…and this is a 
Sometimes, conflict is the only answer
Category: Godlessness • Politics • Religion
Posted on: September 1, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Mooney says that because polls show that Americans are so blinded by religion that they would choose the words of a bloody-handed Middle Eastern sky god over the evidence of science, Dawkins and all us uncompromising atheists are wrong in our tactics. We are henceforth to heed the words of Nisbet and stop confronting people on their religious biases.
Huh?
But that's exactly the problem that we're addressing — that people will foolishly prefer "white-beard-in-the-sky-guy" over reality. And the message he takes home from this is that we're wrong? This is nuts. I read that poll and it says we have a serious problem that we cannot simply ignore any more; this rather craven avoidance that Mooney/Nisbet propose is not working and will not work.
I'm definitely siding with Jason on this one.
Those attitudes, and the unflagging respect for religious faith that they entail, must be weakened. Can that be done? I don't know. It certainly isn't easy, but other Western countries have managed to do it.
But I am definitely certain that you can not weaken those attitudes by refusing to attack them.
These polls represent the state of affairs today. What got us here was not the vocal opposition to religion served up by Dawkins and the others. They are newcomers on the scene. Instead, what got us here is years of Republican pandering to the religious right, coupled with Democratic cowardice in the face of increasing challenges to church-state separation (among other factors, of course). As I have written before, it is the nicey-nice strategy of non-engagement endorsed by Mooney and Nisbett that is refuted by these polls. The strategy where you publicly attack bad religious ideas has barely been tried.
I have this suspicion that Mooney and Nisbet are drinking too deeply of the kool-aid of public approval. They've got a message that says do nothing, avoid criticizing people on their deeply held beliefs, and instead try to smuggle little bits of good policy past them by actively pandering to them by "framing" your proposals in their terms … and of course audiences love that and eat it up and congratulate them on their wise and sensible perspicacity afterwards, because nothing they say will ever confront the root of the problem, and those people will never feel the need to change. Nisbet/Mooney provide a feel-good façade for inertia on our side, and reinforcement for the destructive beliefs of the religious right.
You are doing something wrong if the purveyors of ancient lies and dumb dogma are thanking you for your conciliatory position; we should be making them angry and worried, and if you have deep differences with someone, you are doing neither you nor them any favors if your sole strategy is conflict avoidance. You might as well just surrender and be done with it.
Politics
Comments
Why can't we do both? I do agree with you that it needs to be confronted. At the same time I think it makes sense to work on the framing they endorse since it isn't going to be an overnight transformation and we may as well do our best to improve legislation and policy in the meantime.
Posted by: Gimpy | September 1, 2007 6:18 AM
I admire the way PZ uncompromisingly states his position. And, after reading many a post by him, I've not noticed any hypocrisy.
That's unusual.
Posted by: John Morales | September 1, 2007 6:24 AM
I was actually interested in the idea of framing from the outset. I guess most of us scientists don't actually mind a little constructive criticism or some helpful advice about how to communicate science to non-scientists. Unfortunately seeing the result of framers trying to frame 'framing' itself hasn't given me much confidence in their abilities to teach me a positive way to frame science.
Come on, cut out the crap, its really just spin isn't it?
Posted by: MartinC | September 1, 2007 6:30 AM
Nevermind, I just realized that would be counter-productive...
Posted by: Gimpy | September 1, 2007 6:35 AM
Did 9/11 bring the religion problem to the forefront, or exacerbate a religion problem that was going away?
Nothing is ever going to change until people realize that the GWoT is a problem of religion and that are religions are equally stupid and useless.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | September 1, 2007 7:19 AM
I think the whole debate on framing needs to be re-framed. :) Framing, done right, is the good rhetorical practice. Understand and know the audience you are addressing, understand the kinds and forms of arguments that will be most persuasive to that audience. There is some good, solid science that shows how an idea is expressed influences what a person thinks about that idea.
Posted by: Bob Ramsey | September 1, 2007 7:29 AM
Although I'm not saying the current situation in the US is anything like Sweden in the fifties, it may still be interesting to note that the intense cultural debate that eventually led to the separation of the Swedish state and church was sparked by a book by the philosopher Ingemar Hedenius, in which he attacked Christianity and picked it apart. He criticised the church's truth claims and its position in Swedish society - and what do you know, it worked...
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | September 1, 2007 7:45 AM
It should be kept in mind that in a public debate, the goal is NOT to convince your opponent. Most people won't learn about science and probably have no strong opinions about it; the hop on board with whoever appeals them the most at the moment. The only way to win them is to show them that the anti-science crowd is deluded, then they won't want to be associated with those people.
Posted by: Josh | September 1, 2007 8:04 AM
Felicia - what separation? Last time I was there, Sweden had a goverment supported and operated church. Good thing too! We all know governments are pretty hopeless at running anything properly, so once the church is government-run it dies. Thusthe Swedes are some of the most educated, sensible and non-religious of people. The UK is following suite. The US founding fathers made a big mistake, churches in the USA are way to profitable to ever die of their own inertia.
Mooney is nuts. We are way to kind fundamenalist believers - talking will get nowhere. They should not be given modern medical treatments, they should be made to use a horse and buggy and they should be sold special religious computers with an abbicus inside. If they lived within the limits of their faith and outside science most would quickly come round.
Posted by: Sailor | September 1, 2007 8:07 AM
So what does Prof. Myers propose? That we tell Ken Miller to take a hike, that his services in support of the teaching of good science in the public schools are no longer required because we think that his religious views are a pile of crap?
