…and this is a 
Harris on Collins
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: August 17, 2006 8:46 AM, by PZ Myers
I get the impression that Sam Harris didn't like Francis Collins' book:
If one wonders how beguiled, self-deceived and carefree in the service of fallacy a scientist can be in the United States in the 21st century, "The Language of God" provides the answer. The only thing that mitigates the harm this book will do to the stature of science in the United States is that it will be mostly read by people for whom science has little stature already. Viewed from abroad, "The Language of God" will be seen as another reason to wonder about the fate of American society. Indeed, it is rare that one sees the thumbprint of historical contingency so visible on the lens of intellectual discourse. This is an American book, attesting to American ignorance, written for Americans who believe that ignorance is stronger than death. Reading it should provoke feelings of collective guilt in any sensitive secularist. We should be ashamed that this book was written in our own time.
Just out of curiousity, has anyone seen a positive review of this book? The closest thing to it I've seen is David Klinghoffer's, which is an interesting example of conflicted evasion: he tries so hard to praise Collins' piety, but at the same time, Collins rips into ID…and Klinghoffer is a Discovery Institute fellow. His response is to get all soppy about the religion, but at the end to recommend some other book that tangles up religion and science, presumably without any ID bashing.
I've said it a few times now: I'm with Harris. Collins' thinking is very unimpressive and embarrassingly shallow, and yet he's trading on his reputation as a scientist to evangelize for theological nonsense. Personally, I think he's setting back the idea of reconciling faith and reason a few centuries—I just don't see how you can read his tripe without seeing it as clear evidence that religion rots your brain.
Comments
C'mon PZ, tell us what you really think! (I'm sure I'd have the same reaction, but I have no intention of inflicting on myself the pain of reading the thing.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 9:03 AM
How much further back can the concept be set than "completely invalid"? The methods have been recognized to be inherently incompatible for quite some time now.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 17, 2006 9:06 AM
"...this God, if I was perceiving him at all, must be a theist God..."
God is a theist? Then what is this God God believes in? I'm inclined to call him Turtle. But what then does does Turtle believe in? Another Turtle, Turtle2?
Posted by: Magnus | August 17, 2006 9:50 AM
Great essay! Collins can believe whatever he wants, but I had wondered how he got from a frozen waterfall to belief in a one particular religion that just conveniently happened to be one shared by a large number of Americans, rather than some other religion. By taking the time to follow Collins through on some arguments, Harris provides a more convincing rebuttal than if he had been glibly dismissive.
I am almost getting curious enough to read Collins's book. It strikes me that for an eminent scientist, he's unusually swayed by the kinds of arguments many formerly religious people might have entertained in adolescence and young adulthood, but ultimately found wanting. As I commented after the Salon essay, it doesn't sound as if Collins has come up with anything new to say about God, but I'm becoming more interested in his book in kind of a gossipy "The head of the human genome project buys this stuff?" way.
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 10:02 AM
Ugh. I could barely read his interview in Time about it, and only managed because I was sitting in the doctor's office with nothing else to do. As PaulC just said, why that particular religion? Why not another? Has Collins ever considered that?
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2006 10:18 AM
Collins' Cascade Mountains and frozen waterfalls, Dembski's fire rainbows...sheesh. Okay, I can understand looking at the pretty mountains, or at the sunset or whatever, and feeling a sort of presence in the universe in a vague way, but to leapfrog from this numinous experience to a worship of Jesus Christ? To the simplistic, literal (and to my literature-nerd mind, unfortunate and poetically bankrupt) belief in Scripture? Sorry, I just don't get it.
Where are the fire waterfalls and frozen rainbows? Now, that would be something.
Posted by: Kristine | August 17, 2006 10:18 AM
Yikes. The quotes from Collins' book are damning enough without Harris' commentary. I wonder if this will damage his career.
Posted by: poke | August 17, 2006 10:44 AM
Posted by: quork | August 17, 2006 10:47 AM
I have not read the book, but in interviews, it seems to me that the man (for all his intellect) is rather shallow in other areas, including emotionally. He's just not convincing to me that he's put thought into his theological stances, and they seem rather undeveloped.
Posted by: DragonScholar | August 17, 2006 10:52 AM
Scientists that believe in God can be useful at this stage of our society. Think Dover Trial. You think if every scientist wintessing had been an athiest we would have won? I very much doubt it. Witnesses were carefully picked for being able to push the idea religion is compatible with evolution, so the trial was not against religion. Let us not trash them too much. We can of course be intellectually pure an end up losing in every court in the country, and speed up the days of the new Christian Taliban.
