…and this is a 
Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen
Category: Godlessness • Science
Posted on: April 14, 2007 10:36 PM, by PZ Myers
Nisbet and Mooney do it again, with an op-ed in the Washington Post … and I'm afraid they've alienated me yet further. I am convinced now that theirs is not an approach that I could find useful, even if I could puzzle out some useable strategy from it. In the very first sentence, they claim that Richard Dawkins gives "creationist adversaries a boost" — it's the tired old argument that we must pander to religious belief. This is their rationale:
Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion. The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism. More than 80 percent of Americans believe in God, after all, and many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality (and perhaps even civilization itself). Dawkins not only reinforces and validates such fears -- baseless though they may be -- but lends them an exclamation point.
We agree with Dawkins on evolution and admire his books, so we don't enjoy singling him out. But he stands as a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public.
Good grief, this is bogus beyond belief. Let's pretend: let's say I shut down my blog, Dawkins refuses to lecture on atheism anymore, Dennett retires to a grass shack in the South Pacific, and Sam Harris converts to Mormonism. Furthermore, every scientist in the country shies away completely from ever mentioning religion, except of course for people like Collins and Miller, who continue their "I'm a scientist, and I believe in Jeeezus!" schtick. We'll forget about the odious implications for the freedom of speech for atheists in this suggestion, and just ask whether it would make the slightest difference in accommodating the public to evolution.
The answer is no, except perhaps in the negative sense that the religious would feel freer to push their science-free beliefs on the public, and that some of the sharpest, clearest voices in the argument (I'm not counting mine in that praise) would be silenced. It's not as if the NCSE and ACLU have been pro-atheist organizations, for instance — both are clearly advocates for very specific issues, and are careful to avoid entangling themselves in the anti-religion struggle — but they still get accused of being atheist organizations. We still get the creationists on the ground banking on those fears of the godless. Candy-coating the implications of science has never worked, and never will work.
And it certainly is true that Dawkins puts an exclamation point on godlessness, and good for him. The path we've taken in the past, the cautious avoidance of the scarlet letter of atheism, has not worked. Dawkins represents a different, bolder, more forthright approach — we are staking out a place in the public discourse and openly discussing our concerns, rather than hiding in fear of that old Puritan scowl. We will not go back in the closet.
Even more offensive is the accusation that Dawkins is an example of failure to explain. That is entirely wrong. Dawkins has clearly stated his position, and there isn't any ambiguity there, either in his statements about evolution or atheism. What Nisbet and Mooney are complaining about is not that he has done a poor job of presenting his ideas to the public, but that they and some members of the public are offended by his ideas. I would have been interested if the object of this discussion was to improve our ability to communicate difficult, uncomfortable views to a wary public, but instead these articles have been a call to suppress a subset of those ideas that they don't care for.
If they wanted to impress me or win me over, a more interesting exercise would have been to explain how 'framing' could help us get our message of the virtues of freethought across to that reluctant public. Instead, we get prescriptions to hide away that part of the story, and worse, to hide away the meat of science.
So in today's America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge. Especially on divisive issues, scientists should package their research to resonate with specific segments of the public. Data dumping -- about, say, the technical details of embryology -- is dull and off-putting to most people.
You know, I'm beginning to feel that this is getting personal, and now they're targeting my own personal interests. Is that all I do, "dump data"? Who just "dumps data"? The details of any science are important and interesting, and should be discussed at an appropriate level, but telling scientists that their work is dull is going to both alienate the people Nisbet and Mooney need to persuade, and affirm anti-intellectual bigotry in the public at large. Thanks, guys. Good framing. "Science is boring".
And the Dawkins-inspired "science vs. religion" way of viewing things alienates those with strong religious convictions. Do scientists really have to portray their knowledge as a threat to the public's beliefs?
YES! YES! YES! Knowledge is a threat to beliefs held in ignorance. What Nisbet and Mooney are advocating, despite their disclaimers, is that we should hide our appreciation of the consequences of science from the public. We know for instance that increasing education in science leads to a loss of faith (in general), and is particularly destructive to literalist religions. Should we lie about that? Sweep it under a rug? Religious people, even those who believe in particularly nutty faiths, are not stupid — they can see through the pretense. If we slap a gag on Richard Dawkins, it won't change a thing, except that the world will know scientists can be devious and dishonest. I do not wish to hide my agenda like an intelligent design creationist, thank you very much.
Can't science and religion just get along? A "science and religion coexistence" message -- conveyed in Sunday sermons by church leaders -- might better convince even many devout Christians that evolution is no real threat to their faith.
No, science and religion cannot get along. They offer mutually contradictory explanations for the world, and it is bizarrely naive to pretend that people who believe that the literal events of Genesis are an account of the original sin of which we must be redeemed by faith in Jesus can accept a scientific explanation of human origins. The 'frame' there is that one side has an account of chance and complexity and an oh-so-awkward affiliation with ancient apes that is based on evidence, and the other side has threats of hellfire if you don't believe in an Eden, a Fall, and a dead god reborn. Evolution is a strong and explicit threat to that faith.
If Nisbet and Mooney think a non-literal religious faith that allows that humans evolved from apes and are apes is going to be acceptable to every church-going Christian in America, they aren't very familiar with what we are combating. Proposing that we can sneak support for science into the public's mind by advocating a lesser heresy than atheism is ludicrously absurd.
Once again, though, what I see in this latest op-ed is vague handwaving bolstered by picking an enemy, those uppity New Atheists, and using them as a goad to get people to support poorly explained "framing", rather than any concrete explanation of how framing can provide a positive method for winning people over to a position. They did not sell framing; this was an article that had nothing to offer except an excuse for complaining about atheists.