Posted by: SLC | September 1, 2007 8:07 AM
SLC,
You have hung around here long enough to know that is not what PZ is saying. What PZ is saying is that he will not pander to people's religious sensibilities. Should such people choose to support causes that PZ supports then I am sure PZ will welcome such support whilst being clear that such support cannot be contingent on PZ moderating his views on religion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 8:20 AM
If the question is what causes public attitudes on a great issue to shift, then the answer is normally a strong political campaign, in suitable social conditions.
In the UK where I live, and elsewhere in northern Europe, two thirds of people consider themselves not to be religious. Those shows a massive secularisation over the last hundred years. We need to understand why this happened here and not in the US. It might for instance be a result of free health care and the Welfare State. The decline in religion certainly accelerated when these policies were introduced in the UK in 1945.
Most US liberals would probably agree that these were good policies anyway, and if they undermine religion that would be an excellent bonus.
Posted by: Jon Eccles | September 1, 2007 8:20 AM
You get it all wrong, SLC- of course no one has said anything of the sort. But if I ever met Miller I would ask him, on what basis he decides what parts of religious texts are symbolic and what parts are not. So, that genesis nonsense is symbolic. How about virgin birth, resurrection, or bodily ascent? And if such things actually happened, how about Mohamad chatting with angel Gabriel in his cave and then going to visit God riding a winged horse? Is he accepting the first set of "extraordinary claims" and rejecting the second solely on the basis of his parents having brought him up as Catholic? He is a scientist. Where is the critical thinking in that?
Posted by: mndarwinist | September 1, 2007 8:31 AM
"I have this suspicion that Mooney and Nisbet are drinking too deeply of the kool-aid of public approval."
I do not agree with Nisbet/Mooney, but I think Bob Ramsey (#6) points out the real crux of the matter: persuasion.
Unfortunately, the very people we are trying to persuade, are people who evidently value emotion over reason. Religion is after all emotively driven. Reason alone won't persuade them, so I do think how the issue is "framed" will determine the success of the endeavor.
As "Luna the Cat" expressed over on Jason's thread, these people latch onto the emotively charged words like "deluded," stop reasoning and become defensive. These people are already "rationally challenged," using words with derogatory personal connotations like "deluded" just exacerbates the very problem that I'm assuming we're trying solve: helping people become more rational.
Posted by: dogscratcher | September 1, 2007 8:32 AM
One has to wonder how long it would have taken women to get the vote in the UK if it were not for "militant" suffragettes like the Pankhursts. Had they followed the advice offered by Nisbett and Mooney would they have been voting sooner ? Somehow I doubt it. I suspect those in authority who were opposed to allowing women to vote would have been able to ignore them: As it was their campaign took a form that simply could not be ignored.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 8:36 AM
The fact of the matter is that it's the position we're advocating that offends them, not our choice of words. Look at how often Dawkins gets compared to Ann Coulter, despite the fact that her writing style is about 6.02e23 times more poisonous than his.
"Framing" is irrelevant when the essence of the position is anathema to them.
Posted by: dzd | September 1, 2007 8:39 AM
Dogscrather,
I rather doubt the more fundamentalist believers are reachable, at least not in significant numbers. If they really are so put off by their views being described as deluded then they really would seem to be unreachable.
I would point out however that your initial premise is a false one. Dawkins has no problem working with believers here in the UK to fight the teaching of creationism. Thus it is simply untrue for you, Luna, Nisbett and Mooney to claim that his approach alientates potential allied in the evolution/creationism battle.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 8:43 AM
Dzd,
And that is in fact what Nisbett and Mooney are saying. It is not the tone they seem to be objecting to, although I am sure they would have something to say about it, but the message.
Dawkins, PZ et al are saying loud and clear that belief in a god is not a rational position and is not compatible with a rational worldview without the holder of those views making serious compromises in order to accommodate the conflict. They further point out that these compromises are damaging not only to the individual but to society. It is not clear if Nisbett and Mooney think that belief in god in compatible with a rational worldview or they just think we should not say it is not.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 8:50 AM
Re Matt Penfold
"You have hung around here long enough to know that is not what PZ is saying. What PZ is saying is that he will not pander to people's religious sensibilities. Should such people choose to support causes that PZ supports then I am sure PZ will welcome such support whilst being clear that such support cannot be contingent on PZ moderating his views on religion."
Unfortunately, I am less sure of this position then Mr. Penfold is. Given the vitriol spewed by Prof. Myers at Miller and Collins, my take is that he would indeed prefer that they take a hike as he apparently finds their support of good science teaching in the schools somewhat embarrassing.
Re mndarwinist
"You get it all wrong, SLC- of course no one has said anything of the sort. But if I ever met Miller I would ask him, on what basis he decides what parts of religious texts are symbolic and what parts are not. So, that genesis nonsense is symbolic. How about virgin birth, resurrection, or bodily ascent? And if such things actually happened, how about Mohamad chatting with angel Gabriel in his cave and then going to visit God riding a winged horse? Is he accepting the first set of "extraordinary claims" and rejecting the second solely on the basis of his parents having brought him up as Catholic? He is a scientist. Where is the critical thinking in that?"
Just for the information of Mr. mndarwinist, Miller was confronted with his views on the virgin birth by Richard Dawkins at a symposium in New York in 2004. I found his response to the challenge to be rather weak, consisting of a statement that he wished he had a sample of Joshua of Nazareths' DNA to determine where his Y chromosome came from.
