the religion exists, but it has long been a social club for "sensible folk", or more to the point, for the comfortable and fairly well-off. This, perhaps, is the greater concern I have about the archbishop's authority, this support for British elites, and not the statements made about a fading religiosity whose forms he still supports.
And if I do have qualms regarding the elitism and support for the establishment represented by the archbishop, compare that to what we have here, Pat Robertson and a host of other aggressive entrepreneurial religious empires. There's something to be said for the softly decaying religion of old England with its "reasonableness" about science matters. To be sure, there are things to be said against it, as well.
PZ seems to live in a fantasy world of ideal reason, empiricism, and lack of prior social commitments to worthless "authorities" of various stripes, these often being religious figures, political figures, and even celebrity scientists. Why, we just won't care what the archbishop says, since he's no real expert. Yes, but then again others will care what he says, or much worse, what Pat Robertson says.
The archbishop is no expert in science, however one should not automatically suppose that he does not have a good grasp of science. Many clergy in merry old England have educations that put American clergy to shame. The tradition was that people who wanted a good science education took up religious education, with Darwin's own education following that path somewhat. Huxley and others pushed for more realistic forms of education, for reform, and allowed students to learn widely without aiming toward the clergy. Nevertheless, English clergy (and to be fair, many American clergy as well) have still tended to take courses which would allow them to become good intellectuals. It is not a given that the archbishop is talking about things that he doesn't understand in good intellectual fashion, although it is not likely that he is expert on evolution in the way that scientists and some philosophers are.
Why can't the archbishop's good statements be applauded without more than a perfunctory caveat ("I may disagree on many other matters, but there is nothing at all wrong with the following statement...")? When he says something stupid, then attack. I don't really care if the devil is telling the truth, it is not improper to appreciate the truth when and where it is said. Is the truth really so problematic when it is the archbishop who is relating a particular truth?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 21, 2006 4:24 PM
cityzen jane
Besides religion what other forces inculcate irrational thinking in the mass of people? Let's start with advertizing....where is the outrage?
You should go out more, jane. I have your fucking outrage right here but it's not the appropriate forum, really.
There are thousands of artists and like-minded people out there who despise corporate advertising and see right through it for the pure unadulterated jerkoff crap that it is.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 21, 2006 4:25 PM
Rieux claims that I said PZ was a lunatic. I think PZ is great but in this case he sounded LIKE a lunatic, and this is what I said. Big difference!
PZ is correct that the science of evolution is pure science. But it is simply naive to claim that there is no valid metaphysical dimension to evolution that people are justly concerned about. Whether or not one likes everything that Michael Ruse is writing these days, he has shown this to be so. He has also made a compelling case that such metaphysical assumptions have influenced the scientific work of evolutionists (e.g., notions of progress). This is okay since the source of an idea is ultimately independent of its validity, but we will get ourselves in trouble if we fail to acknowledge the connections. Dawkins and other radical atheists have every right to their metaphysical beleifs and I am glad that PZ is there to defend that right. As a matter of fact I am sympathetic to most of these arguments. However, Dawkins is not very clear about when he as taken off his scientific hat and replaced it with a metaphysical one. It has to work both ways. If metaphysicians have no special insight into science, then scientists must stay out of metaphysics or at least admit when they are doing metaphysics. Let's be consistent.
Posted by: Brian Axsmith | March 21, 2006 4:31 PM
..because all critques are acts of hate.
Get stuffed.
Posted by: Graculus | March 21, 2006 4:43 PM
And I like my Christians evangelical.
Easier to maintain your hate of them when they behave in a hateful manner, eh? The last thing you want is, oh, I don't know, somebody acting like a normal, reasonable citizen who happens to disagree with you on something, because then you can't condemn them as Evil, eh?
Do you also like all your black people poor and holding up stores with guns?
All your white people rich and in whites-only men-only golf clubs?
All your hispanic people illegally immigrating?
All your asian people driving poorly?
All your conservatives burning abortion clinics?
All your liberals spiking trees?
Why is this kind of extreme stereotyping so allowed with the relgious, whereas the same people doing that would be horrified to see it in other lights?