Seriously, guys. Love him or hate him, Dawkins has always put up a crystal-clear explanation of his position, whether it's evolution or religion; the framing people have put up a lot of fluff and waffling that never even spells out what framing is. Is "framing" another word for obfuscation, or dissembling, or pandering? That's the only message I'm getting so far. That's probably very poor framing on their part.
The title of the article is "Thanks for the facts. Now sell them." I'm still waiting for an article that actually tells me how to better sell difficult ideas with a technique other than simply gagging all the atheists to appease the mob.
If you don't find this article critical enough, read Larry Moran. Or if you prefer the Nisbet/Mooney side, the discussion also continues at Chez Mooney. I get to be the moderate!
Comments
This is wrong. Science and religion offer mutually contradictory methods for understanding the world. The explanations each produces may or may not be incompatible.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 14, 2007 10:43 PM
No, that is wrong. They offer different methods, but most people don't give a damn about how they get their answers. The conflict in the public mind is far simpler: did God design people, or didn't he? Religion affirms the former, science says no.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2007 10:52 PM
I cant believe how disappointed I am in Chris. I am so confused right now.
Posted by: ERV | April 14, 2007 10:55 PM
That's a little daft, Caledonian.
The huge majority of religious people in America believe in something derived from the Bible, and to a lesser extent other texts such as the Koran or whatever crap the Mormons believe.
These books contradict science starkly.
That's the battle here. It's not science versus 'people who achieve a scientifically correct view of the world through religious means."
I'm sure you know that, it just seems odd you'd say what you did, as it has nearly zero relevance to the argument.
Posted by: Gordon S | April 14, 2007 10:59 PM
I get a lot out of your "data dumps", and look forward to them. After all, the "devil" (knowledge) is in the details.
Posted by: suffenus | April 14, 2007 11:04 PM
As outspoken in my own atheism as I am, I do see the need for conciliation on the part of those who can stomach doing so. I mean, with the stats- the 80% godbotherers stat, we can't expect those folks to just up and see the light based on the cold, hard truth from the mouths of me, you, or Dawkins.
It may take a Collins- as much as I cringe at his apologetics, to bring the masses along one little increment at a time. Which would you rather have, a majority believing in a god but acknowledging that Genesis is metaphorical, that only science ought be taught in science classes, etc. or that same group digging their heels in and straining in the opposite direction?
Marginalizing the need for a deity in humanity as a whole isn't gonna be easy and it isn't gonna be quick. Jeebus, can you even imagine The God Delusion on the NYT bestseller list even 15/20 years ago? Not to pimp Virginia Slims but we have come a long way baby.
Nothing (well, besides Mooney et al and who cares what they think?) says you or Dawkins or any of us need to bite our tongues. We just ought to let those who are cut out for that sort of diplomacy have at it without turning the focus of our ire their way.
Posted by: raindogzillar | April 14, 2007 11:08 PM
In other words, God is a delusion all right, but let's not call him that lest with offend some.
What does PC stand for, again?
Caldeonian, sorry but PZ is right, the answers ARE contradictory. I would refer you to the book: God, the failed hypothesis, but physicist Victor Stenger.
Posted by: mndarwinist | April 14, 2007 11:10 PM
Frankly, I'm disappointed in YOU, PZ.
I've done a fair amount of social science research and what Mooney and Nisbet says makes a lot of sense to me. Can't for the life of me understand why you're not able to see what I'm seeing. And I can't understand why you're so inflexible on this.
If people with fairly close mindsets cannot reach a mutual understanding, how far apart do you think it runs with other people. I think this is instructive....
Posted by: gwangung | April 14, 2007 11:14 PM
Can't for the life of me understand why you're not able to see what I'm seeing.
It's up there in the post. Since N & M's arguments seem transparently phoney to me, too, I guess I'd like to see you grapple with PZ's take on it.
Would we see a complete embrace of evolution and science if we shipped all the atheists off to Antarctica? That's a contention I'd like to see some support, for. People aren't religious because other people are atheists. People are religious because religion has had thousands of years to perfect the art of getting people to believe things for no good reason. I don't see why they'd stop doing that just because atheists went back into the closet.
Posted by: Chet | April 14, 2007 11:18 PM
Sometimes, truth can be incredibly offensive. Part of the problem is that our culture has decided that in many cases it is more important not to offend people than to tell them the truth.
This is a particular problem with the Left in this country. We need to stop worrying about offending people with ridiculous views.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 14, 2007 11:25 PM
You know, you could get around that whole "data dumping" problem if you sexed your blog up a bit. Fer instance, next to the pic of the encephalic baby, put a pic of a buxom babe. In fact, leave the encephalic baby out of it altogether, you'll attract a lot more people if you restrict yourself to fluffy bunnies and hooters.
Posted by: Hans | April 14, 2007 11:25 PM
Yeah, for me the tip-off was when they singled you out by name as "missing the point".
Don't know if you ever read that dissertation I sent you, but on the Acknowledgments page, I wrote: "To PZ Myers and John Wilkins, for so very many vital and exciting ideas and their detailed explication**.". Not to get maudlin or anything, but I've personally seen the biology ideas you introduced this information scientist to, developed and incorporated into presentations about representing those concepts in a information system in a rigorous and structured way, get dozens or hundreds of people, scientist and non-scientist alike, to *see* the point, and to get excited about the explanatory power of evo-devo informatics and wanting to learn more.
So much for your turning people off to science with those mechanisms and embryology.
** Tara Smith, too, although she's quoted directly and appears as a primary source rather than indirectly in the acknowledgments.
Posted by: RavenT | April 14, 2007 11:27 PM
Fight against religion is extremely important. But it is a long-term activity (as in "decades" if you are optimnistic). Loud voicing of anti-religious sentiment by Dawkins, PZ and others is important as it makes the debate legitimate (enough for the media to pick it up). The existemce of such a debate puts a worm of doubt into (young) people's minds, so later in life they may be able to break free from the shackles of religion.