Posted by: SLC | September 1, 2007 8:51 AM
SLC,
It is not Miller's and Collin's support for good science education that PZ disagrees with, it is their claim that good science is compatible with a belief in god.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 8:56 AM
Sailor, when were you last in Sweden? Put it like this: The Swedish church and state are still kind of married, but they don't live together anymore. Officially, the separation happened 2000. The Swedish Church is now a private organisation. However, it does get special treatment - for example, its membership fees are collected by the national tax board. I expect there will be a complete divorce over the next few years though, people are increasingly looking for different ways to do things such as marriage and naming ceremonies. I also expect the membership numbers of the Swedish Church to sink steadily over the next few decades, as people are no longer automatically enrolled at birth and fewer and fewer are enrolling their infants in an organisation they themselves don't care about.
But you're right in that having a big clunky government-run church certainly helped in making Sweden as a whole rather apathetic when it comes to religion, which certainly would've facilitated the debate Hedenius caused.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | September 1, 2007 8:57 AM
The distinction made all too infrequently in these debates is between religion and faith. Many who consider themselves religious are, in fact, strong allies of those opposed to the admixture of church and state and generally rational in their outlook. Our grievances lie with those whose actions are based on faith in the oversight and intervention of the divine fiction (despite any assertions that the former enables the latter). The challenge is in attacking ridiculous faith-based assertions without seeming to attack those who value their religious identity and community.
Posted by: SFG | September 1, 2007 8:59 AM
You know what audiences really love PZ? The ones who are steeped in religion and have steeped their children in it to the point that they think that all of morality and goodness and apple pie proceeds fundamentally from a love of God? Those guys?
Turns out, they absolutely love it when "2 + 2 = 4" comes coupled with "Therefore, there is no god." Man, I can't tell you how many creationists I've won over with a message purely steeped in the data alone. That's all they've been missing, PZ. You're the first person to ever think of such an approach! If they just hear the facts about evolution, they'll adopt it. That's what they've been missing! Go, PZ! Spread your message of science and data-driven conclusions, resting assured that a data-centered approach without regard to whatever beliefs they've held to that point will see them through to adopting science!
Umm, you know those kids in your class who you've presumably used that approach on? They want to be in your class. And they vote. But that population is dwarfed by the population of people who aren't interested in understanding the data behind our conclusions and are foremost concerned about a science that bespeaks atheism.
By the way, PZ, that population votes too.
We've discussed this before. Coupling strong science education to the proselytizing of atheism just is a nonstarter in places like Kansas. It's just not politically astute. And you're calling Mooney and Nisbet craven for recognizing this? How politically insensate can you be?
When I go to creationist revivals and I talk to people about what evolution really is about and they respond by saying, "That's evolution? I thought evolution meant I couldn't love God anymore..." Well, PZ, I've had some success in getting Christians to relax about science education with that approach. And it's not like "Let's look at the data" hasn't been tried in presentations to creationists.
Frankly, man, I find it very difficult to distinguish your message here from the same kind of deluded, inability to deal with reality, willingness to support any argument that preserves your cherished beliefs you see in creationists. In areas like Kansas and others where good, open-minded people are ready to learn about science but are steeped in religion, why would you require us to couple strong science education to atheism? (Or approach science softly to those concerned about science's erosive effects to religion.) How could you be so blinded to the potential for people to therefore avoid strong science education in preference to maintaining their beliefs in God? Have you not heard of homeschooling?
I summarize my views thus: If Mooney and Nisbet's position is craven and they are Chamberlainist appeasers for their approach, your approach is an asinine political nonstarter and you are an ivory tower scientist who ought to work a bit getting people to buy into public policy they aren't necessarily inclined to support a few times before you tell those who've been having success influencing public policy for the benefit of science and everything good and virtuous that they ought not be so craven in their approach.
You know I love your blog. You know I have the deepest respect for you. But this drum you're beating - not just "evolution" but "evolution" coupled inseparably with "why the hell are we even listening to these christians when we could be selling a message of evolution that obliterates their cherished beliefs without a whit of concern for their likely reactions to that message when it comes time to vote" - doesn't really gel with reality too well. It's data driven, sure, maybe in the lab. But it's not reality driven. And you're deluding yourself if you think it's gonna work.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 9:00 AM
So here's my 2 cents. To use an old but very true statement; it's put upon us to be the change we want to see. How can we expect others to accept a naturalistic and theistic-free world if we don't openly do the same. If we aren't willing to attack the sky-daddies, etc. for fear of angering some folk why should we expect others too? It's hypocritical to do anything else. Do you honestly think that the TV evangelists are out there saying to themselves "Man, I'd better not say this, people will latch onto a couple of phrases and make me look bad." Of course not. Most of them live what they believe (f*ucked up as their beliefs are) and people respect that. Anyways, a lot of people do.
Posted by: Dahan | September 1, 2007 9:00 AM
The constellation of religion, far more vast than the black holes of anti-intellectualism (a small subset of which is Creationism) is culture. The belief of most people who claim religious foundations is in their tribe, in people with whom they identify. For most people on earth, there is virtually or absolutely no alternative to their religious (read cultural) identification. Given the poverty, authoritarian domination, and homogeneous societies in which most humans live, only a vanishingly small fraction have the education or experience on the outside to even consider apostacy. Now consider the tiny fraction from authoritarian religious societies who do have the opportunity to know alternatives. On street of any college town in North America, Australia, northern Europe, etc., consider what the young woman in head scarf, levis, tee shirt, and jogging shoes will think about PZ's and Dawkins direct frontal assault on "religion." She will think, they are attacking me, who I am, my kind, my tribe. She will not be inclined to read or think further about what is found on the Scarlet Letter blogs. The same applies to members of my extended family who belong to fundamentalist churches. More subtle arguments apply to the highly educated following of Ken Miller (the lion's of whom aren't Catholics, by the way). Religion is culture. The assault on religion is an assault upon who people are. Ken Miller has the right tack.