Posted by: oldhippie | August 17, 2006 10:55 AM
Yes, we would have won. The Dover case was decided on the law. What a concept.
Again, this temporizing with religious delusion has got the US where exactly, compared to all the other industrialized countries? And yet people keep recommending more of the same? Remember, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 10:59 AM
Posted by: quork | August 17, 2006 11:02 AM
I heard an interview with Collins and another similar guy on Science Friday (8/4 episode) and they made me angry. They pulled out the old tripe that atheism requires more faith than christianity and heaps of arrogance. Why? becuase atheists must know everything about the Universe to not believe in the christian god. What complete nonsense, by that logic if you don't have complete knowlege of everything then you have to belive everything. It would have been such a more interesting show if there had been an alternate viewpoint.
Posted by: Erik | August 17, 2006 11:03 AM
Hardly a review, but generally positive, was Cornelia Dean's reaction from the Science Desk of the New York Times (July 25, available in the Archive). Dean calls author-scientists like Collins, Owen Gingerich, and Joan Roughgarden professionally and intellectually "brave" because they have the courage to "talk about" and "embrace" religion. She claims that these authors are bringing these two worldviews harmoniously together, while folks like Dawkins, Weinberg, and Dennett are working, dangrously, to keep them apart. A completely shallow and pointless -- and, above alll, cowardly -- piece of journalism.
Posted by: Peter Sattler | August 17, 2006 11:08 AM
The thing about Collins is that he has a big sloppy saccharine man-crush on C.S. Lewis. Now unlike you, PZ, I like Lewis. Oh, he was full of shit and all, but the limey could turn a phrase and make the unlikely sound, at least, sort of pretty. Which makes him dangerous and possibly evil, but I still admire the rhetoric. Even Philip Pullman (of "His Dark Materials" fame), the atheistic anti-Lewis, admits admiration for some of Lewis's WRITING. But that's not the same thing as being swayed by it. H.P. Lovecraft wrote some great stuff, too, but I'm not worshipping Chthulu over it.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 17, 2006 11:09 AM
Sam has an "American" fixation. Lose it, Sam. That's so 20th century.
Posted by: c | August 17, 2006 11:29 AM
Sadly, Mr Collins is suffering from what the rest of us have come to regard as the "American disease".
Posted by: Lycaenops | August 17, 2006 11:35 AM
In this case, I think the "American fixation" is quite appropriate. Protestant fundamentalism and the intimate connection between religiosity and evolution denial are distinctly American phenomena. It just doesn't exist in other countries, and to the extent that it does, it's strongly influenced by the American evolution denial movements.
Posted by: Joshua | August 17, 2006 11:44 AM
Sam has an "American" fixation. Lose it, Sam. That's so 20th century.
Do you disagree with him? Somehow, I doubt that Collins had non-Americans firmly in mind when he wrote the book. At least not the non-Christian majority of them.
Posted by: windy | August 17, 2006 11:57 AM
Then there's THIS
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2006/08/religion_and_education.html.printer.friendly
Which puts it all very clearly
Posted by: G. Tingey | August 17, 2006 12:59 PM
I get a kick out of some of the comments. One posts a random bible quote " Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. " Which, I guess is supposed to make Harris feel bad for having the ability to think.
Another posts the same tired old lies about evolution, another asks why harris is so angry at imaginary god. Another asks atheists to prove there isn't a god.
Do they ever come up with anything remotely worth addressing?
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 17, 2006 1:14 PM
I love A.C. Grayling. Thanks, Tingey.
Posted by: Kristine | August 17, 2006 1:18 PM
It's amazing that Collins apparently knows no one that could have argued Harris' points with him while he was writing this book. He may still have not accepted the opposite view, but to not have addressed it all is plain ignorance.
But, Harris' conclusion is what matters. Quite chilling.
Posted by: Koray | August 17, 2006 3:05 PM
It amazes me to read so much contempt that both atheists and conservatives have for someone like Francis Collins. The atheist contempt flows freely here. On Bible-believing sites it is pretty much the same, though they don't have such contempt for conversion stories there. They just want to put Collins through a theological inquistion to show how he can be so idiotic as to believe in evolution at all despite their supposedly superior wisdom that proves the Bible is true and everything else is a Satanic conspiracy.