None of this is relevant to the politics of the day. Congress and the President need to do something yesterday to start stopping global warming. And to open up stem-cell research. They will never do that unless they are under pressure. They will be under pressure if the public pressures them. If the issue polls high.
How do you get majority of Americans to put pressure on politicians to do something? By getting them to think that they have a steak in this - a personal reason to see such bills written into law.
Teaching them evolution won't work - they just give you an angry look. Moving the discussion over to the religion vs. atheism playing field is counterproductive to say the least.
That is why others, including liberal theists we disagree with on religion, need to do that kind of persuasion. They speak their language. They have their trust. They can produce results fast.
In the meantime, we'll try to work on their kids so in 20 years this entire discussion becomes unnecessary.
More
Posted by: coturnix | April 14, 2007 11:29 PM
I realized after pondering what Nisbet and Mooney's latest piece that not only are there two kinds of atheists - hardline and appeaser - there are also two kinds of appeaser atheists. Namely, strategic (go slowly or there'll be a backlash) and reconciled (no way are we going to get rid of God, so we may as well deal with it). Put me in the camp of reconciled appeaser atheists.
I see what Caledonian is saying about the primary distinction between religion and science being epistemological rather than ontological.
Posted by: Colugo | April 14, 2007 11:30 PM
The other thing that bugs me about all these tirades is that they start with an untested premise, namely the assumption that vocal atheism turns people off of science. I'm willing to wager that most people like their iPods and televisions a lot more than they like taking Communion and listening to some fogey drone for an hour every Sunday. Surely, there are true believers who actually prefer the old fogey to television, but even a lot of religious people see church as a chore -- many of them don't even go, except perhaps for some special occasions!
Atheistic Science: iPods, and free time on Sunday to listen to them. Now that's a frame that'll sell!
In all seriousness, though, if people are so hostile to hearing an atheist voice, why did The God Delusion peak at #4 on the NYT Bestsellers list? Why did Letter to a Christian Nation hit #7 when it was released? People are buying these books and reading them in large numbers. Is this what failure looks like?
I like Corturnix a lot, but one of his comments on Sandwalk really hit the point of all this. He said something along the lines of "this is why we [liberals, Democrats] lose elections". What a ludicrous statement! The Democrats won in November of 2006, and they did so not because they put on their framing hats and outhawked the Republicans but rather precisely because they stood up and spoke out against corruption and waste and the debacle in Iraq. It was a beautiful moment where enough people in the United States woke up, looked around, and said, "Hey, you're right. This isn't how it's supposed to be!" to make a real difference.
But now they've gone back in their chicken little hidey-holes, praying at the altar of Framos, God of All Media, because being vocal and stating the self-evident is "how we lose elections".
Posted by: Joshua | April 14, 2007 11:35 PM
No kidding! This needs to get pounded through some mighty thick skulls out there.
Whenever anyone complains about "angry," "militant," or "fundamentalist" atheists what they are really saying is STFU.
Prior to Dawkins, et al., there weren't many best-selling atheists out there. So the believing masses now act as if that long-term silence by atheist authors is the way things should continue to be.
Unfortunately, so do many milquetoast atheists, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of rationality.
This isn't accurate, though. Some science cannot comfortably exist with literalist religions but there are non-literalist believers out there who have no problem with most or any part of science.
They still can have lots of problems with atheism & atheists, though.
Posted by: MTran | April 14, 2007 11:39 PM
All the emphasis seems to be on how scientists like Dawkins and Stenger are just feeding the Creationists what they want: "See? See? Evolution and science are trying to disprove God!" Why is it so seldom framed the other way?
"Oh my God, Creationists and the Templeton Foundation are just giving it away to the atheists! They're agreeing with them that evolution and science have something to say about God! They're not protecting religion by insisting it's all too vague and untestable to be examined objectively and rationally as to whether it is consistent with other empirical findings! The atheists must be chortling in glee! This is a disaster!!!"
Posted by: Sastra | April 14, 2007 11:39 PM
The Democrats won in November of 2006 because they finally framed the Iraq war correctly, instead of triangulating and being hawkish.
Posted by: coturnix | April 14, 2007 11:39 PM
I saw Michael Ruse speak a few months back, and spoke with him briefly at a coffee shop, and I had a mixed reaction to his approach to the issue. But one of the things it seemed to me that he completely failed to understand is what you're pointing out right here.
He and E. O. Wilson, both atheists, have both championed various forms of "reconciling" science and religion. In Darwinism and its Disconents Ruse spends a whole chapter expounding on ways to "reconcile" Christian faith with science. I think he just doesn't understand that many, many Christians will find an atheist rewriting their religion to be a condescending sham. They might take Ken Miller or Francis Collins a little more seriously, but I don't see how Ruse and Wilson's approach could ever hope to succeed. I don't see how we could expect a significant number of religious people to accept an atheist patting them on the head and saying, "Here's a new version of your religion that's compatible with the facts of reality. I made it just for you!" But I can't help but get the impression that that's what guys like Ruse are doing. To me it seems like a failed attempt to "frame" from atheists who don't understand religion very well.
Posted by: Wes | April 14, 2007 11:41 PM
So the solution now is triangulating and being anti-atheist.
That doesn't seem to be the right answer at all.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2007 11:43 PM
I think there are two sides to this. One group of people (Mooney and Nisbet) care more about the ends (convert people), while PZ, Dawkins, etc. care more about the means (convert people calling a spade a spade). I think another difference lies with who the targeted audience is.
