…and this is a 
My crimes are being documented
Category: Personal
Posted on: June 3, 2008 11:33 AM, by PZ Myers
So all these people are coming to my talks, and they're reporting on me! Scott Hatfield caught my talk at the Berkeley IEDG meeting, and even has video of my conclusion. Geoff Arnold has a discussion of my talk at the Pacific Science Center last night.
One odd (or not so odd) thing. Both of those talks have focused entirely on the process of communicating science; I'm making a case for rhetorical strategies to combat the rising tide of creationist foolishness. They have not been about atheism, and I try to phrase everything as universally applicable to even the most devout scientist — I'm telling scientists to express their passions, get out there and be advocates for good science, and to tell beautiful stories.
And what are most of the questions about? Godlessness. Some people seem confused and even angry about the fact that I do not promote compromise with religion, even when I'm trying to promote tactics that are orthogonal to religious belief, and that if I'm asked about religion, I'm completely honest about the fact that it is indefensible bullshit.
Oh, well. I'm speaking on Friday to the Seattle Skeptics, and everyone will be pleased to know, I'm sure, that that talk begins with an introduction in which I trash the bible before moving on to discuss an example of a beautiful science story. Obviously, I need to embrace my inner atheist.
My mother is also coming to that talk. I hope she doesn't grab me by the ear afterwards and give me a spanking…that would be so embarrassing.
Uh-oh. I've been caught on camera wearing bling and flashing gang signs.
Comments
Weird. When the link's fixed, the comments vanish. Spooky are the ways of the Interwebs.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 3, 2008 11:35 AM
It's not like you don't have a certain reputation, PZ...
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 3, 2008 11:47 AM
I enjoyed your talk, thoroughly, PZ, though the acoustics in that room were lousy. I'm not surprised that the questions focused on religion and atheism - it's what you're notorious for. Sure scientists should talk to the media and the general public with more enthusiasm and passion. I doubt if you'd find many scientists who disagree with you, even if we're not particularly good at it. So, those are good tactics, but not controversial. Criticizing religion, now - that will get people's backs up. Folks who have disagreed with you on that topic will be highly motivated to stand up and ask questions.
Posted by: antijen | June 3, 2008 11:48 AM
Eww look at the dropping someone left on Monkey Trials:
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 11:50 AM
"A question. Is science a necessary and sufficient condition for Atheism and the attendant ridicule and personal attacks that Atheism produces?"
There does seem to be a connection between an evidence-based world view and a low tolerance for evidence-free bullshit.
You're too mean, PZ. Why can't you just please the fundamentalists by being more like S J Gould: polite, NOMA-supporting, completely ineffectual at stopping the rise of fundamentalism in America, and dead?
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Mate, in the event that your mother does embarrass you like that, you can take comfort in the fact that some people have it even worse!
Posted by: Quasarsphere | June 3, 2008 12:07 PM
I was at the talk last night and really enjoyed it! You know, I was discussing with my friends at the bar afterward how the Q & A had very little to do with the subject of your talk and everyone was harping on atheism.
I actually found that fairly disappointing as the subject of your lecture was interesting enough on its own to warrant a great disccussion.
Posted by: Jeff Arnold | June 3, 2008 12:08 PM
I saw Scott's account... and I was really impressed with that simple yet obvious point of fra... f... how to tell people that your subject is worthwhile. I've already posted on it at my blog: because it is beautiful. I'll add a link back to here in a postscript.
Kudos.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | June 3, 2008 12:08 PM
And who is this Geoff guy with the disturbingly similar name to my own??
Posted by: Jeff Arnold | June 3, 2008 12:09 PM
I'm probably going to get locked away for this, but there are times, reading the defenders of the omnipotent, that I seriously want to lay about me with a wet haddock.
Posted by: wazza | June 3, 2008 12:10 PM
Oh, and when atheists are "reasonable" (read: meekly accept everything dealt out by the religious and intolerant, and then make a point of saying that we're probably wrong and that their views are just great and don't result in anything bad at all) in defense of their views, they get ignored or called closet christians.
So keep in breathing fire, PZ.
Posted by: wazza | June 3, 2008 12:12 PM
I'll do my best to break down teh st00pidz from my earlier post that hurt me the most.
Clearly this person already distrusts science. You can smell the loony a mile away. First, no, it's not necessary OR sufficient. Atheism stands on it's own and has been around since we evolved brains. Second, Atheism does not produce ridicule or personal attacks. People do. As an aside, atheism is much less effective as disassociating people into in-groups than religion any way you look at it.
