Pharyngula

There are logical grounds for advancing a religious hypothesis; however, these are by nature "God of the gaps" arguments, which people find unsatisfying (although I don't think they are technically a logical fallacy).

Of all of your posts on disbelief, this is one of my favorites. Very measured and well-supported. Bravo.

Posted by: Shygetz | June 30, 2006 10:50 AM

Fantastic post. Just had to say that.

Posted by: sjforti | June 30, 2006 10:52 AM

People should realise that if they get their answers in life from little voices in their head or make their decisions based on random occurances in their lives which they then determine to be a sign from the bearded sky fairy, those decisions will most likely be wrong.

I live in South Africa, and I am a closet Atheist. Why? It is not because I lack the courage of my convictions, it is simply that I do not wish to suffer additional economic disadvantage.

Congratulations on a well written post, Professor Myers

Posted by: Liberal doses of Dirk | June 30, 2006 11:10 AM

I am not swayed by arguments that "if it's true, it will make some people unhappy." When you are willing to cede the facts and evidence that support your case simply because they go against some people's emotional biases, then you've hurt your cause.

I think you are confusing two different issues. Yes, you shouldn't *change* your opinion simply because it may hurt other people's feelings, but that's different from asking yourself if it is *strategic* to express all of your opinions to others, particularly if your main goal is to convince them of another point. I'm an atheist and an evolutionary biologist too, but I'm more interested in defending evolution than I am in attacking religion -- aren't you?

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | June 30, 2006 11:46 AM

No religion can stand unbruised against cold, calculating, Euclidian logic. What you've failed to address however is the way in which humans naturally agglomerate along spousal, family, community, and tribal lines. There is a strong pull toward establishing arrangements of this kind. Besides, Natural Selection has arguably shown that when we co-operate by establishing such institutions, the species has a tendancy toward survival and development. Tribes that cultivate, gather, build and destroy together get ahead. Religions, countries, and corporations are built on this principle.
If we justifiably extrapolate tribal lines to religious lines, then we can see that humans have a strong attraction to religion for the simple sense of belonging and comfort the tribe brings each individual. Laypeople find no such comfort in science because religious doctrine speaks a language that is attractive and comparatively easy to understand. A great many scientists find no comfort in science because the relentless nature of proposing, refuting, and proving hypotheses is competitive rather than co-operative. An entire field of scientists could be behind your idea one minute and then turn its back on you the next as your work gets proved and disproved.
Country - via its constitution - and religion - via its doctrine - provide people with a sense of tribal membership that science and logic cannot emulate for laypeople. Don't be surprised if scientists hold onto their religious vices, its a product of Natural Selection after all.

Posted by: HPLC_Sean | June 30, 2006 11:55 AM

When you consider the dreadful attitudes the public in the USA has towards atheists, it is clear that atheists need to speak out much more often, and publicly, so people can get to see they are real, do not have fangs, and don't abduct babies (at least not any more than an other group). There is obviously an extreme level of ignorance among the general population about this subject, which can only be improved with continued exposure. I don't think you would find the same in Europe.
I agree with PJ about almost any form of theism we know as being a dud scientific concept. On the other hand, there will probably always be mysteries we cannot fathom by science, (pre big bang for example) though it is fairly amazing how much we have discovered. Given such unknown, I think many people find comfort in the idea of a creator. We cannot say for certain they are wrong, though there is absolutely no reason to suppose they are right (the unknown is just that, a mystery). For this reason I prefer the term non-theist to atheist, as the latter has often implied an absolute and dogmatic belief there is no god, rather than a skeptical open mind.

Posted by: Betty Cocker | June 30, 2006 11:59 AM

I say a hearty "F*** You!" to all those that have a problem with your post, or views. Well done Prof Myers!

Posted by: J-Dog | June 30, 2006 12:12 PM

PZ said: I'm beginning to see a pattern to responses to critiques of religion--they almost always involve frantic attempts to get the discussion away from any specifics of religious dogma, and back onto "hey, those atheists sure are evil, huh?