If you want irrational people to stop being irrational, you probably do have to go along with Mooney and Nisbet (from now on M and N), because you are not going to get the irrational people to stop being irrational by calling everything they stand for an childish delusion. That just makes people go into the defensive and clinch to their beliefs even tighter. The only people that will listen are the borderline rational people and the closeted atheists. Even Dawkins has said he probably is just preaching to the choir with "the god delusion".
This brings me to my second point- who the intended audience is. M and N want to convert the already irrational people, while Dawkins and company simply want more atheists to be more vocal.
I'm with Dawkins and PZ. More atheists being more vocal will inevitably lead to more conversation about the issue, and I think this is what will make the difference. Martin Luther king and other activists didn't change public opinion by trying to appease people, they forced the issue to the surface and only then did people really began thinking about it. The old stubborn people didn't change their minds, but the young flexible people did because they were exposed to different ideas when their mind wasn't made up yet.
I doubt anyone will make much of a change with the old generation, it's the new generation that will be affected. Trying to appease THEM is pointless, because they're NOT tightly clinching to their beliefs and resisting any change.
Posted by: TAW | April 14, 2007 11:44 PM
PZ - I agree that they don't do a good job of explaining how to do the selling. And they're not doing a very good job of explicating why framing is so important. The simple version is that, in general, people hold strong worldviews or frames which aren't capable of being "changed" simply by attacking them with logic and information. To really persuade people and get them to understand something new and threatening (e.g. - evolution for a fundamentalist), the teacher (for that's what you are) must frame the discussion in a way that takes account of and engages the frame of the person you want to teach.
This is not just hand waving. This is supported by a lot of good reasearch - in an earlier thread on this topic I recommended the National Research Council's How People Learn, as a good primer on how misconceptions shape understanding.
The question is simple - do you want to "win"? Or do you want people who currently disagree with you to understand the science you are trying to teach them? If your goal is to win the contest between atheists and religion, you are pretty much doomed because you're refusing to use the techniques of teaching and persuasion that are needed to change people's minds. Your commitment to your frame of atheism gets in the way of persuasion.
Posted by: RBB | April 14, 2007 11:48 PM
Gwangung, I am not being inflexible. I'm being dumb.
Really. I don't understand what Nisbet/Mooney are suggesting I do, or that anyone else should do. Do you? Can you explain it to me? Can you point to any specific suggestion in either of their recent articles that I can actually use? If I had something to work with other than "don't do data dumps" and "don't criticize religion", something I could actually try to do, I promise that I would attempt to be flexible.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2007 11:48 PM
Caledonian wrote:
Well, I know a little bit about the scientific method. Can someone explain "the religious method"?
What is that? Is that applying hermeneutics to some book arbitrarily claimed to be the word of God by the culture you're in?
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 14, 2007 11:50 PM
"And it certainly is true that Dawkins puts an exclamation point on godlessness, and good for him."
True. Yet ...
Anyone else see a resemblance between these two images?
Dawkins: Growing Up In The Universe
http://richarddawkins.net/foundation,growingUpDVD
Dante: The Heavenly Throng (by Doré)
http://tinyurl.com/36su72
Posted by: Colugo | April 14, 2007 11:51 PM
PZ,
Just a short personal story to make my point.
I've considered myself an atheist for some years now, but I never let my parents in on the secret. I just stopped going to church. They never asked why. I guess I cringe a little when you make these statements because although I agree with you on the particulars, I can't help thinking how this would have affected my parents if I had confronted them with these arguments.
They were Catholics so creationism wasn't the problem. They needed to believe in God for their own reasons. They were able to live a good life and raise 8 kids (yes 8, they were Catholic AND Irish). But, they let me learn and live my own life and make my own decisions. Seven of the eight kids are either atheist or agnostic and the only theist amongst us has also managed to live a good life (Despite spending 2 years in a seminary!). I suppose there are many others out there who say they believe in God but will not allow that to interfere with reality, as my parents were able to do. Their belief was entirely spiritual.
The physical world had no affect on their belief in God. They were fine with evolution, geology, and any other study of the physcial world. Maybe this type of theist is rare, but they are no enemy of science and shouldn't be treated as such.
Posted by: carl | April 14, 2007 11:54 PM
Yes, I understand this. Actually, I understand that far better than Nesbit/Mooney think: I'm pretty sure that what I write here isn't a drone of facts, but also contains quite a few polemical and emotional elements (you think?). If I had a better mastery of the rhetoric of framing, I could probably cobble up a rationale in those terms for pushing a stronger version of atheism, rather than hiding my beliefs.
Ultimately, though, the problem here is that Nesbit/Mooney are advocating surrender. They are saying that we can't change strong worldviews, period...not that there are tools other than "data dumps" that will help us change those views.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2007 11:58 PM
PZ,
It's midnight on a Saturday, but I want to respond as best I can given the time.
We are proposing an answer to a very specific question that many in policy circles and at major scientific institutions are trying to figure out.
Perhaps this is not your central project, as Coturnix aptly notes, but it is a concern of many.
The question is this:
Over the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, in a diverse and pluralistic society that has to reach collective decisions relatively quickly regarding political debates over global warming, the teaching of evolutionary science in science class (and only evolutionary science), stem cell research etc...what's the best way to engage the broader public by way of the media?
Our answer:
While remaining true to the underlying science, you have to recast messages in a way that connect to people's social identity. And yes, in the United States, that means connecting to people of diverse faiths.
I guess this is our major difference in opinion. If I understand you correctly, you see this as appeasing religion. I don't see it that way.
Dawkins will always play an important role. As we write at the Washington Post, we agree with him on evolution and admire his books. Indeed, our credentials as skeptics and defenders of science are well established.
More importantly, I have devoted large parts of my research program as a social scientist to understanding exactly what happens to science when it moves beyond the science beat and spills over to the political beat, the opinion pages, blogs, cable news etc.