As a scientist myself, I would wax lovingly about the power of empiricism in everything, as much as anyone could, and how mainstream science has gotten so much right, from evolution to neuroscience. Empiricism includes looking at the human nature that causes people to be so contemptuous about things they don't understand, as if contempt is a virtue. As a liberal Christian who also had a conversion experience in my thirties, after my degrees and my faculty appointment, I know why people talk about them. They don't expect to change the mind of someone like PZ that way. They are just expressing an experience that is more powerful than anything else they know, too compelling to keep quiet about. To have contempt for that is not wise. It's just human. All sorts of people are like that, Sam Harris included.
It's not turtles all the way down. It's human nature all the way down. And all you smart guys who think your intellect has put you above acting out your nature could use a better mirror. Evolution hasn't stopped, not biological evolution, cultural evolution or even spiritual evolution, if there is such a thing. It's not just conservatives who say no, they know how both people and the world should be. Only they don't, or they wouldn't make such an ass of themselves over Francis Collins or whoever else comes along just telling their story.
Posted by: DavidD | August 17, 2006 3:53 PM
Oh, horse pucky. It's Collins who made an ass of himself with his piss-poor amateur philosophy and theology. He wouldn't apply such low intellectual standards to shopping for a car, let alone to his science. His crappy book deserves all the abuse it's gotten.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 3:57 PM
Only they don't, or they wouldn't make such an ass of themselves over Francis Collins or whoever else comes along just telling their story.
Francis Collins isn't just some random guy off the street telling his story to whomever will listen. Because of his stature in the scientific community, it is imperative that the community speak up when a Francis Collins decides to use his credentials to convince people he is making a scientific argument for God when in fact he is not.
Posted by: Bruce | August 17, 2006 4:06 PM
Ah, more data about human nature overwhelming intellect already.
Posted by: DavidD | August 17, 2006 4:09 PM
Steve L. is an expert on low intellectual standards.
Posted by: Bres Mac Elatha | August 17, 2006 4:10 PM
It takes intellect to suffer babbling fools?
Guess we should shut up about Ann Coulter too.
Bres would know.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 17, 2006 4:13 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 4:15 PM
Steve LeBonne:
Having read not only Judge Jones' decision, and most of the transcripts, I concur with you. A position of either neutrality or affirmation of religion on the part of any witness called by the plaintiff really has no bearing on the outcome of the trial. It really was decided on the basis of the law.
I also think you're right to hold Collins to a higher standard than he's shown in his new book. He's playing a bit too loose for my tastes. It's a bit much to claim that there's any sort of scientific case for belief.
But (you may not like this) in the big picture, it really is a good idea to have some believers (like me) on the pro-evolution side. You can't hope to prevail if you rely only on the public schools and higher education. That's too late; fundies start drilling this stuff into their kids in the churches, and many of those kids are going to have a hard enough time overcoming the propaganda on Darwin without also being forced to completely renounce the faith they were raised in.
By all means, let's live as a nation under law, and decide cases like Dover on their legal merits, and let the scientific community decide what belongs in the science classroom. If someone within the community allows their personal beliefs to trump evidence, let's call them on it to preserve what's singular about scientific thinking. But let's not make the mistake of turning our back on potential allies who may prove crucial to our success in other forums.
Strategicallly....Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 17, 2006 4:28 PM
Scott, I've never known you to write in this place anything remotely resembling the drivel I've seen quoted from Collins's book, so I certainly wouldn't lump believers like you, or for example Martin Gardner, in the same category as Collins at all. It's the supposed "evidence from science" that's the pitiful rubbish. While I will never be persuaded that religious belief is a good thing, in practice I have little quarrel with believers who are content with their own faith and don't attempt to distort science in order to provide it with illusory support.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 4:36 PM
I will now go write 500 times, "I will close my HTML tags"! Bad boy. ;)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 4:38 PM
I know this is trite but what exactly is a conversion experience? I mean isn't it simply a change of opinion? Choosing to live this way or that coupled with church. I just don't see how peoples lives(and stats back me up on this) change based on their supernatural leanings. Convert/deconvert to me simply means agree/disagree.
They are not making statements based on him telling a story, they are making statements based on what he is saying and the obvious flaws in what he is saying in regards to science/faith.
What is somewhat offensive or should be to a fellow like you DavidD is the segregationist angle to his view. His God cannot be the God of the majority of the world past and present and thus they are excluded. If I was a member of those faiths his version would read even more ridiculous.