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 4:45 PM
Okay, I'm rising to the bait. "Radical atheist?" Is there any such thing? Dawkins is an atheist. I don't think that he dons any metaphysical hat when he talks about the charge that a scientist (or a nonscientist like me) gets from observing the natural world, or when he says that we're the lucky ones, since we're going to die, which means that we have first won the existence lottery. I see Dawkins as just an atheist. That's how I also see PZ, and me. [Book idea: "Mere Atheism."]
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2006 4:50 PM
"Radical atheist?" Is there any such thing?
There is the anti-religious bigot.
There are atheists who don't believe in any sort of god or gods, but who don't care if others do.
Then there are athiests who view religion the way that many fundamentalists view athiesm: a threat to our society that must be squelched and defeated.
There is no difference in the spiritual beliefs or lack thereof between those two types of athiests, but there is a clear difference in how they relate to and approach the topic of religion. (And, yes, this is an oversimplifiaction; nobody would fit exactly either description, but it's as useful an axis as any other one-dimensional axis used to describe some kind of view.)
When people refer to something like a "radical" or "extremist" athiest, this is the sort of thing they're talking about. Athiests who respond often respond as if they were talking about a different extremity of belief-- which is not the case.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 4:57 PM
"PZ Myers does not respect your authoritah!"
Thank the FSM that I wasn't drinking coffee, or my monitor would be ruined. I'm going to be repeating that to myself all day now. (People will be wondering why I am laughing when I didn't say anything out loud).
As for the Cranky Outspoken Atheist Party (COAP?) I would join that party. F the people why don't like evidence. If their critical thinking skills are not up to par - let them make their own party.
PZ for president! Slogan: "PZ Myers does not respect your authoritah!"
Posted by: Cheeto | March 21, 2006 4:57 PM
Hear, hear, Kristine.
Posted by: Rieux | March 21, 2006 4:58 PM
I can't spell.
The i-before-e thing is encoded into my fingers, regardless of what my brain thinks.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 4:59 PM
Radical: One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.
Hmm. I think you could argue that Dawkins "advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions" through some of his outlets (like his recent TV show "The Root of all Evil". Do you have to be more than just an advocate to be a radical?
Posted by: tacitus | March 21, 2006 5:02 PM
As for the Cranky Outspoken Atheist Party (COAP?) I would join that party. F the people why don't like evidence. If their critical thinking skills are not up to par - let them make their own party.
Nice example, thank you.
This is the sort of person who gets called a "radical athiest." Not because his beliefs are differnet. But because he thinks that somebody else being religious is sufficient justification to simply insult them. That's fine-- it's his opinion, and he has free speech. But you can see where a rational religious person is going to be far more put off by this person than by an athiest who doesn't feel the need to insist that (a) all religious people don't like evidence (give me a break, many of us are able to keep our religion and the process of understanding the natural world through empirical evidence separate), (b) all religious people are incapable of critical thinking.
"Anybody who doesn't agree with me is stupid" is an extremely common belief held by a lot of people with strong opinions on some topic. It is also almost always completely wrong, much as is the notion that "all open-minded people will reach the same conclusions that I have."
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 5:03 PM
Likewise, winning an election is irrelevant to matters of science, and who gives a flying firkin as to what POTUS thinks on matters of science?
Posted by: Arun | March 21, 2006 5:03 PM
By the way, I'm guilty of everything I'm complaining about, I know that.... I freely insult creationists, and state that young-earth creationism is (in particular) a simplistic and ignorant belief.
Call me a hypocrite, if you will.
Just make sure that the rational, non-extreme religious type are the ones you want to be insulting when you do so. And realize that you yourself** will be guilty of ignorance if you from judgements on all of the relgious (or even all of a given religion) based on the nutty beliefs of an extreme fringe (however large that fringe is).
** in case it's not clear, the "you" here isn't directed to PZ in particular, but is the generic unspecified "one" type of you
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 21, 2006 5:08 PM
I don't think the Archbishop is claiming special authority beyond his obvious theological expertise and the authority that comes from being taken seriously enough to get the job in the first place. The CofE has no doctrine of archepiscopal infallibility. Rowan Williams seems to be an intelligent, thoughtful, good man who I suspect has spent a great deal of time thinking about the interplay between theology and biology. For that, I think his opinions deserve my respect, although not my agreement. I think his wor