I have published several peer-reviewed studies in this area, and I have joined with Chris in engaging journalists on the topic at the Columbia Journalism Review and now engaging scientists at Science, and a broader audience at the Washington Post.
When science reaches the political pages, when the imperatives and the backgrounds of the journalist and the audience change, when new players are given standing in coverage other than scientists and experts, how should scientists cope?
One tool is to understand how to frame issues--not spin the facts--but recast a complex topic in a way that makes it meaningful to a non-traditional audience. In addition, you have to figure out the media platforms that reach these non-traditional audiences.
That means for example the religious news beat, entertainment media, blockbuster movies, targeted documentaries, and places on the Web where people are not expecting to find science-related information. It even means reaching people interpersonally, as I layout in my latest column for Skeptical Inquirer Online.
In these contexts, it is often most effective, to remain true to the science, but sometimes not actually talk about it.
This doesn't mean gagging scientists or atheists.
As we write at the WPost:
--
There will always be a small audience of science enthusiasts who have a deep interest in the "mechanisms and evidence" of evolution, just as there will always be an audience for criticism of religion. But these messages are unlikely to reach a wider public, and even if they do they will probably be ignored or, in the case of atheistic attacks on religion, backfire.
--
I'm not sure if this answers your questions. As I've noted we have different goals in mind in thinking about the communication of science to the public.
Not all of the themes addressed here can be sorted out in the blogosphere. After all, every medium has limitations. Indeed, Chris and I are trying to work across mediums--including magazines, newspapers, blogs, radio, and public presentations--to raise attention to what we see as a partial answer to a very specific question that a lot of people are trying to figure out.
We even want to go the old fashioned route and talk about it over beers or over the phone.
Best,
Matt
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 15, 2007 12:03 AM
Matt and Chris do not say that Dawkins or PZ need to shut up. Nor do they say that the anti-religion fight is useless - they are for it.
But Dawkins and PZ are well know enough that they cannot go to address a religious, suspicious audience and talk them into anything - that the sky is blue. Thus, Dawkins and PZ have different roles in the pro-science ecosystem than Ken Miller and Francis Collins who ARE trusted by the religious.
So, I would not send Dawkins on to FoxNews to try to persuade the FN viewers about global warming. Even if inclined up till that point, they may revert against it just because the messenger is Dawkins.
What Dawkins and PZ are doing is making it possible to do a critical analysis of religion in the public place - in the media. Something unthinkable 5 years ago, let alone 50. But by being poster children for this part of the fight, they are uniquely unsuited for changing the opinions of the religious on the pressing science-related political issues of the day.
Thus, other people - scientists, journalists, writers, bloggers - not 'tainted' by the vocal atheism tag, need to be recruited and trained to "sell" to the unwilling, uninterested public some politically important ideas.
Posted by: coturnix | April 15, 2007 12:12 AM
Not only is it not the right answer, it would be counterproductive. Expecting atheists to play along and pretend not to be atheist is exactly the opposite of the right approach, which is why I'm so doubtful of Ruse's approach.
An atheist is an atheist because he believes religion to be wrong. Expecting him not to say so is not going to accomplish anything. We don't put such expectations on theists.
I don't know what to think of Moonie and Nisbet's "framing" idea. Avoiding offending people's religious beliefs is almost impossible. If I give an honest statement about what I believe, it's bound to offend many of the faithful. How is a scientist announcing a discovery which clearly contradicts a certain religious belief (that the mind is a function of the brain rather than immaterial, or that morals evolved rather than being handed down by a deity, or that certain archeological evidence does not fit at all with the Biblical or Koranic account, for instance) going to "frame" it in a way that won't offend people? How do you "frame" the science in places where it comes into direct conflict with a widely held religious belief, in places where the two can't be reconciled without completely gutting the one or the other of any of its substance?
Posted by: Wes | April 15, 2007 12:13 AM
Somehow that 'explanation' just turned my confusion and frustration into genuine anger.
This is unbelievable.
Posted by: ERV | April 15, 2007 12:15 AM
This is interesting. I find myself agreeing with both sides. Both sides have some very good points to make, and I guess I just want the best of both worlds. For example:
That's a good point. If, like in the case of global warming, you want people to start respecting science and doing something about global warming right NOW, then I guess I do agree with you Nisbet.
However, I think in the long run PZ and Dawkins are making a greater contribution to the public's perception of science/atheism.
I think there is a place for both of your strategies, and I'd like to see more people doing both.
How's that for getting the best of both worlds? :-D
The general population isn't just a homogeneous entity. I think that people will listen to the people who they agree with. If they're religious and not ready to make the atheism jump yet, they'll listen to scientists who do what M and N are suggesting. If they're less religious and ready for the atheism jump, they'll listen to Dawkins and PZ. The key is having BOTH strategies, not just one. Attack the issue from every possible side.
Posted by: TAW | April 15, 2007 12:18 AM
Matt Nisbet wrote:
And if atheist scientists who bring up scientific problems with the God hypothesis are not supposed to actually talk about it (because it will "backfire") -- but they are not going to be "gagged," what's left? A gentle, rational appeal to please just whisper, and only in certain places?
Posted by: Sastra | April 15, 2007 12:18 AM
TAW: excatly. Those are two related, but separate issues. That is what all my posts on the topic are trying to say.