Science is only one (the most effective, also) way to knowledge and wisdom. There's no reason it can't arrive at wisdom. Either way, he unspoken false dichotomy here is that if science fails, you gotta trust in religion. Stan forgets philosophy and art and music and socialization. This is a further clue that Stan is an unbalance theist without any scope of the world.
I can agree science is limited to material existence. But Stan is assuming without any reason that there IS more to existence. What is this based on? In the end, Stan is saying that science is limited to everything we know and have ever known. I'm ok with that.
This one just hurts the brain. Science is one of the most dominant forces on the planet. I'm not even gonna take the time to address that, it's almost a given. I'm flattered that Stan thinks atheism (why does he capitalize it?) is a dominant force. But I don't see it. What is atheism doing on the world stage? Another clue that Stan thinks atheism is a grand threat to his religious worldview.
I don't see this backed up. So we don't produce art, music, literature, or philosophy? Or are you saying we're just less religious? I don't think the whole of our culture is focused on producing new technologies.
Explain the difference between information and wisdom. If not by science, how else will we learn an accurate view of history, the birth of civilization, and more knowledge? Science is it.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 12:15 PM
Damn! I missed the talk at the Pacific Science Center. Thanks for posting the link to discussion of it!
Posted by: Aaron Boruff | June 3, 2008 12:20 PM
Good for you PZ! There isn't any chance for compromise with the fundies. Why should we? They are batshit crazy. You can't even get away from them by staying home. They pound on your door! Come out of the grocery store and there they are putting stickers on your car.
If I was your mom I'd be proud of your courage. :)
Posted by: Patricia C. | June 3, 2008 12:21 PM
PS:
Coincidentally, Carl Zimmer is at the Seattle Town Hall tonight.
Posted by: Aaron Boruff | June 3, 2008 12:22 PM
I've always considered religion to be a subset of philosophy. People only grant it a separate category because of habit, preference, and ubiquity. Just an exercise in vanity, really, like trying to say that humans should be considered as a distinct category from all the other great apes just because there are several billion of us and only a few hundred thousand of them.
Posted by: amphiox | June 3, 2008 12:34 PM
I loved the talk! The pub was a bit too noisy for my taste, though, but I guess that's just how it goes.
I very briefly summarized PZ's talk on my site, but I really like the picture we took together. I got PZ to flash a gang sign: http://jeffthefish.com/2008/06/03/pz-myers-will-meet-you-at-village-inn/
Thanks for being a good sport. It occurred to me that for all you knew, I could have been asking you to flash a creationist gang sign for an upcoming documentary...
Also, PZ, I wanted to mention that if you have time you should visit the Seattle Aquarium. They temporarily have on exhibit a tiny red octopus, whose tank is right next to the giant pacific octo tank. He's so tiny HE LIVES IN A BARNACLE! And if you go on Sunday, I'll be volunteering there.
Amen.
Posted by: Jason J Brunet | June 3, 2008 12:37 PM
Anytime a religion is critically challenged to provide substance to its claims, they complain of persecution. A complete double standard. They insist from science actual video footage of whale evolution, but can't even back the most straight forward of their claims without ultimately relying on belief. All they have are appeals to emotion and gobs of circular rhetoric. Pathetic.
PZ and anyone afforded a voice and a spotlight should call them out on their bullshit at every turn - politely, sure fine. But always direct and specific. And always bear fangs the moment they start using deceit and dishonesty - which they always do in a debate setting.
Posted by: Alex | June 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Nice pic, Jason of jeffthefish, (comment #17). You have indeed outbearded PZ. But the bling! The BLING!!
PZ, you are the man.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | June 3, 2008 12:45 PM
"Today "information" is king, having usurped "wisdom" with the sheer power of ubiquity."
What exactly is 'wisdom' anyway? How is it different from intelligence? Unless you are talking about D&D or final Fantasy, its a meaningless sound byte.
Posted by: Josh West | June 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Did PZ bring his own bling or did Minion Hat Guy bring it?
Oh oh oh, before I forget...Hat Guy (sorry, I don't know your name) asked about resources for teenagers. There is a teenage girl in Denver who blogs about science stuff: http://splendidelles.wordpress.com/
She is amazingly intelligent.