This is so much BS, anytime an atheist disagrees with an argument it becomes some form of angry. Why is it the flaws in the argument can't be seen and discussed without being angry?
Posted by: GH | August 17, 2006 4:39 PM
Empiricism includes looking at the human nature that causes people to be so contemptuous about things they don't understand, as if contempt is a virtue.
Contempt is not a virtue, and I openly admit that there are a lot of things that I don't understand.
However, Collins' experience, "as reported", is totally irrelevant. As a believer you may speculate that perhaps God spoke to him as he stood before the frozen water. That can only demote the frozen water to an irrelevant detail of the incident. Thus, it cannot be presented as a "sign" or "corroborating evidence", etc. In fact, it doesn't even need to be told. If Collins had only written "I was in the woods and I had a spritiual experience", I would have left it at that. It doesn't mean that I would understand it, but I wouldn't laugh at it.
But, the three branches of frozen ice as support is just delusion. This is not some guy who doesn't know probability theory. I bet he has three blue pens on his desk, or three yellow folders in his office, or three dollar bills in his wallet, etc. And what do you think that muslims do when they see three of something? Convert?
To lie is also human. Somebody lied.
Posted by: Koray | August 17, 2006 4:42 PM
Isn't Gardner a fideist?
Red alert Robert O'Brien sighting. He of the award for saying stupid things over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
And as usual he has his pointed response to a post here. Sarcasm.:-)
Posted by: Uber | August 17, 2006 4:42 PM
If someone within the community allows their personal beliefs to trump evidence, let's call them on it to preserve what's singular about scientific thinking. But let's not make the mistake of turning our back on potential allies who may prove crucial to our success in other forums.
Isn't your insistence that theistic scientists are crucial to the promotion of science as a useful tool a "personal belief"? Or do you have evidence that theistic scientists are "crucial" for promoting science.
The best promoters of science in recent memory were not theists.
So Scott: put up the evidence.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 4:51 PM
College drop out/failed comedian/usurer Ed Brayton renamed his "Idiot of the Month" award after me back in 12/2004.
Brayton is a hypocritical ass. He got on my case when I called a creationist a lying scumbag or something, then it took me two seconds to find a post on his own blog where he talked about burying somebody alive. After I pointed this out to the asshole, guess what? He banned me. What a turd.
I laughed recently when Ed recently "realized" that Casey Luskin was a liar and it was okay to say so. Gee, what the fuck took Ed so long? I guess now he's an "uncivilized" prick like the rest of us.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 4:56 PM
FWIW, I don't feel contempt towards Collins, just idle curiosity about why he believes his arguments are persuasive. I am familiar with them, and have given them more serious consideration in the past, but I really don't find them persuasive. Perhaps it is the depth of his "conversion experience" and I would understand if only I had one myself, but my beliefs about somebody else's subjective experience is a poor substitute for evidence.
I have had the experience during my life of being persuaded to believe things that I initially might not have. Many things are counterintuitive. For instance, I still find it at some level counterintuitive that the fast fourier transform works; it's amazing that you can do what looks like quadratically many multiplications in O(n log n) time. But I've gone through the basic argument on numerous occasions and I see that it works.
Harris quoted Collins about why it would be "less interesting" with respect to free will if it were obvious to everyone that God exists. I admit that it would be less interesting if some creator had simply wired our brains with certainty of his existence, but why would it be uninteresting if one could come to that conclusion through disciplined study? I cannot speak for religious people, but my experience has been that disciplined study and reflection on the question of God makes his existence seem less necessary and less compatible with observation. This is the opposite of my experience in other areas, and I find it interesting that a man like Collins would have a substantially different view.
I am open at some level to the idea that his conclusion is right, though not that his arguments are convincing. I'm far from contemptuous. I just wonder why his subjective experience is so obviously different from my own.
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 4:58 PM
Must really chap your bum then that Ed exposes your 'arguments' after all that failure he has had to endure huh?
Is there something wrong with being a usurer? Is this an attempt to belittle a good man because he earns an honest living?
Posted by: Uber | August 17, 2006 4:58 PM
It's Collins who made an ass of himself with his piss-poor amateur philosophy and theology. He wouldn't apply such low intellectual standards to shopping for a car, let alone to his science.
Hey, it could work...