Posted by: coturnix | April 15, 2007 12:20 AM
I took home two messages from Nisbet and Mooney's comment about "data dumping" - science is boring and the public is too stupid to understand anyway. So they stand on their box and rant about the need for scientists to pander to ignorance and dumb down the science. Sorry to disappoint them but science isn't always easy, and it is far from boring. An ID wank can spit out ten lies in ten seconds while a scientist may need ten minutes just to address a single topic; yet it is the scientist who Nisbet and Mooney berate for not being savvy enough to condense complex ideas into tiddy sound bites: "If scientists don't learn how to cope in this often bewildering environment, they will be ceding their ability to contribute to the future of our nation." Why is it soley up to the scientists? Perhaps instead of pointing fingers at lab coats they should do it in front of a mirror; they, and the public, need to learn that complex issues sometimes require a little more time and thought to understand and unless they are willing to meet at the table and acknowledge and accept that then it will be their intellectual (and religious) laziness that will cede the future.
Finally, a comment about the statement "Do scientists really have to portray their knowledge as a threat to the public's beliefs?" Sorry gentelmen, it is not the scientist's knowledge, it is simply knowledge. It is what it is and it belongs to everyone. Although some may choose to deny it and hide it away it does not change the reality of it. Knowledge, and science, no matter how distasteful to some, should never be pimped into submission by religion or any other dogma.
Posted by: Todd | April 15, 2007 12:28 AM
The targets are not only scientists, but evereyone who communicates about science-related matters: journalists, pundits, bloggers, etc. But the onus is on scientists because they communicate to the journalists, or are invited as experts to say something in the media or in congressional hearings.
Posted by: coturnix | April 15, 2007 12:41 AM
Hmmmm . . . .
Methinks a wise old girlfriend once said it best: "It takes a crank to turn the wheel!"
I say "Rant On, PZ!" A forceful argument will erode people's lithified believes much more rapidly than a slow and gentle flow.
And anyway, why aren't the fundies worried about offending the atheists?
Posted by: William Gulvin | April 15, 2007 12:42 AM
Not sure if it's been mentioned before here, but Michael Ruse wrote an article about this divided house in the latest Skeptical Inquirer, for anyone who is interested: http://tinyurl.com/3cz5v7
I'm gonna agree with PZ on this one. In my opinion, there is a war for minds going on between the rational and the irrational. We're not going to win the war by laying down our guns and sneaking into enemy territory to give them hugs. We need our big guns firing loud, straight, and true if we're going to win ground against the irrational. N&M sound like they're trying to gain support for a very vague and most likely non-functional war strategy.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Justin Wagner | April 15, 2007 12:49 AM
More than 80 percent of Americans believe in God, after all, and many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality (and perhaps even civilization itself).
Do they think people should emerge from a formal education with their ignorance intact?
Nuts to that!
Schools should be a place where latent prejudices are subjected to criticism and unanalyzed notions (like God) are examined (and found wanting).
Have a remedial reality requirement for all incoming college students. Dawkins' book at the top of the reading list. Shove it down their throats.
Enough is enough.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 15, 2007 12:50 AM
I find myself agreeing with the sentiments expressed both by PZ and Mr. Nesbit within this thread, but I also have to point out that the way Mr. Nesbit couched his explanation on #28 seems rather different from his article with Mooney, in that it could be read as muzzling the legitimate questions raised by Dawkins and others.
The impression I receive is that while there might be differences in tactics, there really isn't a hell of lot of difference between the things Nesbit and Mooney recommend as strategy and the things that excellent science communicators like PZ Myers and Dawkins do, unless one thinks that part of 'framing an issue' includes choosing spokesperson who are conciliatory toward religion.
If that's the case, then I admit to being conflicted. Richard Dawkins, by his own admission, may not be the best messenger to certain kinds of messages. But he certainly has a vital point of view, one which must be reckoned with, and I think rhetoric that gives the impression that such viewpoints should be muzzled in the interest of 'framing the message' properly are short-sighted.
That being said, I welcome the opportunity to buy y'all a beer. Please, no mockery, beer is a very serious matter, after all. SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | April 15, 2007 12:51 AM
Props to Nisbet for taking time to respond here. I admire it when someone answers strong criticism.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 15, 2007 12:53 AM
Coturnix wrote:
"That is why others, including liberal theists we disagree with on religion, need to do that kind of persuasion. They speak their language. They have their trust. They can produce results fast."
Wrong--No they don't, No they don't, and no, they can't.
Dominionists and other hard-Right religious movements (with big money behind them) don't give a damn about liberal theologians and aren't persuaded in the least.
TAW wrote:
"...If you want irrational people to stop being irrational, you probably do have to go along with Mooney and Nisbet (from now on M and N), because you are not going to get the irrational people to stop being irrational by calling everything they stand for an childish delusion. That just makes people go into the defensive and clinch to their beliefs even tighter. The only people that will listen are the borderline rational people and the closeted atheists."
I guess I have a different conception of human beings, since it is my view that all human beings are basically rational at some basic level; Irrational beliefs go away in time because of *cognitive dissonance*; this is largely the product of education in general and no coincidence that, generally speaking, the more educated a person is, the less religious they will be; either that or they create increasingly elaborate personal theologies to "massage" the cognitive dissonances--adopting beliefs that would've still gotten them labeled "atheist" and burned as heretics in less tolerant ages. The hope is they will get tired of this elaborate "dance" and just say "aw, fuck it" and eventually embrace the real, material world around them, warts and all. A solid grounding in a scientific education encourages this especially well, by ratcheting up the cognitive dissonance, placing an emphasis on the demand for evidence, critical evaluation of truth claims, etc.
Perhaps there are some so tightly wrapped up in their traditional myths, based on upbringing, or personal crisis in their lives that they made better though adopting religious beliefs and attitudes. If they didn't so frequently try to seriously f*ck with the lives of their fellow human beings, they'd be genuinely deserving of pity.
I applaud PZ for writing "we won't go back in the closet".
Damn right.