Posted by: Jason J Brunet | June 3, 2008 12:48 PM
I think PZ, in the video clip, hit the nail exactly on the head when he noted that the average taxpayer, who actually pays for science, thinks what most scientists do is a waste of money. Granted, most tax revenues go toward military and social programs, but still it's true that the average taxpayer kicks a couple hundred bucks into NIH and NSF every year. And PZ also hit the nail on the head when he noted that as a result of the need for scientists to increasingly justify what they do, the hype is getting out of control. This is bad for two reasons: 1) The public, conditioned to expect that every scientist is curing cancer, is inevitably disappointed when they learn the truth. 2) Typical hype for basic science often leads to inadvertently teleological descriptions. And here is where I think PZ's argument for inherent beauty in nature might not work so well (with apologies in advance, since I obviously didn't see his entire talk). I personally have learned to avoid talking about inherent beauty and admirable molecular arrangements, because it can be misleading. The catalyst for this was an interview I did for some work wherein I described a particular molecular arrangement as being particularly well-suited for it's apparent purpose. These statements were actually twisted into a creationist argument and posted on several creationist websites. The particularly sad thing was: The proteins I was talking about were actually great examples of co-opted function paralleling roles seen in other cell types, and thus actually wonderful examples of how apparently masterful design can arise through simple evolutionary means. But the mistake was made, and I lost my chance to truly educate. So while i applaud what PZ said, I'm not sure we want to rest our argument for science on the inherent beauty of nature. Rather, I think perhaps the best approach is to go back to the old exploration analogy. Remind people that Columbus failed to find a short route to the spice islands, but America turned out to be useful anyway. So maybe we don't always see the point of basic science right now, but history has taught us nonetheless that the best discoveries are most often made in the unlikeliest of places. NSF recognizes this better than NIH. And the one reasonable thing the Bush administration has done is push to increase NSF funding. But NIH is an easier sell.
Posted by: Dave | June 3, 2008 12:50 PM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 3, 2008 12:51 PM
Before PZ's Berkeley talk, when we were visiting the NCSE, I spoke to Eugenie Scott about how we struggled over adding the word atheism to CVAAS (Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics). She suggested it would prove to be a negative (hurting membership/fundraising etc).
So far the evidence is mixed. A group in Modesto dropped the "A" word calling themselves CVS (Central Valley Skeptics), but has not been building membership as fast as CVAAS. (This could be due to other factors such as community size), but I have noticed that most of our membership issues have not been over atheism but skepticism. It is our criticism of homeopathy, ghost hunting, and ESP that has diminished our membership roles, not anti-theism. In fact, if I bring up Dawkins or Harris I get mild disagreement, but mention James Randi and people go ballistic.
It is my theory that for the public at large (not the scientific community), atheism is seen as an aberration, correctable by a good round of "churching", but skepticism attacks religious nonsense at the very core.
Posted by: Richard Moore | June 3, 2008 12:52 PM
Haven't studies been done that show college-educated left-leaning people who subscribe to no religion are more likely to be adherents of, or less skeptical of, New Age woo? I know several folks in my own social circle (very much college-educated & left-leaning) who, while certainly skeptical of most if not all *religious* claims, have no problem with widely debunked alternative medicine practices. It kinda breaks my heart to agree about atheism with these folks, then they turn around and talk of homeopathic remedies, toxic cleansing, and repeat various urban legends.
Posted by: Will E. | June 3, 2008 1:04 PM
I just wish people would stop treating atheism like it was some kind of philosophy or belief system. There's literally nothing to atheism, and it's only notable because it particularly lacks one thing (a belief in gods). I get why they do it though. To identify people by what they are runs the risk of understanding and possibly identifying with them, maybe even accepting them. But if you keep harping on how they aren't "one of us" as if that's their identity, then it plays into the tribalism tendencies of humanity. I just wish people would stop doing it, already.
I also wish I had a pony and a plastic rocket.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | June 3, 2008 1:07 PM
Alleged atheist video game features prophet-hunting
Oddly, neither the name of the game nor the name of the author are mentioned.
Posted by: Virgil Samms | June 3, 2008 1:19 PM
Well, Jeff, you can see who I am from my blog link. I've been an atheist for 50 years, and a net atheist for almost 20 years. But who are YOU?
Posted by: Geoff Arnold | June 3, 2008 1:26 PM
There did seem to be a bit of a disconnect between the talk and the questions, which could be related to the difficulties some people seem to have had listening for comprehension.
I would have liked to see more discussion on the points PZ touched on regarding the need for scientists to deal with the problem of image in the public eye that they face.
Posted by: intelekshual | June 3, 2008 1:36 PM
Seems like you have made a strategic error. You have split your forces and are fighting too many battles on too many fronts.