"One day I went shopping for a used car. As I rounded a corner, I saw what could only be a symbol of the Holy Trinity gleaming in the sunlight! I knelt on the oily gravel, knowing that my search was over."
Posted by: windy | August 17, 2006 5:01 PM
GH,
There's lots of good literature on conversion experiences -- you might start with William James' "Variety of Religious Experience". Much of it doesn't have to do with a church.
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 5:27 PM
It takes intellect to suffer babbling fools?
Obrien replies:
That has been my experience among the commenters here.
Indeed, I can't figure out any other reason why you haven't been banned from the site.
Humor dicatates we all should suffer babbling fools like yourself, at least on occasion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2006 5:29 PM
AndyS,
Give me the abridged version:-)
Posted by: GH | August 17, 2006 5:32 PM
In my opinion, suffering fools gladly doesn't really take intellect or lack thereof. There is a judgment call involved, though. Dangerous fools ought to be stopped, and a desire to be nice to everyone is not a virtue in this case. Educable fools ought to be educated, time permitting, but this is a lot of work. Harmless, hopeless fools might as well be ignored. Some people find it easier than others to do so, and that's just a question of personality.
I'd say that Collins tends towards the dangerous side only because his eminence puts him in an influential position, and he's unlikely to be persuaded either. But as bad bears go, I'd say he's more the muffin-stealing kind than the man-eating kind (let's see if anyone gets the reference) and should just be watched closely rather than fought aggressively.
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 5:45 PM
Posted by: quork | August 17, 2006 5:48 PM
I don't think that simply calling his trashy book what it is- trash- is very "aggressive". And that's all I've seen happening.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 5:49 PM
The Smile of the Day award goes to Windy. :-)
Posted by: Watchman | August 17, 2006 5:49 PM
Posted by: quork | August 17, 2006 5:50 PM
If he was calling out Jason, he would have used "gibbering fools," instead.
Posted by: Stanton | August 17, 2006 6:07 PM
I know this is trite but what exactly is a conversion experience? I mean isn't it simply a change of opinion?
Oh, my, no. Quite the emotional experience, a feeling that suddenly everything in the universe makes sense, that you are now a part of something much grander than anything you could have imagined. Think of the scene in the Blues Brothers: John Belushi, listening to James Brown, with the ray of light shining on him, "THE BAND!!!" It's an epiphany. Triggers every non-rational button in a person, and is usually quite intense. In fact, there is a whole subcateory of religious topics that focus on how to keep one's sense of awe after the pinnacle is over. Usually this is covered as a sermonette to adolescents coming home from church camp, falling back to reality.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2006 7:10 PM
GH,
Give me the abridged version:-)
That's like asking for the abridged version of evolution. Doesn't lead to a useful discussion. If fact, that is exactly what many of the anti-evolution types do, isn't it? Get the abridge version then mock it. Let's not follow their lead.
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 7:20 PM
If he was calling out Jason, he would have used "gibbering fools," instead.
quite right.
in fact, I've been trying to get Mr. Obrien to expound upon something he stated over on ATBC (the 'Thumb's forum).
Obrien stated (in response to guess who):
Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude read Plato, Plotinus, Boethius, Aquinas, and Rousseau, among others, when trying to iron out your theology? Cuz' I do. Do you and hypothetical pizza delivery dude try to incorporate your mathematical/statistical knowledge into your God-belief as I do?
ever since then, I've been quite curious to see him spell out how he has particularly incorporated his "mathematical and statistical" knowledge into his "God-belief".
he says it's nothing like Slaveador's drivel, which got me all the more curious...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2006 7:23 PM
Steve:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, to which I can add nothing other than 'right on.' I couldn't agree with you more. It's not the vague hand-waving that's disturbing, its the implication that science can validate Collins' or anyone else's beliefs that is, as you say, 'rubbish.'
GWW:
OK, that's a good question. I would say that my argument is not so much that you have to have scientists who are believers defending evolution (though it certainly helps), but that whoever defends evolution does so without indicting religion in general, regardless of their personal views. I'm with Lawrence Krauss on this one, where he writes that science is not against faith, but against ignorance.
Now, having said that, you did ask for evidence to support my view, and I do have two things that come to mind. The first is anecdotal: in my experience, bashing religion or (more likely) giving the impression of bashing religion is a poor instructional strategy, and instruction is the name of the game. Whether you're dealing with high school students, or the general public, it's about education. People don't understand evolution or natural selection and, as we all know, human beings are disposed to fear what they don't understand. Coupling, even unintentionally, a general critique of religion with a defense of evolution reinforces the (usually) false impression that evolutionary biologists are pushing a competing belief system.