Since it's often used as a metaphor and a parallel, it would do atheists good (and I include myself in this) to study a bit more the history of Gay Liberation. From what little I've read, it did not come about though appeasement and making people feel comfortable about their ignorant, bigoted beliefs. It was militant because it had to be, as often a matter of sheer survival. It frequently forced the issue. Called people bigots who deserved to be called that (myself included). When a High School friend came out as gay during my college years, it was genuinely shocking to me, but in the end, I decided that his friendship meant more to me than my irrational beliefs, that without that bedrock friendship in High School I don't know if I would've come out of the experience nearly as well adjusted as I did. It was an experience that helped me confront my own incipient homophobia and work on it. One of the many myriad reasons I divorced my ex-wife after separating from her (and her making a deeply religious turn back to her fundie roots), was I couldn't stomach her casual homophobic bigotry, based on her deeply held religious ideas. It was coming to understand that some animals exhibit homosexual behavior patterns in nature that helped me enhance further my toleration, and I hope what I believe to be my enlightened acceptance of homosexuality in humans today.
It was understanding the wide diversity of human development, including all manner of genetic disorders, complications, etc...that made me react with utter disgust towards a Southern Baptist preacher for condemning body piercing, dyed hair, long hair in men and short hair in women as "strange and unnatural", "contrary to God's natural order"...I wanted to stand and shout back to the pulpit and say, uh, Reverend, have you actually had a long hard look at the REAL natural order around you, and just how strange/weird/unsettling/wonderful it really is, that you claim your Gawd created? have you??? Because if you had you wouldn't be able to stand up there and spout that kind of ignorant shit with any conviction.
Literalist Christianity of the basest sort requires wearing blinders to the wider reality and viewing the reality in front of you in a kind of Hallmark Card caricature (or the inverse, the slasher-horror flick lens; incidentally, ever notice how moralistic a lot of those flicks are--teens having illicit sex, or trying to, always leads to monsters and/or madmen with chainsaws for some reason.)
Theists will probably always outnumber atheists, because among other reasons, atheism requires an internal commitment to ongoing self-learning and many are too lazy, too incurious to bother. Atheists being generally more scientific minded and scientifically literate understand the global population problem and some deliberately choose not to contribute to it, either by having only small families or forgoing offspring altogether. The religions of the world have all to often joined in chorus to say "don't trust human reason", "God has a plan but you are not given to understand it", "have faith and you will be rewarded"; Human progress has been possible because of the hardy individuals who had the guts and gumption to say "bollocks to that", and also the more mundane tasks of testing out what works and what doesn't while scratching out a living in the natural world. Pray for rain or try out different irrigation techniques? (and learn to read weather patterns--which is what the priests were doing--the smart ones who wanted to keep their jobs, anyway).
I just worry that the material basis for a secular, humanist culture might not be there, or will be much harder to maintain, in a world of increasing energy scarcity.
I hope that's a problem people have to deal with AFTER I'm dead, but I'm still fairly young.
For what it's worth, I still can't find an available copy of the Dawkins book (The God Delusion) available at ANY library in Houston, TX without putting myself on a considerable wait list!! All copies are checked out or on hold. I think that's significant, and I think it's a good thing (however personally inconvenient it may be for me--I'll have to make due with Daniel Dennett's book, which I was able to get)
Posted by: JJR | April 15, 2007 12:55 AM
I must say after reading the Mooney/Nesbit column I have lost some respect for both men and their thinking processes. They seem to think people are both stupid and unable to parse things on their own. In addition to being thin skinned and easily offended. They remind me of the pussies who get their ass beat in school and cough up their lunch money on a glare.
This is simply bullshit. In any church there are many actually the majority of pew sitters who have major doubts along the course of their life. Church attendence rarely exceeds 20% ofthe populace on any given Sunday and catholic churches are closing all through the northeast. People in the USA have a more general spirituality and are more than open to common sense speak as provided by Dawkins and PZ than that column gives them credit.I wonder if either men know any church goers. It's no accident that this blog is so popular and Dawkins books sell so well.
The polls don't always show what is really going on and acting like a bunch of sissies will not bring the discussion where it needs to be.
Posted by: Uber | April 15, 2007 12:56 AM
While I'm feeling conflicted, I have to point out that Caledonian's brief (comment #1) is accurate, just not all that relevant to PZ's central point. (Maxwell Smart voice): 'If only his finely-honed philosophical bent could've been used for niceness!'
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | April 15, 2007 12:58 AM
Actually I think everyone misses the central point that underlies discussions about science/anti-science in the United States.
It is not that Scientists communicate badly. Many communicate very good. It is that anti-science (and generic anti-intellectualism)is being pushed heavily by by well funded and organised groups who have a deliberate agenda.
So blaming scientists for what is wrong in the public discourse is rather silly. In fact, it is stupid. Utterly and senselessly stupid.
Posted by: LiberalDirk | April 15, 2007 1:04 AM
JJR: nobody is talking about persuading uber-dominionists here! They are unreachable.
But there are many people who live quite nicely with their cognitive dissonance happily ever after. They are a majority in this country. They are needed for political victories. We need to know how to talk to them, or send those who do to persuade them.
It's not about traffic, dammit, but go to my blog and see what I've written as well as dozens of other people - all linked from my first post on the topic (some of whom talk in details about framing of global warming):
- there is difference between short-term and long-term goals.
- there is a division of labor in accomplishing these goals.
- framing is not spinning or lying.
I am glad that we are having this debate - but it's only been a week. Do you really expect the detailed point-by-point instructions on how to frame each science-related issues at such short notice? After all, commentaries here and all the other blogs debating this are also data that need to be analyzed. The concrete suggestions will come out of this debate later, I am sure. Then they will be tested in the real world. What do you expect in one week?
Posted by: coturnix | April 15, 2007 1:07 AM
Although M&N intend to use framing in hindsight its consequence may be that scientists have to think about "selling" their stuff beforehand and in the long run this may have some impact on funding policies.