Humans almost always find something irrational or unsupported to believe in. Quack medicine, 9/11 conspiracies, creationism, anti globabl warming, perpetual motion, George Bush is not a moron, creationism etc.. And if you call them on it, it doesn't work since by their reasoning, for example, mainstream medicine is fake and can't cure everything. There is even an element of truth in it, modern medicine catn't cure everything by any stretch of the imagination.
I can't get too worked up by people who believe in Bigfoot, UFOs, or ESP. They aren't trying to overthrow the government or assasinating docs and scientists while trying to sneak their "theories" into our kid's science classes. Need to pick your battles carefully.
The fundie creos aren't hiding anything. They want to destroy our society and they have made a good start.
Posted by: raven | June 3, 2008 1:36 PM
#24
The term Free Thinker might attract a wider audience.
CVAFT
Too bad you need to market the truth...
Posted by: Jeff | June 3, 2008 1:37 PM
My friend and I caught your lecture/Q&A at the Seattle Centre last night and listened in at the pub afterwards. We were very pleased to have been able to attend.
Thank you for making the effort and I hope to catch your lectures in person more often.
Posted by: Scytale | June 3, 2008 1:39 PM
Stan is too lightweight a thinker. Fundie Xianity doesn't have a Dark Side. It is the Dark Side. Forcing people to believe that irrefutable facts such as evolution or the Big Bang are wrong means it is based on pretending that primitive mythology is scientific truth. In other words based on lies.
Most Xian denominations made their peace with science decades ago and moved on. The fundies only hope of winning is to destroy our civilization. While that solves one problem it produces another. Just about everyone is going to hate living in a new Dark Age and if they figure out who caused that, the fundies are toast.
Posted by: raven | June 3, 2008 1:47 PM
I was at the talk last night and I found it interesting. I think I may have been one of only two creationists that raised a hand. I was hoping someone there would want to practice their debate skills with me but no one talked to me. I'm timid so I didn't talk to anyone either. I will be blogging my analysis of talk on my blog after work.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | June 3, 2008 1:50 PM
I was at the talk and asked one of those questions. The issue is not whether atheists should stop advocating for their views. It is whether, in his arguments against creationism, PZ is saying that if you support evolution you have to be an atheist. When thousands of churches across the country hold pro-evolution events, does PZ welcome this? Do we tell my friends who are Quakers and who are fine with evolution that they ought not join in efforts to oppose fundamentalism because they themselves are a bunch of religious fanatics? That may work to recruit a few people to atheism, but it sure is a suicidal approach to fighting creationism when about half of Christians (and most Jews and most Bhuddists etc.) support evolution. Telling them they're not welcome in the movement against creationism until they choose between science and religion is not helpful. And since the issue is what you say when you oppose creationism, raising the issue is not out of place at a talk by PZ on communicating science.
Posted by: Joe Felsenstein | June 3, 2008 1:56 PM
Off-Topic Alert
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1811307,00.html?cnn=yes
Neat article, was wondering if anyone in that field might have
more info on the subject.
Posted by: Josh West | June 3, 2008 1:56 PM
I don't think PZ is saying to support evolution you must be an atheist. I think he is saying that for him to support a cause, it must not be religious in nature. It is in line with his feeling that science and religion don't mix.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 2:01 PM
Duae Quartunciae busted you, PeeZed. You're good at that stuff whether you admit it or not.
Back off, man. Don't make me deconstruct your writing!
What I can't get over is how much the other person in the photograph at the "bling" link (that may be the first time I've ever typed the word "bling," for what it's worth; I feel dirty) looks like a younger, chubbier clone from the Master Pharynguloid Cell...
Posted by: Interrobang | June 3, 2008 2:04 PM
I don't know if I'd say that it's out of place to raise the question of theistic evolutionists at a PZ lecture, I think I'd say, instead, that it is somewhat silly. The Q&A format isn't one set up for effective debate, and since I believe his stance on religion and science is fairly well known, it strikes me as just asking a question you know the answer to already. I'm not sure what the point it...
Posted by: intelekshual | June 3, 2008 2:09 PM
You don't promote compromise between science and religion?
Good on you! The only compromise ever asked is a compromise with the truth, a compromise on ethics.
Wouldn't that be a sin, to a religious person? (Yeah, like me.)
Compromise? What would be left, then, just dickering about the price?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 3, 2008 2:15 PM
No one pointed this out yet, but The Shocker?
Why, PZ, why?
Use the corna next time.