Posted by: Don | September 1, 2007 9:07 AM
Compared to the religious noise machine belching forth from churches, synagogues, mosques, AM stations, cable shows, billboards, tent revivals, etc., 24/7, doesn't the noise of a handful of vocal atheists sound more like a fart in a hurricane?
It is unreasonable to critique these few atheists, right out of the gate, for attempting to level the playing field.
Nisbet/Mooney need a reality check
Posted by: caynazzo | September 1, 2007 9:08 AM
Burt,
I am afraid you all into the same trap that Mooney and Nisbett do in thinking the only conflict between reason and faith is the teaching of evolution. It is not, unless things like the rights of gays to marry or adopt do not matter to you, or you do not think the use of faith to justify killing is a bad thing. You also fall into the trap of assuming this is just about the US. Again you join Nisbett and Mooney in this failing. Nisbett is so bad I am not sure he knows there are places outside the US.
Posted by: Matt | September 1, 2007 9:08 AM
Don,
Religion is the problem so your answer is to fight it with .... religion ? Sorry but that really is a stupid idea.
The problem is not fundamentalist religion, although that is the worst, it is religion in toto (excepting Spinoza style religion which I assume we are). Religion has the idea that faith can trump reality, and no pussy-footing around will make that the idea that it can not and does not any more palatable to the religious.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 9:13 AM
I'm never quite sure whether this blog is an international orientated website, providing science related topics for readers around the world to comment upon, or alternatively whether its a local blog of Hicksville Kansas. Quite frankly a lot of us actually live in the 21st century. We read calls for silence of rationalism for fear of offending fundamentalists and all we hear is the twang of dueling banjos. I thought the US had some sort of amendment to allow free speech after all.
If someone thinks believing in religion is a delusion then why should they be made zip up?
I don't care if someone thinks my belief of evolution or scientific rationalism is a delusion. I don't care if they say so out loud, just so long as they don't try to make me squeal like a hog.
Posted by: MartinC | September 1, 2007 9:20 AM
>>I am afraid you all into the same trap that Mooney and Nisbett do in thinking the only conflict between reason and faith is the teaching of evolution. It is not, unless things like the rights of gays to marry or adopt do not matter to you, or you do not think the use of faith to justify killing is a bad thing.
Let me lead off by saying that I agree with you that gay rights is important. My argument above doesn't mention it, but I excuse myself via appeal to a bit of synechdoche here: working with believers about evolution is similar to working with them regarding gay rights, abortion rights, not selling their children into slavery, etc. The fact I don't mention, for example, gay rights in my argument doesn't mean it's not also a serious issue with which I'm also very much concerned.
>>You also fall into the trap of assuming this is just about the US. Again you join Nisbett and Mooney in this failing. Nisbett is so bad I am not sure he knows there are places outside the US.
How do I fall into the trap of assuming this is just about the US? We address other cultures in ways that other cultures will understand also. We don't soften the data but we soften our approach, helping them to understand the data that underlies our conclusions in ways that don't discontribute to our rapport.
So despite what you're written, I'm sorry that I'm not able to see your point. "Science approached with cultural competency" >> "Science alone" is my viewpoint in a nutshell. PZ calls this approach craven. I call it politically sound. The approach seems applicable worldwide. I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 9:22 AM
I have to laugh. This is your defense of why we must not attack religion, the ultimate unreal irrationality?
I say go ahead and send Ken Miller to deepest, darkest Kansas to missionize for a conciliatory version of science -- let him and his kind do their work to weaken the grip of religion (but don't be fooled: the people of Kansas aren't stupid, and they know he's making cracks in the religious fabric).
But some of us will continue to point out that all of religion, every bit of revelation and made up nonsense and archaic myth, doesn't "gel with reality" and isn't "reality driven". I know it makes them cry out in horror, but I won't lie about my position because it makes Ma and Pa Fundamentalist squirm.
I also think you sell Kansans short. There are lots who happily embrace godlessness, there are more who, while they don't want to give up their cherished beliefs, will also appreciate the frank and outspoken opposition to the fucking insane Christianists that are dominating their politics. We need to grow those two populations. We won't do that by making nice with the Kansas Taliban.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 1, 2007 9:23 AM
Matt Penfold,
It is more than likely true that many fundamentalists are beyond reason (literally), but I am seemingly more idealistic than you. I think many people at least in the US hold irrational beliefs simply because they don't know any better, and I think those people can be persuaded with the proper approach.
I thought I made it clear that I don't agree with Nisbet/Mooney. I actually think people like Dawkins and Myers perform an essential service to society, one that will persuade some people to question faith. But one size doesn't fit all. When your only tool is a hammer, eventually everything starts looking like a nail.
I think there are many out there who are persuadable that the Dawkins approach will alienate, but I both don't think we should give up on them, nor censure Dawkins.
In my previous comment I over-generalized when I said, "the very people we are trying to persuade...." and I should have qualified it as "one segment of the very people we are trying to persuade..." because I don't think it is as simple as rational/irrational people.
Posted by: dogscratcher | September 1, 2007 9:26 AM
You also fall into the trap of assuming this is just about the US.
We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.
Posted by: Graculus | September 1, 2007 9:30 AM
Has anybody else noticed the tagline for the latest "Speaking Science 2.0" post?
What? Where?!