Now, I know it's just my experience, but try to keep in mind that when it comes to explaining evolution and natural selection, I'm an expert witness. It's what I do for a living, and I'm good at it. I have found the best strategy, the one which leads to the greatest number of students receiving the information with an open mind, is one which asserts that faith is not incompatible with evolution, much less science. It helps if you can show students, for example, that the author of the most-used high school biology text in the country, Ken Miller, is an observant Roman Catholic. Miller appears in segments of PBS's 'Evolution' series to make exactly that point, GWW, and I must tell you that exposure to Miller, and to the positive statements endorsing evolution by John Paul II and similar examples has a powerful effect on the class. Remember, many students have already been indoctrinated in their churches. Showing living, dynamic counter-examples of this effectively challenges their assumptions without making the direct frontal assault on their faith.
The second observation is historical: faiths which historically have made their peace with evolution have contributed positively to the acceptance of the idea and the general promotion of science. Those which have not made their peace have become a stumbling block to science. Consider, for example, Mexico, largely Catholic, where there are government-operated public schools named after Darwin. There's a wonderful article on this in Science, found here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5749/787
Similarly, the widespread acceptance of evolution by Anglican clergymen within a decade of Huxley's debate with Wilberforce helped spread the teaching of evolution throughout the British Empire. In contrast, in America, the rejection of evolution by fundamentalists has led to a rather different situation.
What do you think?
SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 17, 2006 7:36 PM
So the argument goes, Collins is particularly bad for writing a book about his personal religious views because he is a respected, visible scientist. In PZ's words he is "he's trading on his reputation as a scientist to evangelize for theological nonsense". (In PZ's vocabularly "theological nonsense" is redundant.) Conservatives make exactly this sort of claim about Chomsky with respect to "socialist nonsense."
PZ, it's pretty hard to see that you have any interest in "reconciling faith and reason" when you use phrases like "religion rots your brain." By dialing down the harsh rhetoric you might at least make some space for some intelligent discussion. Who knows, you could begin to show that atheists even have a little respect for some religious people. Or is a takedown of, say, Gandhi just around the corner?
You have some wonderful gifts, but the gift of the cynical, sarcastic, over-generalizing putdown is one we could do without. Why model Ann Coulter?
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 7:43 PM
I can't speak for PZ, but there are plenty of religious people I respect. Just not ones like Collins, who bullshit and/or lie in claiming that science "supports" their particular brand of theology, and who trade on their reputations in a crass attempt to inflate the value of their propaganda and mislead the naive.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 7:50 PM
And to amplify, if for example a devout scientist takes- as many do- the Stephen Jay Gould "nonoverlapping magisteria" line, while I might personally doubt the philosophical coherence of that idea I certainly would not feel motivated to pick a quarrel.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 17, 2006 8:00 PM
AndyS:
It's clear that PZ is not interested in this, and has never claimed to be, but Collins apparently is. That's why it's sort of sad, even for someone who doesn't share the goal of "reconciling faith and reason", to see him falling back on arguments that don't help his case very much. Where's the inconsistency?
As far as the statement "religion rots your brain" goes...
OK, I'm way more accommodating to religion than PZ is, and I think it's possibly a basic human need, shared by most people except for a small, fixed percentage who are just baffled by the whole thing. So what I would say is that critical thinking and open inquiry are hobbled by dogma. As long as there are questions you cannot ask, possibilities that you cannot entertain, you will always have blind spots in your reasoning (for instance, I think Gandhi had plenty of blind spots, as much as I admire the man).
The only real difference between my formulation above and PZ's is that mine's more verbose and beats around the bush. When I read "religion rots your brain" I cannot really disagree. Read what I just wrote! I sure don't see it as helping one to think. That doesn't even make it bad. Alcohol kills brain cells too, but it's nice to knock back a few with friends from time to time.
What I like about PZ is that he isn't as circumspect as I am. He's far from Ann Coulter. Coulter's problem is not just that she's offensive, but that her position doesn't make any sense and it's doubtful that she believes half of her own spew. PZ may be tactless, but I think he's honest. If PZ thinks "religion rots your brain" then he should say so. He's going to think it anyway, right?