This professor at Oxford wants us to believe that atheism is what happens when religion is in need of renewal:

"Atheism was once new, exciting, and liberating, and for those reasons held to be devoid of the vices of the faiths it displaced. With time, it turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. Many have now concluded that these personality types are endemic to all human groups, rather than being the peculiar preserve of religious folks. With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively."

"Paradoxically, the future of atheism will be determined by its religious rivals. Those atheists looking for a surefire way to increase their appeal need only to hope for harsh, vindictive, and unthinking forms of religion to arise in the West."

From: The Twilight of Atheism, by Alister McGrath
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/21.36.html

Atheism as a kind of necessary evil to be gotten through before the next wonderful religious revival can take place.

Posted by: George | June 30, 2006 12:29 PM

PZ, I wasn't making fun of your mom. Just trying to describe a possible process that leads so many otherwise normal-seeming people to go all nutty when they hear "religion is a giant load." and find themselves partial to agreeing.

Posted by: garth | June 30, 2006 12:41 PM

To quote Nietzsche:

"For this is the way religions are won't to die out: under the stern intelligent eyes of orthodox dogmatism, the mythical premises of a religion are systematized as a sum total of historical events; one begins apprehensively to defend the credibility of myths, while at the same time one opposes any continuation of their natural vitality and growth; the feeling for myth perishes, and its place is taken by the claim of religion to historical foundations."

-The Birth of Tragedy (1872), Section 10

The argument for the divorce of religion from science (or society in general) has been going on for a long time now, and yet look how little has changed. Kudos to those who have the integrity to stand out and speak up!

Posted by: carlman23 | June 30, 2006 12:50 PM

"Religion appears to serve a social function. A minority of people are inclined to eschew religious belief, but many others hold onto it."

Serving a social function is not a value of itself nor does it justify an exemption from criticism - think of nationalism. I'm not saying you implied this, but a lot of theists seem to do.

Posted by: Frost | June 30, 2006 1:02 PM

PZ

Most remarkably, I've received several heartfelt pleas, telling me that saying these things about religion hurts the cause. After thinking hard about that for several seconds, I have an answer to that.

So?

Indeed. I saw some folks raising this "hurt the cause" argument and I really had to wonder: what in heck are they talking about? What "cause"? The "cause" to fight fundamentalist nonsense but protect the non-fundamentalist nonsense at all cost?

Uh, no thanks.

I've said it before and I'l say it again: scientists who are theists who do not like what atheists are saying about religion need to a better job of teaching their leaders to speak out against fundie shitheads and their followers.

When that happens, I'll theistic scientists some slack. Until then, they can take their whining about bad old atheists and shove it.

Posted by: Memo from Turner | June 30, 2006 1:17 PM

I don't see that my best strategy for protecting science is to focus on that one peripheral outbreak, though, and ignore the threat to society's major organs

If convincing people of the errors/evils of religion were as simple as convincing them of the fact of evolution this strategy would also be pretty attractive to me too. After all, you'd think that producing atheists/agnostics would make teaching science easier. But the fact is I've *never* seen (or even heard of) a theist say (non-sarcastically) "Gee, you're right. You convinced me now that religion is a false cancer" - have you? Instead, they just get angry and unreceptive to anything you have to say about evolution or anything else.

On the other hand, convincing doubters of evolution that evolution is a fact is quite possible -- I've done it myself.

Posted by: Jonathan Badger | June 30, 2006 1:27 PM

Alister McGrath wrote, via George...

"Atheism was once new, exciting, and liberating, and for those reasons held to be devoid of the vices of the faiths it displaced."

Huh? All human endeavors are full of vices from the start. It's simply the way we operate as a species. Didn't read the full article, but I get the sneaking suspicion that he views atheism / agnosticism as just another religious viewpoint. "sigh" Will that gross misconception ever die?

"With time, it turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths, and careerists as religion does. Many have now concluded that these personality types are endemic to all human groups, rather than being the peculiar preserve of religious folks."

I'm surprised that that seems to surprise him. People are people, whether they believe in god, allah, shiva, zeus, oden or no god at all. Whoever said atheists / agnostics were perfect and their worldview was without its charlatans? That's certainly not a rational view.