One fringe benefit of working in physics is the disdain one can summon for any "result" claimed to have been found in the social "sciences." In this case, I think that disdain is justified. Certainly, the people who advocate "framing" don't seem to be treating their description of human nature as a hypothesis which can be falsified or revised based on incoming data. In addition, we've been treated to a massive confusion between description and prescription. The discussion of this survey is only the latest example: we see that people are reacting emotionally, rather than rationally, to ideas beyond their experience, but that just indicates the extent of the problem — it doesn't by itself specify a solution.
Remember way back, when a few of the SciBlings were defending "framing" because it sounded like a logical extension of what professors do every time they lecture to freshmen? "You simplify and gloss over the details in your introductory bio class," the argument goes, "so you should be willing to do a little more of the same thing for the general public." Sounds plausible, doesn't it?
But after trying to read through the anthropological roots of the subject, I have to say. . . that's not framing!
When lecturing to students, even freshmen taking their first semester of biology, a professor naturally assumes that they and the students are operating within the same mental arena. Empirical and rational statements rule. Evidence is in, arguments from authority are out. When a subject is simplified, you will be told so, and you will often be informed about when you'll get the full story. Facts matter, and these facts will be on the test. Skipping over the details of pair-rule genes and MADS boxes doesn't change the basic expectation that both the teachers and the students will be operating in the scientific mindset from Day 1.
Getting people outside the university into that mindset is the problem!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 1, 2007 9:31 AM
Ok then, I can show your objection is invalid by a simple example.
Here in the UK Dawkins is seen as both a leading atheist and a leading scientist involved in evolutionary theory. As you might imagine he is strongly opposed to the teaching of creationism as science and a year or so ago there was a suggestion that a state funded school would be doing just that. If your assumption was correct and religious people did not want to deal with Dawkins then please explain why he was able to sign an open letter to the Government calling on them to ensure creationism had no place in the science classroom. The interesting point about the letter in the context of this discussion is who the co-signatories were. There were other scientists, as you might expect, but also leadiing Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and Jews. This shows that the claim Dawkins' position makes it impossible for atheists holding the views Dawkins' does, opposed to the teaching of creationism to work alongside believers is quite simply untrue.
The usual rejoinder I see when I make that point is that the UK is not the US. Well that is true, but then proves my point that Nisbett, Mooney at are insular and parochial.
Posted by: Matt | September 1, 2007 9:32 AM
Dawkins: Hey! Wake up! Religion is delusional.
Mooney/Nisbet: Now, now. Be nice to the deluded people.
PZ: BLEEP. THAT.
Woo-hoo!
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 1, 2007 9:33 AM
Martin C,
Well, of course you're right...to some extent. But you see, I think there are very few of us here that believe in making the theists "zip-up". However, there are quite a few of us who would like those that are trying to cram theism down our throats to zip-up. Unfortunately, those trying to do just that are the ones in the front of the band, so to speak. Admittedly, some are more attuned to the "Black Panther" ideology of change than the MLK variety. I think you might agree, though, that without both of those types of confrontation, the civil rights movement would still be even further behind in it's work of equality. It's the same now with this fight. Were the Panthers trying to curtail free speech of the KKK, etc? No, not really, except when it was a true threat to African Americans. You still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre (unless there is one). That isn't an attack on free speech. This from a ACLU member, by the way.
Posted by: Dahan | September 1, 2007 9:33 AM
>>I have to laugh. This is your defense of why we must not attack religion, the ultimate unreal irrationality? [That it is a political nonstarter.]
I like how we've changed from "Let's approach science in a way that's culturally competent" to "Let's force the atheists shut up." Nice straw manning there, PZ.
I agree with you though about the rest. Make your message of atheism as loud as you wish and unite with me in the support of Miller, et. al., who push for strong science education.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 9:44 AM
Alas, Nisbet and Mooney seem to have totally misunderstood and distorted the concept of framing.
Posted by: writerdd | September 1, 2007 9:49 AM
Burt,
The message Nisbett and Mooney are putting across is that atheists like Dawkins and PZ should shut up. You seem to not have grasped that.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 9:50 AM
Sorry. Just now parsed what you wrote correctly...
I said: "[PZ's position] doesn't really gel with reality too well" and "But [PZ's position] is not reality driven."
PZ wrote: "I have to laugh. This is your defense of why we must not attack religion, the ultimate unreal irrationality?"
LOL! An amusing antiparallel, to be sure. But of course you've seen the data that show atheists are dwarfed by people of faith, especially out in Kansas. However irrational faith you consider faith of all kinds to be, there's no arguing that there's more theists than atheists.
It's amusing to consider the irony of using rational thinking to arrive at the conclusion that one must approach the teaching of rationality in a culturally competent fashion to successfully get purchase in a population of people with irrational beliefs. That irony, though, doesn't make the conclusion any less true.
Your other paragraphs suggest you agree with me, but you're point is well taken. It was an amusing antiparallel.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 9:57 AM
"LOL! An amusing antiparallel, to be sure. But of course you've seen the data that show atheists are dwarfed by people of faith, especially out in Kansas. However irrational faith you consider faith of all kinds to be, there's no arguing that there's more theists than atheists."
Depends where you look. In some countries in Europe you would be wrong.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 10:04 AM
>>The message Nisbett and Mooney are putting across is that atheists like Dawkins and PZ should shut up. You seem to not have grasped that.
Mooney is an atheist and says as much in his post. It is difficult for me to understand how you "grasp" that Mooney feels atheists should shut up when he announces his atheism on the very post you've supposedly read. Are there other data to which you appeal to support this conclusion? (Some other post perhaps where Mooney says for atheists to not be atheists or something?)