Posted by: mxracer652 | June 3, 2008 2:18 PM
A quest for the truth is always going to be a difficult thing since we, none of us, see eye to eye for very long.
Even science has not escaped human corruption.
Yet all and all, the atheistic way has more immediate merrit to a newcomer to the idea of religion and science having a go at each other, in fact I am as much a newcomer to the idea of religion and politics being at ends as I am to theism and atheism.
Before you riddicule me, yes I do come from the middle of nowhere. I have never been part of this type of discussion.
I think PZ is very millitant but I agree with most of what he says, I do not live in America and I dont know your theists, I have seen bits of the creationists and the id principle and I agree it seems a little like fairy tales.
I find most religious texts cute and with moral lessons if read in a symbolic way, and I dont see man abusing religion any more than politics where I come from.
At first I was surprised to hear people dont believe in God, then I realised that the definition of God becomes very nessesary before you can decide if God exists or not.
I think the existence of a ALMIGHTY God is something no one can make a statement on, we know too little. I think the human coruption alone is a problem before we even look at things like politics, religion, fundamentalism and fanaticism all wrapped up in one. This is deffinitely something to be scared of.
But then I see atheism also becoming a strong and numbered movement with prominent leaders speaking to large numbers of people, and I wonder if these speakers are above corruption and the need to manipulate the masses to their own needs.
I have seen this and I wonder about it because it has reached even the back waters of this planet I live in.
Keep up the good work PZ, but remember to set an example you would be proud of as if you would be able to see the true effect of your actions long after your demise.
Posted by: Nicholas | June 3, 2008 2:20 PM
And what are most of the questions about? Godlessness. Some people seem confused and even angry about the fact that I do not promote compromise with religion, even when I'm trying to promote tactics that are orthogonal to religious belief, and that if I'm asked about religion, I'm completely honest about the fact that it is indefensible bullshit.
I have to admit to having a smile on my face at that one, PZ. The fact is that in your Berkeley talk you went out of your way to avoid 'the A word'. Your talk was narrowly focused on how to effectively promote science in a popular culture that is increasingly anti-science. Sure, you referenced creationism, but that was it. It was a very positive talk, that any one who didn't have ideological goggles on would've perceived as unifying and positive.
But what did you get? You got questions about whether or not Ken Miller, rather than you or Dr. Dawkins, is a better messenger. I could sense that you were a bit taken aback, and that you tried to respond in a very measured and gracious way. I think your response was spot-on, and of course (defensible or otherwise) our privately-held views on religion are not the stuff around which we can reasonably rally the troops. The key thing is to resist attempts to substitute faith-based arguments for scientific evidence.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | June 3, 2008 2:20 PM
You may be right, and we have discussed this. The decision to combine atheism and skepticism was a pragmatic one, back when we first started, in an attempt to bring in as many members as possible. We never anticipated skepticism would be the issue.
That was CVAAS 0.1 and it died due to lack of interest. What in the hell is a freethinker anyway? You need terms people google.
I am really baffled by this. Atheism is attacked constantly, with elaborate proofs and such, all over the web, but skepticism is not (in general). I think skepticism is much more dangerous to theism than atheism, as it actively implies that theistic theories are, one by one, incorrect. But in personal discussions, atheism in rather benign, while skepticism will quickly remove you from the invite list.
Posted by: Richard Moore | June 3, 2008 2:21 PM
From post #17: "He's so tiny HE LIVES IN A BARNACLE!"
Sing it with me now:
Oh, who lives in a barnacle under the sea?
"Tiny red octopus!"
Eight-armed, scarlet, and spineless is he
"Tiny red octopus!"...
Posted by: JohnB | June 3, 2008 2:24 PM
that talk begins with an introduction in which I trash the bible
Will you be using it for target practice? Or flushing it down a toilet? Without the fervor of heavenly belief, you'll never be a good trasher of scriptures.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | June 3, 2008 2:25 PM
@mxracer (#41):
"No one pointed this out yet, but The Shocker?
Why, PZ, why?
Use the corna next time."
No!! It's not the shocker! It's "V.I." for "Village Inn"!
Posted by: Jason J Brunet | June 3, 2008 2:28 PM
#22
Dave,
Those are excellent points. I also worry that emphasis on the beauty of science can be conflated with design arguments (or worse, the crackpot claim that evolution is a religion), but I think that a dual focus on the potential utility and inherent elegance of basic science research - tailored to the audience - is very powerful. Interestingly, this also reminds me of Randy Olson's "don't be such a scientist!" plea, getting at what our motivations are (apart from saving the world and winning the Nobel Prize, of course).