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 8:01 PM
Science isn't, but it's methods applied to religious ideas makes them seem, well, superflous.
PZ is accurate here.
Faith is anti-reason thats exactly why it is called faith, religious faith is best called an irrational faith.
I enjoy PZ's style and apparently so do many others given the blogs popularity. If directness turns folks off perhaps they should develop thicker skin.
Posted by: GH | August 17, 2006 8:16 PM
Scott Hatfield,
Your comments above are right on the money. The effective reaction to harsh, ignorant rhetoric from the religious right is not harsh, angry, and often ignorant rhetoric from scientists emphasizing atheism and ridiculing religion. That is, it's not effective if your goal is to sway people, the vast majority of whom have a religious upbringing. It does work pretty well, however, if your goal is create an echo chamber for like-minded souls.
In the posts and comments on Pharyngula I see a general failure to distinguish between science on the one hand and religion and philosophy on the other. Atheism is philosophy, not science. To me -- as an atheist -- that's an important distinction. God and the supernatural are by definition not the provence of science. To use language common here "any idiot knows that."
Of course I don't think the people using that sort of language are idiots -- they just don't know much about persausion. Some of course may have no interest in persausion, but they are IMO a small minority; most of us want science to be better understood and appreciated.
You write:
and
I think one reason PZ and others make these general condemnations of religion and faith is they fear the crazed religious right, they fear laws will be passed and enforced that pervert science, or that the nature of our society will change in some fundamental and harmful way if too many of the wingnut, religio-crazy notions become generally accepted. And there is some evidence to motivate their concerns: a person like GWB becoming President of the USA and the Dover court case being two relevant data points.
My claim is that PZ and those in his echo chamber are lacking in both faith and science. Faith, because the Dover case, for example, came to an intelligent conclusion; they need more faith in their fellow citizens. Science, because they are not applying scientific thinking to the cause they champion. There is some real science available in the area of persuasion, about what works and what doesn't. You rather eloquently and succintly said "bashing religion is a poor instructional strategy, and instruction is the name of the game." I don't think we'd have to look very far to find scientific evidence of that.
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 8:39 PM
"Infinitus est numerus stultorum."
As is evidenced by the percentage of evolution deniers in our country.
Posted by: j | August 17, 2006 8:40 PM
"Doubt"? Doubt?!
The concept is grotesquely obviously invalid. This is clear to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the nature of science and a mind free of the overwhelming need to reconcile theological nonsense with their reason. By holding such a belief, those people harm the coherence of their own minds, and by sharing it, they endanger the cognition of others. Demolishing the point is not just a privilege but an obligation.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 17, 2006 8:46 PM
GH,
I was under the impression that intelligent discussion in the face of disagreement was part and parcel of the apprieciation of science and that popularity had little to do with it.
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 8:48 PM
Scott
The first is anecdotal: in my experience, bashing religion or (more likely) giving the impression of bashing religion is a poor instructional strategy, and instruction is the name of the game.
Well, that's not my experience. So much for the anecdote.
Coupling, even unintentionally, a general critique of religion with a defense of evolution reinforces the (usually) false impression that evolutionary biologists are pushing a competing belief system.
This is a strawman. The issue is whether it's crucial science to have theists promoting science. That was your claim.
I have found the best strategy, the one which leads to the greatest number of students receiving the information with an open mind, is one which asserts that faith is not incompatible with evolution, much less science.
I never thought it was incompatible. Is it possible that was because my parents weren't fucking idiots? Also -- any data to support that your stategy is the "best"? Or is this just "personal belief" again?
The second observation is historical: faiths which historically have made their peace with evolution have contributed positively to the acceptance of the idea and the general promotion of science.
Not only is that observation historical, it's a non-sequitur. The issue isn't whether a religious person could or could not contribute positively to the promotion of science. The issue is whether it is "crucial" to the promotion of science as you claimed that it was.
You seem to believe that religious people are so fucked in the head that unless you reassure them that they can simultaneously accept scientific facts and believe in God, they won't be inclined to do so. I call bullshit on that, Scott.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 9:38 PM
I can't speak for PZ, but there are plenty of religious people I respect. Just not ones like Collins, who bullshit and/or lie in claiming that science "supports" their particular brand of theology, and who trade on their reputations in a crass attempt to inflate the value of their propaganda and mislead the naive.
Word.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 9:39 PM
PZ may be tactless, but I think he's honest.