"Paradoxically, the future of atheism will be determined by its religious rivals. Those atheists looking for a surefire way to increase their appeal need only to hope for harsh, vindictive, and unthinking forms of religion to arise in the West."

We already have harsh, vindictive, unthinking forms of religion in the West. Its largest branch seems to be evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity. Having grown up immersed in it, trust me, it's as harsh, vindictive and unthinking as Islam ever claimed to be. It's simply that here in the West we are conditioned not to think of fundamentalist Christianity in those terms, true though they may be. Similarly, Muslims don't think their religion can be equally as violent and harsh as they view Christianity to be. I guess whatever religion one subscribes to, when one turns off the rational side of your brain one can end up believing all kinds of bizarre even dangerous things.

Posted by: paleotn | June 30, 2006 1:46 PM

"Bogus pseudoscience"? PZ, our problem is with real pseudoscience! (-;

Posted by: Martin Rundkvist | June 30, 2006 1:50 PM

PZ, maybe sometime you could post on the difference (if any) between atheist and agnostic.

I keep reading that science can't prove a negative, and that the ID people are illogical when they say that the present lack of scientific explanation for the development of some specific biological structure must mean that the structure is a special creation by the designer/god. Both those ideas make sense to me in that the lack of proof for one explanation isn't in itself proof of another explanation.

Using the same reasoning, I can follow when Betty Crocker says, "I agree with PZ about almost any form of theism we know as being a dud scientific concept. On the other hand, there will probably always be mysteries we cannot fathom by science, (pre big bang for example) though it is fairly amazing how much we have discovered. Given such unknown, I think many people find comfort in the idea of a creator. We cannot say for certain they are wrong, though there is absolutely no reason to suppose they are right (the unknown is just that, a mystery). For this reason I prefer the term non-theist to atheist, as the latter has often implied an absolute and dogmatic belief there is no god, rather than a skeptical open mind."

But this leaves me not following the argument in statements like that by Stwriley: "Atheism itself is simply the negative left when theistic hypotheses are shown to be logically and evidentially false. It does not require defending by the normal standards, that is the problem of positive assertions."

I've been thinking that atheism is a positive claim that no god exists, something more than just a statement that there is no proof for the positive claim that God does exist. No, I'm not trying to defend the "dogmatic" in Betty Crocker's post, but I am having trouble seeing how the lack of scientific evidence for any god leads directly to atheism rather than agnosticism.

Or maybe I'm just not understanding the terminology.

Posted by: Julia | June 30, 2006 2:52 PM

Julia,

I don't know whether the definition below from Wikipedia helps.
I do think that there are historical negative connotations to the word atheist, which might be absent from word non-theist.

from wikipedia
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism, however, typically label as atheists only those people who affirmatively assert the nonexistence of gods, and classify other nonbelievers as agnostics or simply non-theists.

Many people who self-identify as atheists do tend to share common skeptical concerns regarding the evidence (or lack of evidence) of the world's many deities and creation stories as well as questioning the goodness and morality of religions that have brought us such things as holy wars and inquisitions. Yet while some adhere to philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, there is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Indeed, atheism is inspired by many rationales, encompassing personal, scientific, social, philosophical, and historical reasoning.

Although atheism is commonly equated with irreligion in Western culture, some religious beliefs (such as some forms of Buddhism), though not often so identified by the adherents, have been described as atheistic.

Posted by: Betty Cocker | June 30, 2006 3:21 PM

Julia,
While you are waiting for an intelligent answer, allow me to offer in my words how I think about science, atheism and belief in a god.

Science has "nothing to say" on the supernatural period.
Some atheist just do not believe in a supernatural father or son or ghost.
Some atheist(acting non scientifically) claim there is no god. These hard atheist are just as correct in this claim as the religious are in their claim of belief.