Posted by: James F | June 3, 2008 2:29 PM
Joe @ #35 says:
"Telling them they're not welcome in the movement against creationism until they choose between science and religion is not helpful."
PZ has not done this, you're putting words in his mouth.
Rather, I read his position as being "It's great that some theists want to support the study & teaching of evolution, but don't think I'm going to stop/mute my criticism of all religion in other forums..."
Theistic evolution supporters, you're welcome aboard to defend Science standards against fundie encroachment, but don't expect us anti-clerical atheists to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP just to get your cooperation on this one issue.
WE wouldn't ask that of you, either.
Posted by: JJR | June 3, 2008 2:30 PM
Is all support welcome? I wonder how the Jews in Israel feel about the rabid support of Christian fundamentalists for the Jewish state, given that the fundamentalists feel that the rise and fall of the Jewish state is necessary for their salvation.
I know I am paranoid, but when Christians hold out the hand of evolutionary friendship, I worry about what they are hiding in the other.
Posted by: Richard Moore | June 3, 2008 2:31 PM
Well, I think my position was fairly clear by what I left out: I was making a case for better promotion of science without mentioning atheism, so I think it should be obvious that we can do that. However, if atheism is discussed, I am not going to soft-pedal my position at all -- that would be intellectually dishonest.
And sure, it's fair game to ask me questions like that, especially because of my reputation. I'm just thinkng that maybe it would be good for me to develop my arguments a little more fully in the lecture itself, because responding to questions is often so ad hoc...and you can't follow through with too much detail without shortchanging the other people who have questions.
As for the religious supporting good science -- I am all for it, unless it comes with this unfortunate demand (and it always does) that getting their participation means the damned atheists better shut up. Their support isn't worth much and is deeply insincere if they're going to run away because us obnoxious freethinkers ask hard questions and say rude things about their superstitions. Do we know of any atheists who announce that their support for science is conditional on the kindness and generosity of theistic evolutionists? Do we even care about the opinions of such people, let alone allow their delusions to dictate how we will think about science?
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 3, 2008 2:31 PM
Oh man. Someone used my name to defend religion (I thought I was the only Stan in the universe--besides my dad...and Stan Lee).
Anyway, this is being corrected now. Not that I've posted much in the past--as I am new here; but I'd hate for any confusion to live on.
Posted by: Stan Ferguson | June 3, 2008 2:32 PM
Convergent evolution, anyone?
Posted by: thalarctos | June 3, 2008 2:45 PM
Hang religion.
A person's religion should be between them and their invisible sky faerie of choice.
That being said, why would you give a rats ass what any one particular delusion or another had to say about science? You're not there to promote their delusions you're there to promote good science and communication. The fact that they're trying to force these arguments on you regardless of your actual purpose seems to indicate that you frighten them so they're trying to shift the focus away from your topic to something that makes them feel warm and fuzzy.
PZ, stop making the invisible purple unicorns cry!
Posted by: E in MD | June 3, 2008 2:46 PM
It's all they can do to make themselves and their delusions relevant. They understand very well that the scientific method - which actually works - has no need for belief systems, dogmas, or magic. That's why ID wanted to actually change the definition of science.
They are kicking and screaming for relevance. They should be denied every time.
Posted by: Alex | June 3, 2008 2:55 PM
What's with the backward dollar sign, PZ? Is that some sort of protest?
Posted by: Wicked Lad | June 3, 2008 2:57 PM
Haven't studies been done that show college-educated left-leaning people who subscribe to no religion are more likely to be adherents of, or less skeptical of, New Age woo
You have to cherry pick your woo to get that result. The right-wing sites are full of water-woo, techno-woo, Bible-oo and tinfoil. I'd say that in general the right wing is actually more prone to woo, it's just not "NewAge" (rhymes with "sewage") woo.
Posted by: Graculus | June 3, 2008 3:05 PM
Dennis N, #12
It's a form of christian "turning the other cheek"; when we refuse to capitalize the name of their religion (as in this sentence), it is perceived as an insult, so their response is to try to be extra respectful of atheism.
Posted by: qbsmd | June 3, 2008 3:16 PM
Thanks for the interesting lecture, Prof. PZ! I was a little dismayed to watch the Q&A session turn into a discussion about atheism/religion, so I asked instead about current disagreements within the scientific community. Yay science!
Posted by: Ann | June 3, 2008 3:23 PM
Religions, supportive of science and evolution or not, are just so annoying. My favorite solution is to ignore them. Not always possible however.