Now, there is a difference between atheism like Mooney's and atheism "like Dawkins and PZ"'s. Namely, Monney's is culturally competent and Dawkins and PZ's is culturally insensate.
Science taught/given/etc. in a culturally competent manner >> science given without regard to culture.
This would seem to be Mooney's argument. It is, at least, mine. PZ and Dawkins can (and should) put out their message, but I think the idea that Mooney is craven for being politically and culturally sensitive discredits PZ when he says it.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 10:08 AM
Burt,
Please go read what Mooney and Nisbett are actually saying, rather than what you think they are saying.
They are NOT, as you claim, telling Dawkins to shutup because he is an atheist. That is the point you either cannot or will not understand. The issue they have with Dawkins (and PZ) is that Dawkins and PZ say that religious belief and a rational worldview are not compatible unless the holder of those views makes serious compromises, and that in doing the holder damages not only themselves but society. It is that point they do not want Dawkins and PZ to make as they think it damages the fight against creationism.
I hoped you would at least have grasped what this is all about. It seems not though.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 10:14 AM
And please explain what you mean by:
Science taught/given/etc. in a culturally competent manner >> science given without regard to culture.
It makes no sense.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 10:16 AM
>>If your assumption was correct and religious people did not want to deal with Dawkins then please explain why he was able to sign an open letter to the Government calling on them to ensure creationism had no place in the science classroom.
I'd love to see this open letter. My guess is that it would engender much more support sticking to a pro-science message or affirmation than it would if it were anti-religious.
Without seeing the letter, I'd prefer not to comment on your conclusions regarding Mooney and Nisbet, but my guess is that Dawkins wrote a statement to which people could co-sign that didn't really mention atheism as much as it mentioned pro-science. That's a message anyone could agree upon, even if the statement in question were written by an atheist.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 10:20 AM
Burt,
"Without seeing the letter, I'd prefer not to comment on your conclusions regarding Mooney and Nisbet, but my guess is that Dawkins wrote a statement to which people could co-sign that didn't really mention atheism as much as it mentioned pro-science. That's a message anyone could agree upon, even if the statement in question were written by an atheist."
I have read the letter. I have been unable to find it online as yet. You are correct, there was nothing contentious in it unless you were a creationist but your point, and that of Nisbett and Mooney is that Dawkins' so alienates religious people he ensures that they will not co-operate with him in fighting the creationism. The fact that this letter exists, and Dawkins has worked with religious leaders on other occasions to fight creationism shows their, and your, claim to be a false one.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 10:30 AM
As H.L. Mencken said, "One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms."
Posted by: F1ken | September 1, 2007 10:34 AM
Is this the new tagline? Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Myers are "culturally insensitive," while "Mooney/Nisbet/Miller/Humburg" are "culturally aware"?
Screw that.
We are fully aware and are sensitive to the fact that broad swathes of the population credulously believe in outright nonsense that not only makes them look dumb as rocks (when I know they're better than that), but also blocks science and education, and sends political policy looping off into destructive insanity. That's reality. That's what we need to address.
On the other hand, your side seems to think that we must tiptoe around the fact that these people believe in a wrathful deity who peeps at what they do with their genitals and wants to kill them if they do not bow and scrape to him. You self-proclaimed "sensitive" ones seem to think the answer is to put your blinders on, ignore the giant phantasmal freak in the living room, and suck up to the farmers by pretending that we've achieved greater crop yields because America is a Christian nation, plus a little bit of discreet help from science.
You guys go ahead. "Frame" the issue as one of utility and productivity, for instance, so that we can sneak a little science in on the side while being "culturally sensitive" to the bone-in-the-nose kooks running the deluded tribes of Kansas. I think some of us will take a different tack. We're going to proudly declaim our freedom from superstition, and with a clear eye and a loud voice, we're going to invite everyone in the fine state of Kansas to join us in the 21st century.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 1, 2007 10:45 AM
Matt, that's our problem then. I don't think that Dawkins so alienates people that he'll never be able to collaborate with believers. I think that a message of science that entails atheism will have more purchase in the public mind than a message of science that doesn't make any particular claim about atheism. I suspect Mooney and Nisbet would agree. I suspect you do as well, given post #47.
As for what cultural competency means, imagine you were a pro-lifer physician and you held the view that as long as someone's heart were beating, without regard to quality of life or futility of treatment. Now imagine your patient is a person with end-stage, widely metastatic cancer and let's make this person bed-bound with minimal ablities to perform activities of daily living. However, your patient is alert, oriented, and competent to make medical decisions. Your patient, in full awareness of the consequences of her reasoning, requests that she not be revived if her heart were to enter a dysrhythmia.
Your motivation, given the above (and just go with me here - I'm sure you're not any of the things I've said), is to extend this patient's life. And you're insensate to her values of quality of life over quantity. How do you propose to convince her appealing only to the data? You could regale her for hours about epinephrine boluses and calcium supplementation in codes and you could support your reasoning with all the data in the world. But your patient's values go beyond the data. It's her decision and patient autonomy governs medical ethics in this case: the data are important, sure, but here they just aren't paramount.
In a roundabout way, that's what this creation/evolution issue is like. These people aren't idiots. (Dembski's got 2 Ph.D.'s for heaven's sake.) These people aren't ignorant of the data. (Though they certainly write like it.) Their values are different. Maybe they're in fear of evolution. Maybe they've got a financial stake in creationism. Maybe they've just listened too long to Pastor Yokel who has managed to convince himself (despite the teaching of most seminaries my friends I correspond with have attended) that evolution is of the devil.