Posted by: Fred J | June 30, 2006 3:36 PM

Russsell and Julia, take a hit off Bertrand Russell's pipe:

I think that in philosophical strictness at the level where one doubts the existence of material objects and holds that the world may have existed for only five minutes, I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.I think that in philosophical strictness at the level where one doubts the existence of material objects and holds that the world may have existed for only five minutes, I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

Posted by: cm | June 30, 2006 3:45 PM

I am not that great at photoshoping, but I had this nuts idea while reading this:

http://www.geocities.com/shadowfyr2/Junk/More_like_Science.png

Feel free to steal it for your own use. lol

Posted by: Kagehi | June 30, 2006 4:05 PM

Well, see, cm, I was pointing out how gods are like Bertrand Russell's teapot. It's kind of silly to assert that the existence of either is unprovable. If anything, if gods are around, they should be a bit more easily encountered than a tiny teapot lost in the depths of space.

Posted by: Russell | June 30, 2006 4:22 PM

When it comes to defending the spiritual realm, the relationship between science and religion tends to be one of "heads I win; tails don't count."

First, the sophisticated will argue that existence of God is just not a science theory, or anything like one. It's more like morals or meaning or matters of taste. It's group therapy. It's personal therapy. It's finding stories which "work" by putting things in a "framework." Whatever.

So when all the things God was supposed to do grow smaller, when the evidence for disembodied souls or pure mental and life forces is subsumed under other theories -- no problem. Makes no difference. Religion isn't something which is impacted by scientific findings.

Yet, as Russell just pointed out,

I can think of a large variety of ways in which the gods, if they existed, could prove themselves to us.

And that includes scientific proof. "God exists" is not like "chocolate tastes better than vanilla." You could never discover anything through science which would show that people who preferred vanilla were WRONG. But, in theory, scientific findings could show atheists they were wrong. The only reason they haven't is because -- they haven't.

Secular humanists like PZ do science all the way down. They don't stop at some arbitrary point and claim there is some sort of virtue in doing so. And I say good to call the bluff of those who do. That's not arrogance. It's honest consistency.

Saying "shhh...okay, but keep it down, the vast majority of people can't handle that kind of idea, they're not like us" -- I think that is arrogant.

Posted by: Sastra | June 30, 2006 4:26 PM

I would say that very rarely do countries or groups in deadly conflict, rich or poor, do not use religion as a tool. And quite a useful one it can be.
The US problem with religious fanatism is not mild. Internally, sure, it does not produce TOO MUCH death and violence (although not none wahtsover, mind you). The USA just EXPORTS most of its death as the results of the decisions of political leaders who make strong appeals to religion to keep their christian votes. They are sympathetic to the view evolution is BS to explain "miraculous" life, so that the creator is "the only reasonable conclusion" . They know this can lead people to continue on their side and be condescending with their religious frameworking of the facts.

Posted by: Alexander Vargas | June 30, 2006 4:46 PM

I just realized.. I forgot one the labels for the "Diet Religion" can. There should be one that says, "Contents sold seperately." on there.

Posted by: Kagehi | June 30, 2006 6:17 PM

If a scientist looks at an idea, like religion, how does he evaluate it? Apply the scientific method to the god hypothesis, if you can: what comes out? Does religion hold up on any logical or evidentiary grounds?

And the answer right now is no. If a scientist applies the same kind of critical thinking she uses in her work to religion, she gets the same answer an atheist does, that religion is a weak, useless hypothesis with no support, or worse, that it is an internally contradictory mish-mash that contradicts existing evidence. I bent over backward to say that she doesn't have to apply that kind of thinking to every aspect of her life, of course, and none of us do. If she wants to claim she's happy to be a Presbyterian and accepts it as a matter of simple faith, there is no argument, the case is closed, and she can go about her business unhassled by science.

Right. Amen.

(Maybe if I keep the comments shorter, people won't get so upset at my agreeing with you.)

Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 30, 2006 7:14 PM

Still not quite what I wanted, but I am tired of fighting the stupid path tool (and the small size of the can I am working with). lol

http://www.geocities.com/shadowfyr2/Junk/More_like_Science

Posted by: Kagehi | June 30, 2006 7:27 PM

Well I wonder just how really important your point is. I think that to justify your attitudes, you should be working hard on demonstrating that religion, and only religion, is specifically evil.
Of course religion CAN have ma