PZ, this statement from you hits the nail on the head for improving science education. "-- I'm telling scientists to express their passions, get out there and be advocates for good science, and to tell beautiful stories." Just add "and get the kids involved in learning science by doing science."
That's it - be passionate about science, tell good stories, and get the kids involved.
That's how to improve science education. Too bad most of the teacher prep programs don't get it. The best science teachers are left to learn this on their own. College professors too.
Yes, I'm a retired science teacher. In October I will be speaking to the Central New York Skeptics (Syracuse NY) on teaching evolution to middle level students. They are expecting prospective science teachers in the audience. I'll just have to use PZ's quote. Credited, of course.
Posted by: Vince | June 3, 2008 3:41 PM
It was great having dinner and seeing you speak last night. I was glad FOSEP was able to be involved, just a little disappointed I didn't have much a chance to chat afterward with you being swarmed by admirers and me getting into an interesting discussion with Geoff. I agree with others that is was kind of interesting how the questions veered into atheism even though the actual talk had such a different focus, though I guess it wasn't that surprising.
I had wanted to ask PZ if he had any specific thoughts on ways that scientists should become better advocates for their views. It seems lots of people are saying this is a good idea, but I haven't seen much actually coming together. For any other Seattlites that want to hear more about this aspect, FOSEP is sponsoring a seminar later today on the UW campus, more info on the FOSEP website linked in my name. (I figure I can make up for not plugging FOSEP last night by doing it here instead:) )
Posted by: mcmillan | June 3, 2008 3:46 PM
PZ,
I didn't get to ask this last night at the lecture, so I'll throw it out now.
On your list of things scientists should be doing, you listed "argue, argue, argue". I love arguing, and find it a great way to discern what people really think. The problem is, arguing can often be a non-starter for good discussions.
For example, my friends love to talk about things they hear or read in the news. Some people just like to hear themselves tell stories rather than discuss the content. When I ask questions about the content or the sources, or alternate ideas, often said storyteller will become frustrated and lose interest in talking about it anymore. It's a real bummer. I was only trying to take interest in the story!
Since many people get their info from short news blurbs, television, and blogs, (many of which are more for shock or entertainment value) how do we promote critical thinking and arguing if most people don't have much real knowledge about many of the things we are trying to argue about?
Are we turning into a society of generalists, only scratching the surface of the things we choose to talk about?
Posted by: Freddie | June 3, 2008 3:55 PM
Who is this referring to? Can someone provide a sample?
Posted by: qbsmd | June 3, 2008 4:04 PM
>I'm completely honest about the fact that it is
>indefensible bullshit.
Dr. Myers I want proof. You sound more and more like a Nazi every day.
At the end of the day it comes down to the very question does God exist and is there an after life?
At this point I have too much proof and I cannot fit it on this forum. It would be too much to post.
I will probably have to turn it into a web page.
I think it is okay to be an Atheist, but it is not fine to use science to promote your world view.
I do not think you know everything there is to know. There should be a division between science and your world view.
You just say someone is stupid and write them off because you do not agree with them and without any evidence and then you try to promote your atheism using science.
What's next? All Jews and Christians must die because they teach ignorance? Yeah you have a lot in common with Hitler.
Science is a great tool, it doesn't need to promote your ignorance and your nonsense. I think that is why some scientists are a little upset.
It is great to promote science, it is not great to promote ignorance.
Science is already coming around with proof that other dimensions exist and there is research being done (objectivly) about dying.
When you promote ignorance you take science back into a very limited mindset and you are no longer objective. Being objective is the entire heart of science, without that your research is useless.
There is a reason that a ton of people (even scientists) do not respect you. You just keep digging that hole.
Posted by: Kenny | June 3, 2008 4:25 PM
I will probably have to turn it into a web page.
Oh, please do. I'm not ashamed to say that would give me a real lift. Please turn it into a web page and link to it here.
Posted by: SC | June 3, 2008 4:31 PM
sheesh, just when I post an innocent question related to the topic of PZ's lecture, this pile of garbage lands right after me.
Hopefully we can just ignore posts like this...
Posted by: Freddie | June 3, 2008 4:33 PM
No, kenny, we don't follow religious logic, so that wouldn't be anything we call for. I don't even have the energy to deal with the rest of your crap. A new website about NDEs? Will they cover Muslim NDEs?