I'm trying to argue that science given without regard to cultural pressures that might go against that science just isn't going to be effective in convincing the masses. At least, it won't be nearly as effective as a version of that selfsame science that *is* culturally sensitive.
I think that's Mooney and Nisbet's point as well. I don't think Mooney is seeking to stifle PZ when he argues in favor of atheism. I do think, and I agree with the idea, that PZ is hurting the cause of science education if he says that evolution entails atheism. If it's not cultural insensitivity that explains PZ's description of Mooney and Nisbet's data-consistent appeal to be culturally sensitive to believers as simply "craven," then it's that PZ values atheism more than he does science education.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 10:58 AM
I think we're being side-tracked here a little bit. The question is not "should the Dawkins crowd or the Mooney crowd shut-up?" It's not even "should science be taught in a culturally relevant way?" It's "should elements of science be glossed over in order to appear more compatible with a highly religious worldview?"
To me, this last question is a no-brainer: Absolutely not. (My opinion on the first two questions: "Neither" and "absolutely.") To do so would be, fundamentally, to lie about the discoveries of science and our current understanding of the world. Science is a very peculiar type of human thought, one that strives to be as neutral, empirical, and logical as possible. It has worked remarkably well --- better than any alternative view so far --- in explaining the world around us and producing usable technology and policy. That is why we value and teach it. And if you're looking for a frame, that's it.
There is absolutely no reason to bring any gods or religions into the picture here. Personally, I don't buy Gould's whole "on-overlapping magisteria" thing, but ultimately when it comes to teaching science, the question is irrelevant. There is no need to talk about god in a science classroom, either in the context of existence or non-existence. Such questions can be simply answered by saying that "they're not relevant to the topic at hand" (which they aren't). What we do need to assure is that science is taught in a way that respects the facts and best ideas of the time, and does not simply become an exercise in lying by omission.
Personally, I suspect that a better understanding of science (and even more importantly, the scientific method and it's applications to every aspect of our lives!) does inevitably weaken religious resolve. This is exactly why many religious leaders are bent out of shape about the subject. But the answer to their challenge is simply to say that science is not about god, and to fight for the highest standards. Whether they want to believe in a god or not is their choice, and I don't think any of us want to take that away from them.
Posted by: Nathan | September 1, 2007 11:05 AM
Ya know, if it wasn't for Dawkins, PZ and the other cajones-bearing science advocates pushing the cultural envelope and taking the heat for it, all these kinder-gentler positions would be the current "militant atheism."
Not that many decades ago, even these weak-sauce god/science synthesis positions were heretical, anti-religious stances that people in this country had to put their ass on the line for. But the panderers insist on focusing on the gradual nature of the change, and completely ignore the people who were pushing like hell that whole time, as if that had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Fox1 | September 1, 2007 11:08 AM
Culturally insensitive? Christians are battling the ignorance of Voodoo in Haiti. Are they subjected to the same scrutiny as atheists battling the ignorance of Christian belief?
I can't see the difference. Can you?
My battle against religion is based on the religious promotion of ignorance. I allow one option for religious ignorance in my battle and that is the personal religious belief in a god. This they can keep this to themselves.
Dropping a bible in place of Voodoo beliefs serves to further the "Us and Them" mentality where a guide to humanist values would serve to bring folks together.
Posted by: Gene Goldring | September 1, 2007 11:11 AM
I'm with gimpy, we should have (and do) both approaches. We need the majority of citizens to feel sufficiently unthreatened by the majority of scientists that science is allowed to survive. At the same time the PZs, and Dawkins will lead the 100year conversion effort.
I would suggest (without data, just my gut feeling), that a key difference between Sweden/UK and America, is that the former are not anti-intelectual cultures. Anti-science in the US is highly correlated
with anti-intellectual, anti-expert opinion, as well as anti-liberal. It is well known that the USA electorate has a bias against any candidate whose manner suggests they are smarter than the voter.
Posted by: bigTom | September 1, 2007 11:19 AM
BCH --- I think Dawkins and Myers have become something of scape-goats for the failure of scientists to effectively oppose the forces of ignorance here in the U.S. Dawkins in particular has become a bit of a household name, but I somehow doubt that the thought process at work is "ZOMG, Dawkins says evolution leads to atheism, therefore the scientists must burn!" Instead, it's driven by a very real understanding that a better grasp of the fruits of rationality, well, makes people less religious.
This is the reason science is a threat to religion. Religion here in the U.S., by and large, understands this. And there's not a lot that advocates of science can do except to refuse to play by their rules.
If anything, I think Dawkins and Myers are to be commended for their strong support of science education. If I'm going to fault anyone, it's neither them nor the militant theists (who I may strongly disagree with and find completely nuts, but I can respect the tenacity that they cling to a dying worldview), but the more general population of scientists who have about as much spine when it comes to pushing high standards as your average nematode.
Posted by: Nathan | September 1, 2007 11:23 AM
Oh, I see a huge difference. Atheists are *not* promoting the spread of HIV/AIDS by telling lies about condoms to Haitians in the name of Jesus.
That alone should get the Christians who participate in it a great deal more scrutiny, because it establishes a track record. I'm not planning to hold my breath waiting for that wholesale scrutiny, though.
Posted by: thalarctos | September 1, 2007 11:25 AM
>>You guys go ahead. "Frame" the issue as one of utility and productivity, for instance, so that we can sneak a little science in on the side while being "culturally sensitive" to the bone-in-the-nose kooks running the deluded tribes of Kansas. I think some of us will take a different tack. We're going to proudly declaim our freedom from superstition, and with a clear eye and a loud voice, we're going to invite everyone in the fine state of Kansas to join us in the 21st century.