Science is, has been and will be offensive to religious world views. This is something believers have to cope with and it cannot be that scientists have to think about if everybody feels comfortable with their results. This would be like lowering the standards in university courses because some issues are to difficult for some students.
Posted by: sparc | April 15, 2007 1:08 AM
This isn't about appeasing religion; it's understanding the psychology of how to effectively communicate and sell ideas to people. I made a similar comment about Dawkin's approach in a blog entry linking his "Root of All Evil?" documentary.
Of course Dawkins is a brilliant thinker who occupies a kind of intellectual ivory tower. The average person doesn't have that kind of background. More often than not, the average person has had some sort of religious upbringing which, rooted in childhood, often has deep emotional meaning for them. A religious person might see Dawkins' approach as condescending, which is hardly the way to effectively communicate with anyone. More likely they will simply feel insulted and may not even bother to listen to him at all, or worse, rebel against what they might see as blasphemy/cultural uprooting.
Nor does it necessarily imply that college professors in specialized fields have to dumb down their lectures. High schools and colleges could have introductory courses for a general student population (in science, logic, critical thinking, etc.) with the expectation that they will be dealing with more technical language if they choose to pursue a field more in depth. Maybe what's needed as well are charismatic personalities like Carl Sagan.
I come from a background of religious fundamentalist-types and they have their own patented, fear-based methods of resisting and even demonizing the science community. They teach their children that atheists, "evolutionists", etc. are "tools of the devil". It's a very human tendency to think in terms of "us vs. them" and they certainly put that to good effect. (Unfortunately I see you doing it here to a degree, sorry.)
Like a dog trained on fear, sometimes you have to take a kinder and gentler approach in order to introduce new ideas that go against earlier training.
Posted by: Ann Homily | April 15, 2007 1:10 AM
At what point do Ken Miller and other theistic scientists realize that long-term atheist strategists see them as the advance guard for their own agenda (by making science seem more palatable, and hence bringing the masses a step closer to atheism), become resentful, and rebel?
Or perhaps they believe that an alliance with atheistic scientists is advancing their own agenda: by convincing the public that they don't have to choose between faith and science, more theists will adopt evolution while more science-oriented deists, agnostics, and soft atheists will open up to religion.
Posted by: Colugo | April 15, 2007 1:20 AM
PZ, I'm a professional at this "framing" stuff. I'll write a primer on what to do, how to do it, and why. As you know, I've already said quite a bit, but I really can't explain it all at blog-comment length.
Posted by: Interrobang | April 15, 2007 1:24 AM
JJR wrote:
Nah, I agree with you. Maybe not ALL human beings, but the vast majority. I just think that changing the minds of the very religious, older people is beyond the scope of the simple communication of science. The time and effort needed to change the minds of people like that is simply a lot more than we have. I think we should focus on the young and the flexible. If we do a good job with them, the old and inflexible won't matter much.
JJR wrote:
Yes, but the education in question (high school, university) normally happens when people are young and flexible. There ARE religious scientists out there. If college education in science can't rid some people of their religious convictions, then I doubt scientists, no matter how and how well they communicate, won't be able to squash irrational beliefs on EVERYONE.
JJR wrote:
Exactly. What did come about through appeasement and stuff? However, the point I, Coturnix, N&M, and others (I think?) are trying to make is that there are two levels here. The gay liberation, slave liberation, etc. take time. It's actually amazing how fast people's ideas can change, but it still takes much too long when taking into consideration that some things are needed to be done NOW. Like with global warming. There is STILL discrimination against minorities, gays are STILL opressed, etc. We can't afford to wait on some issues. I am personally a very militant atheist, I hate religion's guts, but I think there's not only room for people like N&M, but that they're necessary for the short-term.
Posted by: TAW | April 15, 2007 1:24 AM
So blaming scientists for what is wrong in the public discourse is rather silly. In fact, it is stupid. Utterly and senselessly stupid.
Exactly. If anyone is to blame, it's the MSM journos who soft pedal atheism because they don't want to offend anyone.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 15, 2007 1:26 AM
Really. I don't understand what Nisbet/Mooney are suggesting I do, or that anyone else should do. Do you?
Well, every time I run it through BableFish it says: STFU
Posted by: MTran | April 15, 2007 1:28 AM
And, quite frankly, they're right. They're so right that even scientists' eyes glaze over when they get a data dump. It's a not uncommon reaction from biologists when someone puts an equation in front of them. On the other hand, present them with a pretty graph, and they're happy.
Personally, I find that text crammed full of names of genes and proteins makes me stare into space and wonder who memorises them all. It's just horses for courses.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 15, 2007 1:29 AM
Matt:
So be true on CO2 and global warming and never ever talk about the consumption of SUVs? This whole framing thing reminds me of Basil in the Germans episode.
Posted by: sparc | April 15, 2007 1:38 AM
The authors should provide examples of data dumping, from the hard science press and from the MSM.
Maybe then it will be possible to figure out what they are talking about.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 15, 2007 1:41 AM
It seems to me that the Nisbet and Mooney's argument is right on the money...if we lived in the 1980's or earlier times. Scientists needed to be short and sympathetic to religion when all they had were soundbites on major television and radio shows.
Now, who gets their news from major news networks? Not my generation (I'm 24). We get it from the internet (and The Daily Show, of course). The internet is the perfect platform for scientists. Not only are they more technically savy then our religious brethren, but if today's posts don't captivate, tomorrow's just might.
And who's internet sites do we go to? We google whoever is mentioned in the "normal" news outlet. That means vocal atheist scientists like Dawkins and PZ get our attention, not the mouse in the corner.
So, PZ, keep ranting, and continue to help atheism be the fastest growing "religious" group in the nation.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | April 15, 2007 1:49 AM