No and no. But you want there to be, so you'll believe whatever is fed to you to support it.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 4:36 PM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
("near-death experiences" as "evidence")
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
(atheists want to kill christioans)
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: just pretending to be MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2008 4:37 PM
Posted by: Kenny | June 3, 2008 4:25 PM
Please do form a web page. Then maybe you'll shut the fuck up and leave us alone with your lying bigoted fairy tale nonsense. Begone fuckwit.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2008 4:38 PM
Kenny, #64,
If you leave off all references to the bible, the argument from design, any unmoved mover crap, any mention of Pascal's Wager, and the Argument from Temporal Lobe Seizure, will what you have left still be too large to post?
Posted by: qbsmd | June 3, 2008 4:38 PM
raven @ #30,
I wish I could be as unconcerned as you about non-religious woo. Reading Orac's and ERV's posts lately, though, has me thinking that some of these people represent a real danger. But I'm not sure.
Richard Moore's story is worrisome. I hate to give in to our East-coast stereotypes, but do you think it could be a California thing?
Posted by: SC | June 3, 2008 4:42 PM
Betcha Kenny also has an elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem, but this forum is too narrow to contain it.
Posted by: Zeno | June 3, 2008 4:43 PM
Kenny, I love you. Will you have hot monkey sex with me?
Posted by: windy | June 3, 2008 4:45 PM
Dr. Myers I want proof. You sound more and more like a Nazi every day.
Kenny, you are no longer worthy of being laughed at. You are a sad, stupid and paranoid little dweeb. It seems that the only way you can make yourself feel like a human being is by imagining that all of us here want to murder you.
Please go start your website with your "too much proof" and lay out everything. It will be good for you and it will be even better for the rest of us.
Also, seek out therapy. There has to be a reason why you think atheist/nazis are hiding around the corner, out to get you.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 3, 2008 4:51 PM
Kenny@64:
"Dr. Myers I want proof. You sound more and more like a Nazi every day."
How so? Are you aware that saying "a belief in X is unsubstantiated" is different from saying that "people who believe in X should be killed"?
"At the end of the day it comes down to the very question does God exist and is there an after life?"
I thought the question was, is the world the dream of Brahma and we are all the King of Gods? Or maybe it was, is this a computer simulation, and we are all subroutines? Or was it, is there or isn't there a Wheel of Rebirth? There are just so many darn questions... and none of them can be refuted or supported by the evidence.
"At this point I have too much proof and I cannot fit it on this forum. It would be too much to post."
So provide a link.
"I will probably have to turn it into a web page."
Kewl. You'll be the first to provide proof in over 2500 years of trying.
"I think it is okay to be an Atheist, but it is not fine to use science to promote your world view."
Did Prof. Myers support his stance with science? There. Is. No. Evidence. For. Gods. I mean no disrespect for that, but there isn't. You don't need science to notice that.
"I do not think you know everything there is to know. There should be a division between science and your world view."
Scientists are typically acutely aware that they don't know everything. But they want to know more, so they find out stuff.
And if, like me, you think that assertions backed by verifiable evidence are the most reliable, science cannot be separated from one's world view. Can you separate your religion from your worldview?
"You just say someone is stupid and write them off because you do not agree with them and without any evidence and then you try to promote your atheism using science."
I'll speak for myself: I sometimes run out of patience when someone insists "X is true" but offer no evidence, *and* they demand that I act on their belief.
"What's next? All Jews and Christians must die because they teach ignorance? Yeah you have a lot in common with Hitler."
I missed the part where PZ said that. Could you provide a link? Let me quote him: "My talks [...] have not been about atheism, and I try to phrase everything as universally applicable to even the most devout scientist -- I'm telling scientists to express their passions, get out there and be advocates for good science, and to tell beautiful stories."
"Science is a great tool, it doesn't need to promote your ignorance and your nonsense. I think that is why some scientists are a little upset."
In what way is scientific research promoting ignorance? IT seems to be Creationists who tell folks to stop investigating. 'God said it and I believe it and that settles it!'
"It is great to promote science, it is not great to promote ignorance."
We agree. If you mean it.
"Science is already coming around with proof that other dimensions exist and there is research being done (objectivly) about dying."
Other dimensions are not Heaven.
And the real research on dying does not suggest in any way that there is an afterlife, if that is what you are implying.
"When you promote ignorance you take science back into a very limited mindset and you are no longer objective. Being objective is the entire heart of science, without that your research is useless."
So, where's the objective evidence there are gods?
"There is a reason that a ton of people (even scientists) do not respect you. You just keep digging that hole."
I respect him. If I were only respected by members of the reality-bas