Yup. And if I wanted tact, I'd be hanging out at one of those really really really boring blogs where people sit around and praise each other for how fucking civilized they are.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 9:43 PM
There is some real science available in the area of persuasion, about what works and what doesn't.
Tell us more, Dr. Goebbels.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 9:46 PM
AndyS:
The goal of Pharyngula is not to "sway" the "vast majority." It's a blog in which PZ writes what's on his mind and interested parties comment on it.
If it's an echo chamber, then it's a curious one. There is spirited debate among people spanning the spectrum from atheist through religious, but usually sharing the view that evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I often get into long, tedious arguments with people that agree with me about 90% of the way on whatever I wrote. Creationists also post, though I don't list the troll-feeding sessions under "spirited debate." Sorry, they just aren't presenting rational arguments as far as I can tell.
Here's an idea: if your goal is neither to sway the majority nor create and echo chamber, but to encourage frank discussion among interested parties, one way that works "pretty well" is to say what's really on your mind and not mince words about it. This seems to be the main accusation leveled against PZ.
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 9:53 PM
That is, it's not effective if your goal is to sway people
What if our goal is simply to shame people into shutting the fuck up? You know, like how the vast majority of high profile racists who abound in this country are routinely shamed into shutting the fuck up about their racist beliefs.
Do you have any real science on methods of shaming people into shutting the fuck up?
Because I want people to be free to believe in whatever bullshit they want to believe. But I also want them to know when to shut the fuck up.
Take Sen. George Allen. He just learned a harsh lesson in when to shut the fuck up. Science can't "prove" that lighter-skinned people aren't "better" than darker-skinned people. George Allen may believe otherwise but guess what? He'll be shutting the fuck up about his racist bullcrap.
And notice: we don't have other public figures making statements about whether racism may be justified or any other such nonsense. They may be thinking it, sure. But they ain't saying it. They are shutting the fuck up. They know if they give voice to their thoughts they will be humiliated and perhaps even ruined.
This is a good thing. And when the day arrives when religious dipshits are ashamed to give voice to their thoughts that "my holy book is as useful for understanding biology as science" that will also be a great day.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 17, 2006 9:55 PM
AndyS:
Now you've lost me. To be perfectly clear, Dover was decided by one "fellow citizen", Judges Jones, if you're implying it was a jury trial. But on PT and Pharyngula, the conventional wisdom was always that the plaintiffs would win. If you want to call this "faith" in the constitution, rule of law, the integrity of the American judiciary, or "citizen Jones" that's fine with me. It was the creationist side that seemed to believe Jones was a corrupt activist judge who would rule according to political affiliation.
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 10:02 PM
BS, the vast majority of faith claims go directly against everything we know of the world. That is certainly not reason by any stretch of the imagination.
Oh good grief. PZ's blog is popular, people like reading what he has to say. That is a good thing. To call this an echo chamber is rather bizarre given the level of discussion and disagreement that occurs here daily from many different sources.
PZ's popularity likely means his direct style is tapping into a cultural current. More often than not people who enjoy what he has to say. Does this make his right all the time? Of course not but his direct and to the point style obviously makes sense to alot of people. And PaulC summed it up nicely, It's PZ's blog. He can write wants he wants and people are free to express opinions on it.
Posted by: GH | August 17, 2006 10:14 PM
Mere assertion.
are you ever planning to back up any of your claims, or do you just plan on pasting witless one-liners ad infinitum?
do tell.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2006 10:21 PM
Great White Wonder,
Collins said his holy book was not to be used as a science text book. He emphasized that Genesis was metaphorical. You seem to be so, pardon me, enraged at some image in your mind about what religion is that you loose all perspective. Profanity and name calling are (need I say this?) not a form of rational discussion, not attributes of well reasoned position, not useful in science and reason. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 10:25 PM
Paul C,
Yep. A judge appointed by a conservative Christian administration.
Posted by: AndyS | August 17, 2006 10:31 PM
AndyS: Exactly. But you seem to be missing my point. Most commenters on Pharyngula expected Jones to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, just as he did. It was a strong case that many good people had worked hard to present, and though the judge was a Bush appointee, he was widely understood to be fair and competent. So the "faith" that you claim was lacking was very much in evidence if you would look back at some of those postings. The only one I recall claiming Jones would make a corrupt ruling based on political affliations was on the other side. I think it was Dave Scot.
Posted by: PaulC | August 17, 2006 10:42 PM