Shorter PZ Myers: As someone who has no interest or experience promoting science to believers, I am perfectly poised to declare as craven approaches that have been shown to work with believers.
PZ, you have no truck with cultural awareness. You are the classic ivory tower intellectual. You rail against theists but your rage must surely extend more broadly. Why must we bother with people who fear immunizations for nonscientific reasons? Why can't we just hammer people with the data until they relent? Why can't those freaking Jehovah's Witnesses just relent to the damn blood transfusion that will save their lives? My God, man, the inability of people to just look at the data and be convinced by it as you are must be positively maddening! You called Nisbet and Mooney craven for being culturally sensitive about creationism. I imagine that when I accept a Jehovah's Witness's refusal for a life-saving transfusion it must seem as murder to you.
Preach from your tower PZ! Do your best to shift the winds of political change by telling us again and again and again nothing more than the data. (Surely history has shown obstinance to be a universally successful negotiation tactic.) In time, maybe your message will have purchase beyond those who already agree with you.
I leave to others to judge how politically sensate or culturally competent a person who describes the Kansans who would otherwise like their kids to learn about science but are concerned about possibly losing them to atheism and (by virtue of their beliefs) for eternity - which, let's not forget, are the majority - as "bone-in-the-nose kooks."
At least when you call me craven, I'll be in very distinguished and honorable company, two of whom (Mooney and Nisbet) seem to be very much on the right track with promoting science.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 11:31 AM
Burt:
You could consider this column of his from the Washington Post:
Mooney may be an atheist, but he's clearly saying that atheists should not criticize religion. I disagree.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | September 1, 2007 12:07 PM
I can only imagine that Burt must think that science is different for different people. I suppose in his world evolution only happens for those who do not have a religious belief that it does not. I wonder if creationists ever get infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 1, 2007 12:26 PM
"Religion has the idea that faith can trump reality"
It has the idea that faith trumps logic. This is explicitly stated in many places.
Therefore, no amount of logical argument or data can convince a person who has faith. You can bury him in a million syllogisms, and he will still believe.
What might work is humor and satire, as HL Mencken says. But we know what happens to people who make jokes about Islam.
Posted by: Don Cox | September 1, 2007 12:29 PM
>>Mooney may be an atheist, but he's clearly saying that atheists should not criticize religion.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion. What Mooney is saying here, and I'm pleased to say that without communication between us I reached the same conclusion, is that when you're attempting to advance science to an audience who wouldn't necessarily be interested in the data behind the science (and for example would be more interested in how, say, evolution doesn't mean that they're going to hell or that everything they've ever believed in is bogus), talking about the data or the science might not be the best approach. Instead, talk about the things that are really at play, which for theists would be the theism or the theological barriers that would be preventing them from getting the conclusion your trying to get them to make.
So, for example, David Berlinski offered a few questions that supposedly challenge evolution. The response that was printed in the Wichita Eagle (and you'll have to trust me here since the link is now broken) simply answered the questions as asked, like the writer were a student dutifully answering a teacher's questions on a test. This was an absolutely boneheaded mistake.
No one on any side or in the middle of the creation/evolution issue was going to be convinced by an appeal to the data. And just to save some time, there are seven people in the entire universe who give a crap about peppered moths, there are eight who care about the flagella, and somewhere in Ireland there's a dachshund who takes a passing interest in eye evolution. Everyone else cares about these issues because of what they represent - they were or are offered up as examples of creationism. So when Wells talks about Peppered Moths or Behe blathers about flagella, it is important to know the actual answers to the questions being asked, but most people won't care or wouldn't be convinced if they heard those answers. So don't focus on them.
Instead, when Berlinski talks about moths, pro-science activists should talk about experts in multiple fields have independently used the conclusions of evolution to prevent disease and make our lives better. When Behe delivers an address on flagella in a forum designed to support a creationist effort to hijack a science standards revision, pro-science activists should answer instead that the accepted processes of science do not normally include the appeal of scientists to non-peers or high schools prior to being accepted by those who work in the field.
In short, Mooney and Nisbet have got it right, which means in a sense I agree with me. I think their (our?) perspectives deserve another look. It's not an attack on atheism: it's telling otherwise one-trick scientists (who know how to talk about the data) to learn some new tricks and learn how to reach people who don't have truck with the ways scientists reach their conclusions. (And mutatis mutandis for those who come from a religious standpoint towards science.)
Take another look at the article. I hope you'll find new meaning in their language.
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | September 1, 2007 12:39 PM
1) It's worthwhile to point out that PZ dissected Berlinski's crap soon after he shat it. The link is here.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_im_wasting_time_on_this_guy/#comments
2) >>I can only imagine that Burt must think that science is different for different people. I suppose in his world evolution only happens for those who do not have a religious belief that it does not. I wonder if creationists ever get infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria?
That argument cuts both ways, dude. I suppose in your world, public health measures like immunizations and a science-enlightened citizenry only help those who are immunized and science-enlightened. I wonder if you'd prefer a world in which only those voters who are atheists supported science (good luck getting that grant) or a world in which science were favored by people of any belief or demographic. Maybe you'd like a world in which you, the science-enlightened (presumably atheist) had to pay for hospitalizations for those who didn't get their kids immunized as well. Good luck with that atheism purism thing you and PZ have going. The rest of us will try working with people of faith to support strong science.
And, just to clear up the record, evolution affects everyone, even those who don't believe in it. You're addressing me as though I were a creationist. Google my name if you think I'm in league with the likes of Wells or Behe.
BCH
Posted by: