…and this is a 
Brown has posted a reply to my angry criticisms, and as is increasingly common among the accommodationists, he gets everything backwards, upside down, and inside out. Let's start with the first paragraph.
PZ posted a tremendous rant about me and Michael Ruse last week, which concluded with a heartfelt exhortation to both of us to “fuck off” (his emphasis). The cause was a piece I did on the grauniad site about Ruse’s visit to a creation museum in which he experienced, for a moment, “a Kuhnian flash” that it might all be true. Never mind that this was a momentary feeling. It was unmistakable evidence of heresy, or commerce with
the devilGod which demanded anathematisation and commination, which it duly got.
No, I was not upset about some "heresy". I was appalled at some awesome stupidity.
Imagine that Michael Ruse were to come to my house, or Jerry's house, or Richard's house, or Dan's house, and engage us in conversation. He might hear things that prompt him to disagree with us and even condemn our opinions. He'd be wrong, and we'd all argue back, but at least we'd understand what prompted the debate — we did!
He did not do that. Michael Ruse went to Ken Ham's house, twirled about among the exhibits showing dinosaurs with saddles, Noah's ark being built to carry off members of every species on earth, exhortations to accept Biblical literalism, and accusations of malice and dishonesty against every sensible biologists, and what do he and Andrew Brown do? Why, blame the atheists, of course.
That is insane.
What the hell is wrong with Ruse? How can he stand among the lies, with little children being told abominable fabrications, and think then that the pressing problem is people who demand evidence for their beliefs? I was unimpressed with his momentary show of self-serving "open-mindedness"; but I was disgusted with his completely inappropriate neglect of a genuine problem to fling blame at the people who have consistently opposed every facet of that monument to ignorance.
And what the hell is wrong with Andrew Brown? Not only does he not blink an eye at that bizarre scapegoating, but now he buys in to Ruse's strange argument that
the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion." School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963). This is simply another way of saying that the state may not affirmatively show hostility to religion.
His idea is that the atheists are political and legal liability, because the creationists are just going to turn that argument against evolution if there is even a faint whiff of atheist support for the science — we are poison that will taint science education, and so he considers us a big problem. That we actively state that understanding science erodes religious belief sets up that "hostility to religion" that will give creationism a victory.
Which, of course, is complete bullshit. Nobody gets to dictate what beliefs individuals have, whether it is a brand of Southern Baptist hellfire-and-brimstone fundamentalism or secular humanism, and people like Ruse will never get us to silence ourselves because of his belief in contamination by association. We do not tell teachers that they cannot go to church on Sunday because that will introduce religion into the classroom, we tell them that they can't use the classroom to preach sermons. Nor can he now claim that because some of us atheists are loud and militant in the public square, that means we are promoting state-sponsored atheism.
I've given a talk on science and education a few times this past year. Let me show you the first slide I put up.
While that rather clear and unambiguous statement is on display, I explain with pedantic redundancy what it means to my audiences of (mostly) atheists: we can not go into our classrooms and advocate Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or whatever nonsense the teacher favors, but we also cannot advocate atheism. I spell it out in pragmatic terms: we cannot fight against sectarian religious belief in the classroom, because it will shut out some students, and it will particularly rebuff the students who need the science the most. Even fundies deserve a good science education.
Jerry Coyne has been just as clear on this point repeatedly.
Am I grousing because, as an atheist and a non-accommodationist, my views are simply ignored by the NAS and NCSE? Not at all. I don't want these organizations to espouse or include my viewpoint. I want religion and atheism left completely out of all the official discourse of scientific societies and organizations that promote evolution.
None of us are saying that we need to proselytize godlessness in the classroom, or that we need NCSE or NAS to hinge their defense of evolution on making it hostile to religion. We're saying the exact opposite. It's getting a little tiresome to have to deal with people who ignore our plain speech to insist that we're conspiring to violate the separation of church and state.
We do think science has an effect of encouraging students to question dogma, because by necessity all of science must be about inquiry into everything, but we also do not directly criticize religion in the context of our classes because we're confident that we do not need to. If a religion contradicts reality, presenting reality is all it will take. However, it's going to be even harder to teach science when clueless gobshites like Ruse are busy promoting an interpretation of the first amendment that means that if a religion teaches that the sky is green, teachers are not allowed to mention that the sky is blue in class for fear of endorsing an idea "hostile to religion".
Furthermore, the root of our opposition to the accommodationist stance taken by these scientific organizations isn't that it is insufficiently atheistic — do we need to say again that that is not what we're aiming for? — but that they are promoting a specific sectarian religion instead. I don't hold with theistic evolution myself, obviously, but neither do the fundies at Answers in Genesis, or Reasons to Believe, or any of the other creationist organizations. They can quite rightly point at what NCSE is doing, and it is saying that a certain narrow range of beliefs, in particular liberal Christian theology, are acceptable, but the Seventh Day Adventists, the Southern Baptists, the Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran Church, the fundamentalist Muslims, and the atheists, etc., etc., etc., are all wrong. You can be a certain kind of Christian and have beliefs that do not directly conflict with evolution.
This kind of Christianity happens to be the majority view among those people who are pro-science and happen to be religious. Even among non-believers like Brown and Ruse there is a temptation to hope that more Christians will accept this less threatening position — that they will become apostate to their fundamentalist/evangelical faiths and become deists and Unitarians and progressive, liberal Catholics and Anglicans and Presbyterians and whatever (I confess, I wouldn't mind that so much myself). But when we say that, we are endorsing a narrow range of religious belief. It's surrendering to a comfortable accommodation with a majority, it's pandering, and it's also turning science education into a tool for promoting a particular kind of religion. Let's not go down that road, please.
But Brown and Ruse want to go down that road. They see this as a strategy for silencing those harsh and obnoxious atheists, by inventing speculative scenarios in which atheists are the villains.
But the American courts have never been asked to decide whether science is the negation of religion: in fact the defenders of evolution and of science teaching in schools have gone to great lengths to ensure that the question was not asked. The "accommodationists" whom Coyne so despises, have been brought out in all the court cases so far to say that that evolution and Christianity, science and religion, are perfectly compatible. If the courts were asked to decide whether not whether ID was a religious doctrine, but whether evolution was a necessarily atheist one, and if they decided that Jerry Coyne and PZ and Dawkins and all the rest are right, then science teaching would become unconstitutional in American public schools. They would, in short, have fucked themselves.
If Michael Ruse's version of the principle, that science must conform to religion to avoid appearing hostile to it, were to be validated by the courts, then yes, we would be well and truly fucked. What Ruse and Brown are proposing is granting religion even greater privileges, using the law to make opposing superstition outside the classroom grounds to limit what science may be taught inside it. The creationists would love it if Ruse's interpretation of the law were true.
As for the prospect of the courts reading the documents from the NCSE and NAS and deciding that evolution was unconstitutional because it promotes atheism…fat chance. They hush up and ignore anyone who's critical of faith. It's more likely that the creationists could make a case that the NCSE and NAS are using the science classroom to promote liberal Catholicism.
For more detail on Ruse's strange position, see Jason Rosenhouse.
Comments
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 21, 2009 9:19 AM
Absolutely correct, PZ, great article. I stated that Brown made a dishonest statement over at Jerry Coyne's blog page.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 21, 2009 9:23 AM
This touches on a criticism I have of the policy in the US of trying to keep creationism out of science classes by arguing it is in reality religious dogma and this violates church and state separation.
The real reason for keeping creationism out is not the fact it is religious dogma, it is because it is not science. Astrology, at least the western zodiac type, is not religious in nature, and yet that should no more be in a science class than creationism.
Now I understand that the reason creationism has to be tackled on the grounds it is religious dogma is because that offers the best legal challenge. What I do not see though is a corresponding demand that decisions over curricula are left to the experts. Where is the political drive to remove the right of ignorant politicians to decide what gets taught in science classes ?
Posted by: Rob C | June 21, 2009 9:25 AM
This stuff is all so stupid. European countries do not have this issue. There is almost universal acceptance of evolutionary theory, nobody is pushing for false "open mindedness" in the science classroom, and nobody is claiming government hostility toward religion. A theme park based on a literal interpretation of the Bible would be laughed out of existence. It is time for Americans to grow up and get their heads out of the "gimme that ole' time relgion" pot and take a long look in the mirror about their biases. This is no time to publish "what if it were true" statements as if that is some kind of valuable insight.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 21, 2009 9:33 AM
If by "all it will take" you mean "all it will take [to have fulfilled our responsibilities as educators]", I agree. But simply presenting reality is not all it will take to dissuade a dyed-in-the-wool YEC/fundie of their dogma. They have a fantasy-based filter in their mind that blocks that sort of thing. Maybe it would plant a seed of doubt, but most likely they would go to their pastor/church community to get answers to their questions rather than their teachers or professors.
The only way I was able to begin to question for myself was to be constantly and repeatedly bombarded with specific criticisms and attacks on the dogmas I held. Being the slightly non-confrontational type, I would never have questioned a professor who was telling me something I didn't believe; I would have perceived them as hostile to my faith. Much better to go ask the person who will reinforce your beliefs.
It's a tough line to walk; presenting reality may make someone question, but they're likely not going to try to get more information from "secular liberal heathen" college professors. Much easier to disabuse oneself of fantastic notions than to change those ideas in others.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 9:35 AM
Can't ever blame the religious fanatics... it's not their fault us evil atheists keep pissing them off. Just like when Salman Rushdie wrote the Satanic Verses - condemn the writer as opposed to the ones who were calling for his head, yep this is a society that values discussion and free speech far more than appeasing fanatics while bending over backwards not to do the same. After all, if we criticise the religious then we aren't being all liberal and tolerant, and we can sit safe in the comfort that we should moral fortitude by standing up for the rights of those trying to eliminate those rights in others...
Yep, brave new world. But I guess when people are exposed to creationism all their life, when their pastor and teachers tell these children that man was created by God as laid out in the bible. When the parents and community reinforce this story and raise a creationist warrior who then perpetuates the same cycle with their children, all you can do is blame the intellectual who had the nerve to say there is no God while wearing the banner of biologist... best not to rock the boat and attack those who really are at blame for the state of creationism in society. Just blame the atheists for being too "strident," "militant," "intolerant," etc.
Posted by: James F | June 21, 2009 9:36 AM
Except that discussions of whether or not it's possible to be religious and accept evolution are not at all intended as part of the science curriculum, but to address a creationist canard.
As for the idea that teaching evolution is advocating atheism, I agree, that's ridiculous.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | June 21, 2009 9:43 AM
PZ: You are hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head when you enquired (or implied) the inquiry "What is wrong with Andrew Brown?"
For it is clear that there must be something very basic askew that is affecting his ability to respond coherently.
It might be an entirely purposeful and conscious act on his part: a fashion of rhetoric explicitly concocted with which to enhance his short-term reputation with those who provide part of his comfort & income.
This is, of course, the most charitable conclusion to which I am to come, and I admit, that assigning agency to his odd reactions is but an academic and somewhat unimportant sideline. He behaves that way nonetheless.
The other 7 or 8 possibilities for his exhibited deportment are far to ill-favoured for me to calmly contemplate at the moment, but I am confident that that you may possess several inklings of what they may be...
Posted by: Mozglubov | June 21, 2009 9:43 AM
I was just writing about a similar aspect of this topic this morning... must be sacrilegious Sunday.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 21, 2009 9:58 AM
Brown is committing the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. He assumes that if religion isn't used as the basis for science, then atheism must be the basis. There's a third concept, non-theism, that Brown is ignoring.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 21, 2009 10:11 AM
It would?
Posted by: Ten Bears | June 21, 2009 10:12 AM
They hate when I rant: There are no “gods”, only fairy tales. Fantasies to explain away the dark, justify sex with young children, and profit. You really don’t think the witch doctor really believes that tossing a virgin in a volcano will make it rain, do you? Nooo… tossing a virgin in a volcano keeps him in his cushy witch doctor gig, with the additional perk of spending a few quality end of life hours with the virgin – what…!? you thought the virgin, stoned to the bone on Ambien, Prozac, and Viagra and smiling all the way to the bottom, was still a virgin when the witch doctor tossed ‘em in? I’ve got some property to sell. Ocean-front. Cheap. Cash only, in small bills. You’ll love Idaho!
Recalling that in all legend lay a kernel of fact, reading the fabrications koran, bible, and torah in larger, historical context with other fabrications lain down in stone it is in fact quite easy to afford “Intelligent Design” a measure of credibility. When chariots with wheels of fire flitting about, vast arks propelling the seeds of life across vast empty spaces, and fathers asking of their wives “be this my son, or that of a “giant?” are lain aside the physical record it isn’t all that far fetched to supposit that at some point in the past half-million years extra-terrestrial travelers – for whatever reason: pure science, sheer boredom, desperate survival, or profit – genetically interfered with the development of the proto-humans they found roaming the savannahs of Northern and Western Africa. Not only are we but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism, but some bastard’s abandoned science project, if not cattle, as well.
I, a "witch doctor", would gleefully toss a virgin nto a volcano - if I could find one.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | June 21, 2009 10:13 AM
With all due respect, I think you have missed Brown's key point. His failure to understand the basics of American constitutional law notwithstanding, his argument is that if an "honest" commitment to scientific reasoning entails that a person embrace atheism, then teaching science even in a "secular" manner, without explicitly promoting atheism still implicitly promotes atheism. In much the same sense, if one were to teach that it was an historical fact that Jesus existed, turned wine to water, etc. and rose from the dead, one would be implicitly promoting Christianity, even if one did not actually explicitly draw the obvious conclusion.
But let's assume arguendo that -- despite an uncontroversial common-sense understanding about what it means for the government to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof, and despite two centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject, and despite the fact that although many Supreme Court justices are conservatives, they're not interested in completely destroying science education from the bench, that Brown is exactly correct -- teaching science would somehow substantively violate the establishment clause.
First, this assertion is either true or false. If it's true, simply keeping silent on the issue is pointless: it's not like religious people cannot stumble upon this argument without the help of atheists. (If it's false, it's necessary only to show that it's false.)
Second, so we might have to repeal the establishment clause to preserve science education. That's not that big of a deal. The Constitution is not holy writ, and the establishment clause is the result of the particular material circumstances of the 18th century American revolution. Newsflash: things have changed a bit in the last 200 years. Europe seems to be getting along fine -- arguably better than we are -- with nothing even remotely resembling an establishment clause, and with actual state-established churches.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 10:16 AM
I'd argue that non-theism is implicit atheism, but that doesn't validate Brown's point. Secular knowledge is always taught without an appeal to the supernatural. Science, history, engineering, etc. Everything in our schools is taught without regard to God. When it comes to science and history though, it demonstrates that we are suffering a Christian-hangover. God was used as an explanation for natural phenomena and an instigator of historical events. Science and history do eliminate God because the theists have framed God in such a way that God was always a god of the gaps.Of course this implicit atheism doesn't mean we should be teaching explicit atheism. It's not saying "there is no God" to teach evolution, and whether there is a God or not doesn't impact on the truth of evolution in the slightest. The only barrier is that some people use God as an explanation (the non-answer posing as a theory of everything) so that by teaching evolution there are accusations of bringing atheism on the children.
How can we ever hope to have a truly separate church and state until it is realised that the truth of education is external to the question of God? Again, it's not the education systems fault that parents teach their children that we are walking talking magic dirt, so why should the education system be hindered in order to cater for such an absurd view? Man walked with dinosaurs? The moon is a light in the night sky? The earth is the centre of the universe? There was a global flood 4000 years ago? We can't comment on these matters because it is apparently atheist to deny their fucked-up notion of reality.
And in all this, why the fuck are we blaming those who dare to speak up against the nonsense instead of attacking those who are actually propagating this bullshit? Is religion really still a sacred cow? Or must we play accommodationist so that we can feel morally superior while we protect those who seek to wipe out tolerance? Because this is what I don't get about these attacks on the "new atheists." It really really really really seems like those who do are trying to avoid at all costs say anything that may offend those who can scream "persecution" the loudest.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | June 21, 2009 10:18 AM
With all due respect, I think you have missed Brown's key point. His failure to understand the basics of American constitutional law notwithstanding, his argument is that if an "honest" commitment to scientific reasoning entails that a person embrace atheism, then teaching science even in a "secular" manner, without explicitly promoting atheism still implicitly promotes atheism. In much the same sense, if one were to teach that it was an historical fact that Jesus existed, turned wine to water, etc. and rose from the dead, one would be implicitly promoting Christianity, even if one did not actually explicitly draw the obvious conclusion.
But let's assume arguendo that -- despite an uncontroversial common-sense understanding about what it means for the government to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof, and despite two centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject, and despite the fact that although many Supreme Court justices are conservatives, they're not interested in completely destroying science education from the bench, that Brown is exactly correct -- teaching science would somehow substantively violate the establishment clause.
First, this assertion is either true or false. If it's true, simply keeping silent on the issue is pointless: it's not like religious people cannot stumble upon this argument without the help of atheists. (If it's false, it's necessary only to show that it's false.)
Second, so we might have to repeal the establishment clause to preserve science education. That's not that big of a deal. The Constitution is not holy writ, and the establishment clause is the result of the particular material circumstances of the 18th century American revolution. Newsflash: things have changed a bit in the last 200 years. Europe seems to be getting along fine -- arguably better than we are -- with nothing even remotely resembling an establishment clause, and with actual state-established churches.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 21, 2009 10:35 AM
"The real reason for keeping creationism out is not the fact it is religious dogma, it is because it is not science."
To paraphrase ALF, that's not dogma-- that's dog manure.
Posted by: skeptical scientist | June 21, 2009 10:53 AM
It seems to me that your argument with the “accommodationists” is not so much about tactics but about goals. Your is to challenge the claims made by religion and try to win people over to atheism or agnosticism, and atheists and agnostics over to the position that it’s good to challenge the claims of religion. Their goal is very different: simply to protect the teaching of Evolution in US public schools. There’s no reason to expect that the tactics that will best serve one goal will necessarily help the other.
You take issue with what you describe as the “accommodationist” position taken by organizations dedicated to protecting the teaching of evolution because you feel it undermines your goals of questioning religion. They take issue with what the New Atheist camp is doing to promote atheism because they feel that it undermines their goal of protecting the teaching of evolution. The problem is not your differences so much as your similarities: both sides feel that since you agree about so much, you should be allies in these fights. What both sides need to remember is that while your worldviews are essentially similar, your priorities are very different, and (in the short term at least) somewhat dissonant.
Posted by: Tim Danaher | June 21, 2009 10:53 AM
@ Rob C. (#3)
Hold your horses...we have no room for complacency in the UK> Have a look at this website.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/
disingenuousness is its purest, distilled form.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 21, 2009 11:02 AM
Ruse and Brown's goal seems to be infected with a strain of Paul Krugman's "Shape of Earth: Opinions Differ" mental virus.
They bend over so much to be fair to both sides, that all they end up with is a muddled mess that makes no sense whatsoever, and alienates everyone. Very much like the state of journalism in America (the original target of Krugman's quip)
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 11:06 AM
I've got to say for me it is all about tactics. It's bullshit that the "New atheists" are being blamed for something that replicates in circles where most people in there don't even know what being an atheist really means. Why isn't there more of a focus in showing the mind-shrinking falsehood that is creationism instead of worrying about whether Dawkins claims that he became an atheist through evolution?We shouldn't have to parade out Ken Miller, George Coyne, Robert T. Bakker, Francis Collins, etc. every time someone screams they are incompatible. What makes anyone think that these people will go to Dawkins or Jerry Coyne for religious advice on how to accommodate God and evolution instead of going to their local holy man? Shouldn't the focus be more on getting the population educated about evolution as opposed to coddling believers away from the big bad words of the nasty PZ Myers?
Posted by: Questioner | June 21, 2009 11:09 AM
Evolution makes perfect sense to me. But I'm missing the connection that is the object of the fight here. How does evolution (or, more generally, science) provide an evidence based rationale for atheism?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 21, 2009 11:10 AM
There is a difference though, and that is there is no political support for Truth in Science, or any other creationist group. Not is there much in the way of support in the media, with the dishonourable exceptions of Peter Hitchins and Melanie Phillips.
A Government minister asked about the Truth in Science DVDs, and if they had a place in the classroom was unequivocal. ID/Creationism is not science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
So yes, there are creationist/ID groups operating in the UK but they are doing so in an environment far more hostile to their agenda than exists in the US.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 21, 2009 11:18 AM
There are two arguments.
The first is that many, although not all, religions make specific claims about their deity interacting with the Universe. Such claims are within the purview of science, and there is a total absence of evidence to support them. People do not rise from the dead, and woman do not become pregnant without being inseminated. Science makes it untenable to have any deity that can intervene in the Universe.
The second is that religion has claimed to provide an answer to the question of first cause. Again, the more we understand of the Universe the less we need this explanation. God is not needed to explain why humans exist for example, evolution does a very good job of that. It is also clear that positing god as a first cause does not answer anything, as the question then becomes not what created the Universe, but what created god.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 21, 2009 11:29 AM
BTW, what part of atheistic scientists having free speech rights outside the classroom does Brown not understand? Is he actually saying that, say PZ or Coyne can't speak their minds when they are not teaching? He seems terribly confused about the rights of private individuals vs. the rights of government.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 21, 2009 11:32 AM
Aquaria, you unnecessarily complicated that sentence. I have fixed it for you.
Posted by: Lynna | June 21, 2009 11:34 AM
In his take on the argument, Coyne wrote:
Restricting education and worrying about reality that is not "faith-promoting" is exactly how some religious leaders operate. Look at Warren Jeffs of the FLDS: he banned TV (several times), newspapers, text books not approved by him, etc. The current LDS administration funds an entire division (FARMS) to counter real information with hard-spun dogma. Then there's Iran, where efforts to block communication via the internet have geeks all over the world setting up proxy servers. I'm personally acquainted with people who claim that books that contradict the Book of Mormon are "crap" or "poison for the mind."
Education and information do weaken the foundations of religion, especially those religions that are more strict in the interpretation of their sacred texts. But education and dissemination of information are not conspiracies to promote atheism.
If reality weakens religion, maybe we should blame God.
Posted by: DavidCOG
|
June 21, 2009 11:51 AM
> And what the hell is wrong with Andrew Brown?
He seems to see the entire world through a lens of theistic apologetics. He's incapable of logical thought. His favourite hobby is constructing atheistic strawmen and bashing them in his tedious faith columns at the Guardian. He builds arguments by quote mining. He refers to the faults of Dawkins and then plucks out a comment by 'BobTheEejit' as proof of Dawkin's alleged faults. Etc.
It would be quicker to answer "What the hell is right with Andrew Brown?". Not much.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 21, 2009 11:54 AM
Well, I guess teaching that as of 2008, the tallest tree in the world was a 115.55-meter sequoia in Redwood National Park is unconstitutional promotion of atheism. Really, it's far better to let the enlightened, liberal Odinists teach botany: much less chance of offending the people who believe in a literal Yggdrasil!
Posted by: Colugo | June 21, 2009 12:15 PM
"I spell it out in pragmatic terms: we cannot fight against sectarian religious belief in the classroom, because it will shut out some students"
Is that the only reason why atheism advocacy should not be part of the science classroom?
Or is there another reason? Namely this: atheism advocacy is not part of science.
While atheism advocacy is consistent with what Coyne calls secular reason, that is a bigger category than science. The science classroom and science textbook should not be venues for philosophical and ideological advocacy. Not just because it's politically unfeasible or pedagogically unwise, but because philosophy and ideology are not science.
There are many self-described rationalists who imagine that their philosophy, worldview, politics, perhaps even lifestyles arise from secular reason. That's fine. But none of them should teach that these things are part of science.
In their non-textbook publications Dawkins can advocate for chimp rights and Miller can argue that an unseen fairy created the cosmos. Let a thousand flowers of stupidity blooom. Some others who believe themselves to be rationalists make Dawkins and Miller look like fonts of wisdom. These wretches represent a wide spectrum of delusions: ossified Marxism, Ayn Randism, loony transhumanism... They would like nothing more than to have their eccentricities and obsessions legitimized with the authority of science. Such a desire should never be indulged.
Science is bad enough, has enough boils that need to be lanced, without dragging God or FSMs into it. Even within science proper there are egregious examples of philosophy, politics, and other worldview sentiments masquerading as science. HBD AKA so-called 'human biodiversity' AKA racemongers who insist that black people are genetically fated to be dumber. Or the small industry that purports that all conservatives are mentally ill or progressives are really just rebelling against their parents. And so on. I'm sure that each of us has our own favorite examples.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 21, 2009 12:16 PM
You take issue with what you describe as the “accommodationist” position taken by organizations dedicated to protecting the teaching of evolution because you feel it undermines your goals of questioning religion.
Beep! Wrong!
We take issue with the accommodationist position because it's not working. The religionistas have become more confrontational, not less. They have grown stronger (although they may have reached a tipping point), not less.
The accommodationists were too busy playing Kumbaya with the religionistas to confront the rise of the Religious Right--even when they blatantly used school boards as stepping stones to political power. They were more hostile to the feister members of the pro-science camp than they were to the religionistas. They couldn't be nice enough to the deluded side, while telling the outspoken reality-based to sit down and shut up. And the religionistas grew only more powerful, with nary a peep from the accommodationists. The religionistas were getting everything they wanted--and were enabled to do so, thanks to accommodationists smiling and saying, "Oh, don't take that. Well, now that you have it--no, don't--oh dear--what am I going to do with you? I know! Let's sing Kumbaya!"
That was the situation. Until the "militant" pro-science side stood up and said, "ENOUGH!"
The adults are in the house now. The accommodationists can go play house somewhere else.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 21, 2009 12:25 PM
I knew that name sounded familiar.
This dude?:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/oh_no_the_new_atheists_are_get.php
Pfft. Maybe he'll show up here again with some more inane defenses.
Posted by: Walton | June 21, 2009 12:46 PM
Questioner,
Interesting question. As I understand it (and I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure people will correct me if I get this wrong), an acceptance of evolution doesn't, in itself, imply atheism. One can (and many people do) accept the empirical evidence for biological evolution, and define one's idea of God in such a way that it doesn't conflict with evolutionary biology. Hence why there are many world-class scientists who are theistic evolutionists. The kind of "God" in which they believe is defined in such a way that it doesn't contradict the empirical evidence (unlike the kind of "God" in which fundamentalists believe). They interpret religious creation myths as "metaphor" or "allegory" rather than literal truth, and so bend them in order to fit with modern science. This is perhaps a rather strange intellectual exercise, but it's certainly better than simply rejecting reality and empirical evidence completely (as many fundamentalists do).
However, what biological evolution does do is provide a plausible and comprehensible natural explanation for the diversity of life on earth, without the need for a god or gods as a necessary component. Coupled with the fact that, as far as I can see, there is no particularly compelling empirical evidence indicating the existence of a personal god or gods, this provides a solid intellectual foundation for a non-theistic worldview. And since I don't personally see any particularly compelling evidential reason to believe in any particular god or gods, I consider myself an open-minded agnostic.
Posted by: Richie P | June 21, 2009 1:21 PM
# 29
Nicely said Aquaria, I quite agree. Let's say for example that there really was unambiguous evidence that "accomodationism" actually did work, and did significantly increase the acceptance of evolution, then even I would be on board with it (I might even be persuaded to say a few nice things about religion- possibly against my own best judgement). But the REAL issue is that THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE, in fact what little evidence there is suggests that accomodationism is at best making no progress with the level of evolution acceptance in the US. Given that, I think we might as well just speak our minds and stop "pissing about" with all these various strategies. Let's defend evolution, as it should be defended, on the grounds of EVIDENCE, and if evolution leads to a loss of faith- then that's just too bad for faith!!
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | June 21, 2009 1:24 PM
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | June 21, 2009 10:18 AM
"...
But let's assume arguendo that -- despite an uncontroversial common-sense understanding about what it means for the government to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof, and despite two centuries of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject, and despite the fact that although many Supreme Court justices are conservatives, they're not interested in completely destroying science education from the bench, that Brown is exactly correct -- teaching science would somehow substantively violate the establishment clause.
...."
This is not a valid legal analysis. Anyone who says teaching science could ever violate the establishment clause because the science favors or disfavors particular religious beliefs is talking nonsense. The only EC obligation is to accurately teach our current knowledge as determined empirically. What our current knowledge implies regarding how the world works is not subject to EC review.
Posted by: Stephen P | June 21, 2009 1:31 PM
Well, you all have the chance to do your laughing via this poll. Currently 87.7% think that the ark is worth visiting.
Posted by: uncle frogy | June 21, 2009 1:32 PM
PZ is correct. Science is about objective reality not belief. Repeatable testable observations. It is remarkable that science and science teaching is seen by some to be advocating some kind of "belief in Atheism" when science is the one being put on the defensive. Science is just trying to understand what is and how it came to be that way, Matter is made up of particles and energy held together by "the four forces". We have a family tree parents and grandparents and evolution shows us how all life followed that pattern and how the pattern works.
So here in the United States science is being put on the defensive by religion being accused of advocating "anti-religion". When the real roots are "Evangelical Christianity" which seems to be about getting everyone to believe the same thing, converting the heathen and saving the souls of the sinners by bringing them to Jesus and not about living the life advocated by the Jesus and praying to god in their closets, giving to Caesar to what is Caesar's and God what is Gods. They are forced instead to at least proselytize and control the actions and thoughts and beliefs of others. Religion to them is not a private thing it is primarily a public thing hence the appalling hypocrisy all to often seen in the leadership and the believers. It is not that they should actually live a life devoted to their God but that they should be seen to and to judge everyone else, while living a life just as self centered as any sinner they condemn.
I for one do not give a shit what anyone believes that is a private issue. While it sometimes is interesting to argue over belief reality is not a matter of belief it is about repeatable testable observations and science is how we go about organizing what we know. It really is pretty simple. Reconciling belief with reality is not the job of science it is a personal matter best left to the individual to decide how best to do the reconciling.
Posted by: kermit | June 21, 2009 1:37 PM
Here in the US, even in the early days when Protestant Christianity was pervasive, the Constitution and the Supreme court recognized that religious rights did not take precedent over other standards when they were important for the well-being of society. Religious folks could never use children as sex slaves, have multiple spouses, or sacrifice humans. Not all religious evil is avoided this way, but when society agrees on a social more, and that it is important, it trumps religious beliefs. All we have to do is acknowledge that education - especially history and science - are important for the common good.
To the degree that Creationism is falsifiable, it has been falsified. To the degree that it is not falsifiable, it is not science.
Posted by: Richie P | June 21, 2009 1:38 PM
You know the more I read about Michael Ruse the more I think that he really isn't interested in increasing the acceptance of evolution, but that his real motive is the promotion of religion. Is it actually possible that he isn't an Atheist at all, and is in fact faking it. This would explain why he is so hostile to outspoken Atheism, because really he is promoting a religious agenda. So by arguing that evolution and religion is compatible he is trying to encourage those who are sitting on the fence to the religious fold. I honestly can't think of any other explanation for some of the things he has said and written (in particular editing Dembski's book).
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | June 21, 2009 2:09 PM
RE: Posted by: Richie P | June 21, 2009 1:38 PM
You know the more I read about Michael Ruse the more I think that he really isn't interested in increasing the acceptance of evolution, but that his real motive is the promotion of religion.
An alternative hypothesis is that Ruse's real motive is the promotion of Michael Ruse. That explains the data equally well (or even better).
Posted by: Savonarola | June 21, 2009 2:21 PM
A few years back, I took a philosophy class that explored the implications of evolutionary theory. One of our discussion topics was a dialogue between Coyne (I think) and Ruse. The impression that I simply could not shake was that although Ruse showed flashes of good reasoning showing that he isn't a complete imbecile, the vast majority of his conclusions seemed to be almost entirely disconnected and come from nowhere, often of the form: "[profound observation of a relationship], therefore [non-sequitur nutjob conclusion]." I was afraid at the time that I simply was not getting it, but when everyone in the class who spoke up agreed, and so did the professor, I felt safe in concluding that Ruse has just gone off the deep end.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 21, 2009 2:48 PM
@'Tishimself
You are right, Brown has consistently in his columns in the Guardian regarded atheism as a religious position. I am one of the regular commenters there under the pseudonym 'Muscleguy' and he has been like this for some time deciding unilaterally that atheists believe in X, y, z in addition to 'believing god does not exist' despite being told by numerous commenters in his blog that he is wrong.
He is also wont to attack those commenters like me who he self defines as 'New Atheists' (again despite being told he is wrong by numerous people) using his blog. A few months ago there was one occasion where the moderators turned the comments into a train wreck of deleted comments, including several of Andrew Brown's . It is to his credit on the Grauniad site that he does engage below the line, pity he fails to learn anything in the process. When out argued he is wont to play the man, not the ball, the last refuge of an internet scoundrel.
I have opined to him several times that he would doubtless be happier if he just gave in and joined a church. He does seem to be partnered with a Finn though, so perhaps his 'agnosticism' is really only to keep marital harmony. It would not surprise me.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 21, 2009 3:59 PM
I look forward to Brown's next column, in which he tells Francis Collins to shut up. After all, if judges accepted Collins's views, it would be unconstitutional for schools to take students on hiking field trips. They might see a frozen waterfall.
Posted by: Richie P | June 21, 2009 4:47 PM
Yeah, good point Jerry, you really could be on to something there!
Posted by: noodles | June 21, 2009 4:50 PM
Don't be so cocky.
It's your turn next buddy!
Europe Has Declared War on Islam and the Qur'an
http://world.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Europe-Has-Declared-War-on-Islam-and-the-Qur-an
"The decision to ban the teaching of Creationism in school sunder the Council of Europe decision... The world has now come to see that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a terrible lie. Materialist philosophy, which encourages irreligion, is now in its death throes and in the 21st century mankind will be freed from such deceptions, Allah willing, and return to the true purpose behind its creation. Terrified and astonished by this realization, Darwinist-materialist circles are now attempting to take precautionary measures against this extraordinary rise. But what is done is done, and all the world now knows about the Darwinist deception. School students are now waging their own campaigns against Darwinism and refusing to learn about this fraud. What Darwinist-materialist circles want is to form an irreligious society, with no traces of belief in Allah."
Posted by: Lurky | June 21, 2009 5:13 PM
#31
Very well explained, Walton.
Posted by: DLC | June 21, 2009 8:15 PM
Okay, so.. this guy can't see that any non-condemnation of Ken Ham's lying bullshit is an accommodation to Ken Ham's lying bullshit ? Ham isn't just preaching religion, he's pushing Non-Science -- a state of willful ignorance of reality on people. Of course nobody wants Ken Ham teaching science classes, any more than Ken Ham wants PZ Myers teaching religious doctrine. (come to think of it, can we please, pretty please, get PZ Myers to teach religious doctrine? I want to be there when he does the creation myth)
Posted by: Rob C | June 21, 2009 9:50 PM
"We take issue with the accommodationist position because it's not working. The religionistas have become more confrontational, not less."
This statement is exactly correct. The days when scientists and atheists tried to demonstrate tolerance have backfired. A spade needs to be called a spade. The pop culture bending over backwards in defense of religion has enabled such extremism to grow.
Let me also remind the would-be scientists of this blog that a couple of examples of religious nut cases in Europe (yes, they have them) is not really evidence on par with 60% of the population polling that they don't "believe in" evolution. American is rather unique among large industrialized countries in its irrational fundamentalists beliefs and no other such country has a serious "movement" to challenge science in classrooms.
Posted by: potato314 | June 21, 2009 10:56 PM
Slightly off-topic, but I am thoroughly impressed, although in Minnesota I suppose I shouldn't be. I haven't seen WELS specifically called out before, and frankly they deserve it more than most. I'm a bit biased though...it's amazing how well they screw with kids' heads...ten years later and I'm still getting over it.
Good luck to you- if you're taking that church on you will surely need it. Their FAQ page is worth a read if you really want to get depressed quickly...
Posted by: charley
|
June 21, 2009 11:07 PM
A typical high school student may not care about the boundaries between science, religion or other potential sources of information. How should a science teacher respond to a student who simply asks whether he should believe the Biblical creation story or evolution? Telling him the creation story isn't science doesn't answer the question. Should the teacher just say "It's up to you" and leave it at that?
Posted by: JD | June 21, 2009 11:08 PM
Soon we'll see independent study courses such as: How Heaven's Gate Affects Selection Pressure. A 400 level course no less.
Yippee! Fucktard compatibility. Yay!
Posted by: J Todd DeShong | June 21, 2009 11:22 PM
Are you truly so surprised to know, "that which religions force upon others, is not to be forced upon themselves?" (My paraphrase) It is the time old, time worn story of hypocrisy, which, if I am correct, religion invented, and defends with aggressive ignorance.
JTD
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 11:23 PM
Exactly!Posted by: Questioner | June 22, 2009 12:36 AM
Matt (22) and Walton (31) -- Thanks for responding, but your answers were philosophy, which says to me that there is no evidence based reason to think that evolution (or more generally science) suggest atheism. Moreover, the philosophy is suspect. Matt, your #1 potentially pushes induction too far. Black swans do exist. A bunch of Nobel winners lost billions of dollars betting wrong on what they thought couldn't happen based upon what they hadn't observed happening. More practically, I wouldn't expect a *miracle* to be readily testable. It's supposed to be incredibly rare by definition.
With respect to the first cause response, I don't see how evolution speaks to it. Science didn't have a problem with an always existing universe before evidence for the Big Bang turned up, after all. So the "who made God?" quibble doesn't do anything for me. But maybe I'm missing something?
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 1:08 AM
Questioner,
Quite simply, evolution explains us. It explains the immense complexity of life yet it boils down into such a simple process. Traditional religious thought has centred on God being an explanation for things like the complexity of life, or the feeling of love, or to explain morality. With one fell swoop, Darwin's idea changed what it means to be human.
So in one sense, evolution eliminated the need for God. And we can see that this is true of the faith of many. Many devout theists reject evolution because they think that it kills God. And there are many atheists who reject God for the same reason. Of course this doesn't kill all versions of God, but there's always that problem of a theist deity being a "god of the gaps".
And this sense we can still see theists today justifying God as "first cause", "fine tuner", "originated life" whereby God is used as a gap in our understanding of the world. Just think, 151 years ago there was no good answer for explaining what we see in biology. Only 500 years ago it was thought that the earth was the centre of the universe. God as an explanation is dead, or at the very best on his death bed. These days God is the breaker of supersymmetry and synthesiser of protocells because the laws of physics and of biology are now known.
But of course, this doesn't apply for everyone's view of God. You could never do that, there are as many versions of God as there are believers in God. So while you may not see how evolution affects your belief (as would be true for many others,) at the same time it must be recognised that for many, creation and God are inseparable. And evolution (along with all science and history) puts that nonsensical view of God to rest.
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 1:14 AM
If God turned water into wine, would that not be testable? If God healed an amputee, would that not be testable? If God rearranged the stars to spell in the sky "JESUS IS LORD" would that not be testable?The problem with saying that miracles aren't testable is that they have real world effects that are. Earthquakes are rare, yet we can test for the after effects. There only needs to be one tsunami for us to know that a tsunami happened. The question is, why doesn't God reveal himself to the world in a clear unambiguous manner? Surely God can, it would be really nice to see the whole Israeli-Palestinian dispute solved instead of both sides just asserting that they have God on their side. Whose side is God on in that dispute? Surely if there were a God then God could come down and make it known whose side he is on.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 22, 2009 1:28 AM
And we're talking a perfect God here, remember; surely if he actually wanted us believe in and worship him - as it's claimed he does - he'd know exactly how to do it in such a way that it would work.
Heck, that's what at least one branch of Christianity (Calvinists) believe - he just magically changes your brain so that you believe in him. Based on that logic - an argument for which they cite scripture - it's reasonable to assume that you won't ever become one unless he chooses to make you one.
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 1:33 AM
The Big Bang doesn't stop the universe from always existing, it just means that the 4-dimensional bubble that we live in had a beginning. Remember that the big bang is not something coming from nothing, but the expansion of a singularity. Something was there already!Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 22, 2009 1:48 AM
Questioner,
Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it makes him superfluous. Before the Theory of Natural Selection the best explanation of why living creatures were so complex was that they were designed. However, after Darwin there was a solution that fit the facts better. This solution didn't require God. Hence the best reason (in many people's mind) for God disappeared.
As for science in general, nothing so far seems to benefit with the assumption that "God did it". In fact, postulating an invisible being that no one can see, hear, touch, etc. and that no detectable influence on our world isn't really science. In science, theories have to be able falsifiable, i.e, it could potentially be proven wrong with a test. Einstein famously said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". Thus science is about weeding out the wrong theories. The theories that survive experimentation keep getting tested by new experiments.
I presume you don't believe in Poseidon, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Apollo, Cthulhu, etc. Atheists just go one god further than you.
There actually was problems with an always existing universe. Stars are attracted to each other by gravity. Given enough time all the stars would lump together and all existence would be one giant matter soup. That's clearly not the case.
Newton tried to get out of this mess by postulating an infinite number of stars in an infinite universe. Any given star would feel the gravity of stars in all directions, hence the forces would cancel out and there was a static universe. The problem with this model is that it predicts that the night sky should be bright (see here for details). Clearly it's not.
Posted by: H.H. | June 22, 2009 2:38 AM
Questioner:
You're likely to get several different answers on this from different posters, but allow me to offer my take.Science is methodology, but it is a product of a particular philosophy, namely skepticism. Other philosophical world views have tried to co-opt science and claim compatibility, but they can't actually offer any justification for the association. Science is evidence based, and hypotheses are accepted or rejected depending on how well the evidence supports them. Since there is no evidence for god, science says we must reject the god hypothesis until such time that there is. That's the "evidence based" reason for accepting atheism--that theism is not supported by the evidence. That and the fact that atheism is the default position, since it isn't a positive assumption, but merely the recognition that the arguments for theism fail.
Actually, no, it isn't.Posted by: MadScientist | June 22, 2009 4:01 AM
Ah, and people wonder why I go all rabid and foam at the mouth whenever any dolt suggests that we should be 'civil' or 'respect the beliefs' of accommodationists. Personally I don't see what's uncivil about saying things like "that's so unbelievably goddamned stupid" when something really is so. Nor is there anything wrong with saying "only an ignoramus can believe crap like that". If we put up with nonsense and idiots we'll surely have to suffer more nonsense and idiots, and personally I think there is way to much nonsense and far too many idiots to begin with; I certainly wouldn't want to encourage more.
Posted by: articulett | June 22, 2009 5:23 AM
Charley at #48, I am a high school science teacher and students don't ask me what they should believe. I have been asked if I believe in the bible, and I ask them which parts of the bible (they have no clue since few have actually read it)and I might add that I think that beliefs should be kept private. I also get asked if I believe in evolution, I tell them I don't "believe" in evolution-- rather, I ACCEPT evolution just like I accept that the sun is another star and that the earth is round because I understand it. I've also been asked if humans come from monkeys or accused of saying such, and I point out that the evidence actually shows we have a common ancestor (and the chromosome #2 fusion nails that down quite well.)
I also tell them that when I want to know an answer to a particular question, I seek out experts in that field. If I want to know how far away the nearest potential planet with intelligent life might be from earth, I ask astronomers and astrobiologists because they love and understand these topics. If I wanted to solve a crime, I'd look to a forensic scientist and so forth. I don't know that there are any experts on what people "should believe".
I've pointed out that there are lots of creation stories, but there is only a singular truth. Science, so far, has been the only method for reliably understanding the truth that is the same for everybody no matter what they believe. It was science that showed us that the earth is actually a spheroid (though it appears flat to us because of our relative smallness and our perspective)and that our sun is a star and it only appears to be moving across the sky because our planet rotates toward it every day. These things were true long before anyone believed them or understood them, and we did it all through the scientific method (with no help or hints from holy books, I might add--in fact, holy texts were often a hindrance to the process-- e.g. (Galileo).) When told that "science doesn't know anything", I point out that is true, but when science can't explain something, that doesn't mean that someone else can.
I would tell my students the same thing if they asked me whether they should "believe" Scientology's teachings. (Scientologists believe the universe is more than 70 TRILLIAN years old.) I'm an equal opportunity woo dismisser.
I don't bring up religion at all unless someone else does, and they rarely do though some of my students seem to have been affected with the meme that their salvation is at risk if they "believe in" i.e.(understand)evolution.
I learn a lot of how to respond to such questions from the people here, and nothing ever comes up that some woo somewhere hasn't used as a reason to believe whatever it is they feel good about believing. The same logical fallacies are used again and again to prop up any and every woo. What else is there to use, when you don't have any evidence in your favor. Religions tend to muddle critical thinking skills (and they promote this nutty notion that faith is noble and a means of knowing "higher truths"). My goal is to mitigate the meme infection so that thinking can flourish as a way of paying back those who paved that path for me.
Posted by: XD | June 22, 2009 5:54 AM
Atheism has doctrine?I hate it when people conflate atheism and secularism. Atheism is the absence of god-belief, and is therefore a position which can be only applied to subjects which have the capacity to believe (i.e. humans). Secularism is simply the absence of religion.
Posted by: brownf fat | June 22, 2009 6:26 AM
visit brownfat.com for a healthy life.
Posted by: Metatwaddle | June 22, 2009 6:33 AM
Urgh. I'm surprised to see you of all people call "some of us atheists" militant. To be considered a militant Muslim or a militant Christian, you have to advocate violence. But to be considered a militant atheist, you just have to think religion is stupid. Why the double standard, and why do atheists perpetuate it by repeating that sort of thing?Posted by: Carlie | June 22, 2009 6:56 AM
How does evolution (or, more generally, science) provide an evidence based rationale for atheism?
It doesn't, but it does point out ways in which the dogma of certain religions is flat-out wrong. God didn't create man in a day, man evolved. There wasn't a genetic bottleneck a few thousand years ago of every species on the planet. There weren't giants. There was never a flood that covered the globe. For religions that take the word of certain texts as immutable truth, these contradictions wipe out their foundation, making the whole thing suspect. The ones that take their holy texts as nebulous metaphorical guidelines fare better, but then again they don't have much to hang on in the first place.
Posted by: John Morales | June 22, 2009 7:04 AM
Metatwaddle, militant can mean: activist; belligerent; aggresive; meliorist... need I go on?
To avoid ordinary usage of the word is to acquiesce to the very distortion you decry. Let the double-standard stand, it is not of our making.
Posted by: itspiningforthefyords
|
June 22, 2009 7:37 AM
Um, these people misunderstand your position because they intend to misunderstand it. This fact makes them dishonest, and pitiful, and is actually good news, since such tactics are signs that the mortar that is keeping the last bricks of Diderot's last church from falling and braining their last doddering priest of absurd, never really useful, outmoded and often harmful (to this day) bullshit is weakening.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 22, 2009 8:35 AM
I really wish this accomodationist row would just go away. Coyne's original point was a good one, and well-taken by those ready to hear it. The first wave of accomodationist backlash and initial non-accomodationist rebuttal were probably good things, just to get everyone's opinions out on the table.
But now it's just flogging a dead horse. We all know where everybody stands, and realistically nobody is going to have a major/meaningful change of heart.
Realistically, the NCSE is just going to continue their policy the way it is. Do the non-accomodationists really think they can change that in the near term?
By the same token, realistically, none of us non-accomodationists are going to stop blogging our opinions because of some absolutely ludicrous fear about SCOTUS deciding that evolution is an implicit endorsement of atheism. Do the accomodationists really think Coyne and PZ are going to shutter their blogs for good? Or change their entire philosophy?
The time has come to end this debacle. If another inflammatory pro-accomodationist article appears, we don't need a five-page rebuttal, because we already ''know''. All the anti-accomodationists need to do is give a one-paragraph summary saying, "We didn't say that (and here's ten links where we emphasize that point). All we said is that the NCSE should not be endorsing liberal Christianity. Deal with it."
Of course, it's the blogosphere, so this will never happen.
Posted by: Carlie | June 22, 2009 8:50 AM
To avoid ordinary usage of the word is to acquiesce to the very distortion you decry. Let the double-standard stand, it is not of our making.
Really? I personally don't like having a word normally used for terrorists to be applied to me in such a way as to incite hatred and violence towards me and my views, but maybe that's just my opinion.
Posted by: Questioner | June 22, 2009 9:54 AM
Re 54: I said "readily testable," but thanks for your response.
Re 57: I'm sorry, but I think the "you're an atheist but I just reject one more God than you" line is silly. We all make choices and select various ideas, theories, hypotheses, values and reject others. And thanks for the note re Newton, but you misunderstood me. I understand that the ever-existing universe idea didn't fit the data and was thus rejected. My thought related to the concept.
Re 58: I get that. But what about areas where choices must be made without evidence based reasons? Ethics comes to mind. Also, I'm fine with the default position explanation, but, historically, hasn't most of the great new stuff come about as the result of great leaps of insight, creativity or imagination?
Re 61: I understand why atheists would want to follow Flew (ironic, isn't it?) and turn atheism into a lack of belief rather than a denial of all gods. It's easier to destroy than to create. But, in general and in my experience, people want and need affirmative grounding and something will always fill that need. I often wonder if atheists of this variety aren't afraid to offer an affirmative worldview for fear of undergoing the scrutiny of examination.
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2009 10:05 AM
There's no need to fill affirmative ground unless there's sufficient evidence to fill it with. Just imagine it's the year 1857 and there's no sufficient explanation for the diversity of life. If someone came out and said that life spontaneously formed out of dust, does one need to put forth a positive worldview in order to call that argument nonsense? It seems to be committing the only game in town fallacy to suggest that one needs to give a positive response.
I don't know how the universe came to be, or even if "came to be" is appropriate. I don't know, and by all accounts I cannot know. But this doesn't mean that God is a better explanation than nothing, nor that I should take the explanation in the absence of any other explantion...
... say instead of God, someone posited that an invisible pink unicorn made the universe. Would you honestly complain if someone dismissed this notion without giving another positive alternative? Shouldn't the idea be touted on its own merits as opposed to the relative merits compared to other explanations? Surely plausibility should be the first barrier to jump before we even get to parsimony.
Posted by: TheLady | June 22, 2009 11:45 AM
Ketchup and mustard are also perfectly compatible, but you don't want either one of them on your pancakes. This who "creationism/evolution in the classroom" business is just stupid; like arguing whether or not we should teach Alfred, Lord Tennyson, during PE class. Er, wuh?
#46:
Hmm, yeah; but on the other hand the US upper house doesn't automatically reserve seats for bishops, and the President is not Head of the Established Church. Christians in places like the UK, Greece or Italy can be pretty laid back about how their religion is marketed in the public sphere, because it's protected by law - so they don't get too het up about evolution in the classroom per se (although there was a massive debate about this here in the UK last year, actually). It's more the Muslims that tend to be vocal on these issues, because they're the ones with a persecuted minority mentality.
Posted by: IainW | June 22, 2009 12:25 PM
Questioner (#69):
Except atheists of all varieties frequently do offer an affirmative worldview. The affirmative worldview that they put forward varies from atheist to atheist, but in many cases it's some variation on humanism (in the moral or political sphere) or naturalism (in the philosophical sphere).
Thing is, however, that the worldview in question needn't be entailed by atheism, and atheism needn't be entailed by the worldview. What you need to remember is that atheism is purely a matter of a person's attitude towards the proposition "God exists". It doesn't entail any positions that aren't entailed by the falsity of said proposition (e.g., "God exists", being a purely descriptive statement, doesn't entail any normative ethical positions, so atheism is compatible with pretty much any ethical or political system).
To put it another way, if I state that I do not believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists, am I guilty of failing to put forward an affirmative worldview? No, because not everything is about the Loch Ness Monster. There are plenty of things I can affirm without reference to Scottish cryptids one way or the other. Similarly, not everything is about God.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 22, 2009 5:13 PM
Questioner,
I don't see what's your point. Of course we all make choices and selections about various ideas. My point was that believers aren't being consistent. When it comes to all those other gods most believers reject them out of hand. However, when it comes to the God they were raised to believe in they use a different set of rules on reasoning.
Yes, it is ironic that theists, who claim to have the moral high ground, would take advantage of an old man clearly suffering from senility just to win a minor public relations victory (see here).
Posted by: articulett | June 22, 2009 6:14 PM
One Thousand Charles Darwin Bibles to be Given Away to Teachers http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2111610730.html
I suspect Brown and his ilk would make nice with these nuts. But would they be so "accommodating" if the Scientologists wanted to hand out Darwin's Dianetics or the Darwin Quyo'ran? I think not. You must draw the line at all faith based claims--you can't single some brands of "woo" out for special treatment. That's what a secular government is about.
This whole claim about "militant atheists" is just the mind game apologists play to avoid acknowledging the special pleading they are asking in regards some brands of woo-- favors they'd never want extended to the faith based claims they don't share. A "militant atheist" is any atheist who treats their sacred superstitions the way the apologist treats all the superstitions he doesn't share.
Posted by: questioner | June 22, 2009 11:51 PM
Re 70: Have you thought that nonsense through? Everyone has any number of unevidenced assumptions and beliefs - necessarily.
Re 72: Of course they do. My reference was to the reflexive "atheism entails no positive claims" that I so often read. I suspect that it's, as often as not, fear driven (though I could of course be wrong).
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 12:04 AM
Of course I have thought it through. What's wrong with saying a bad explanation should be in no way preferred to no explanation at all? If you were to ask "why did the dinosaurs die out?" would you think that "because you touch yourself at night" is preferred to saying "we don't know"? I would hope that you would concede that an explanation first needs to be plausible before being properly considered.What's wrong with this sentiment? Should I believe as the Aboriginals' believe that a Giant Rainbow Serpent shaped the face of the earth in the absence of plate tectonics and erosion? Should I believe that the 'wandering stars' foreshadow the events of mankind in the absence of planetary motion relative to the heliocentric orbit of the earth? Plausibility before parsimony, surely history has taught us that trying to explain without sufficient evidence will almost certainly lead us down the wrong path.
Posted by: Questioner | June 23, 2009 10:03 AM
Re 73: I'm sure that many religionists are being inconsistent, but I know a fair number who are doing all they can to be consistent. They just came to a different conclusion than you.
Re 76: I don't buy your premise. There is no evidence based reason to think that slavery is wrong (for example). Should I withhold judgment on the issue and wait, perhaps forever, for an evidenced based reason to make up my mind?
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 10:11 AM
Don't be throwing red herrings around. Slavery being wrong is a moral / ethical issue, and that is very different for an explanatory concept of reality. We are talking about whether an idea as an explanation is valid, and my argument is that no explanation is preferable to a bad explanation. What is wrong with that statement?And please don't get sidetracked into a debate of morality / ethics. It simply is not relevant at all.
Posted by: heliobates | June 23, 2009 10:15 AM
@Questioner
http://www.naturalism.org/enlightenment1.htm
Posted by: questioner | June 23, 2009 11:29 AM
Re 78: It's not a red herring since most crucial areas of life don't fit the bright line distinction you want to draw. For example, political and economic decisions may be *informed* by evidence, but the conclusions you make can't be evidence based because they must be predicated upon unevidenced bedrock assumptions. Do you prefer liberty or equality and in what measure?
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 23, 2009 9:39 PM
But the topic was scientific explanations. Are there any "crucial areas of life" that are based on no evidence whatsoever?
Actually, I would argue that the only "unevidenced bedrock assumptions" are personal psychological biases, and one muse acknowledge those biases, and argue from additional evidence in addition to those biases.
Or to use the above example: "I do not wish to be a chattel slave" is a personal bias; "Most people do not wish to be chattel slaves" arises from the evidence of personal experience and empathy; "No-one should be forced to be a chattel slave" takes that evidence-based observation and turns it into a prescription.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 23, 2009 9:43 PM
Bah.
Fixed.
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 9:58 PM
Do you honestly think that understanding the universe and a moral position on a particular issue are the same thing? It's a red herring as we were talking about evidence for explanation. Slavery does not fall into this category.But seriously, we are talking about explanations for events, what we would call science (if God did indeed do something, then that is still a scientific explanation). Secular reasoning, including ethics, politics, and among other things science, does require that we have good reasons to believe for what we do. Science is just one facet of that. But when we are discussing science, to throw in a comment regarding ethics which has a different type of evidence and logic to it (it's still important nethertheless) is nothing short of a red herring.
Again I ask, what is wrong with the statement that no explanation is better than a bad explanation when it comes to phenomena? Do you really think saying "A invisible pink unicorn started the universe" is better than saying we don't know? Again, keep this in terms of understanding the natural world, not in terms of morality / ethics.
Posted by: questioner | June 24, 2009 8:23 AM
Re 81: Your view is essentially ev-psych, and isn't exactly evidenced. I suppose those who believe in progressive taxation do so because they're lazy and want other people's money to pay for what they favor even though they're too scared to expropriate it directly?
Re 83: *Every* system of thought requires baseline assumptions - even math and science.
With respect to your last paragraph, I don't claim to know and don't think anybody else can either. We make choices based upon our experiences and the evidence as we see and interpret it, and grounded in our baseline assumptions.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 8:32 AM
Of course. But so what? It doesn't mean every system of thought is equal. And I know that you know that, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting on a computer to use this global telecommunications network.Yes, there are assumptions. But so what? Science works. A bad explanation should in no way be preferable to no explanation at all. Is there anything wrong with statements?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 8:43 AM
*Every* system of thought requires baseline assumptions - even math and science. - questioner
However, those assumptions need not, and should not, be placed beyond the reach of enquiry, criticism and change. We can ask whether a particular set of assumptions is internally consistent. We can ask whether any of the assumptions could be dropped without losing explanatory power. We can ask what the logical consequences of some set of assumptions are, and whether these are plausible in the light of everyday experience. We can ask what progress has been made, and what useful results achieved, by making particular sets of assumptions. We can ask whether a set of assumptions is open to challenge and criticism, or whether it is precisely an attempt to rule out criticism in advance.
In general, I find that those who take the "every system needs assumptions" line are indeed attempting to insulate their beliefs from possible criticism. But in specific cases, I'm willing to be proved wrong.
Posted by: questioner | June 24, 2009 11:56 PM
Re 85: I don't contend, nor do I believe that all systems of thought are equal. I was simply responding to your erroneous claim that suggested that only evidenced beliefs are somehow appropriate. Moreover, I agree that science works, splendidly in fact. But you're tone deaf to the obvious fact that religion works too, if differently. If people didn't perceive value, they'd give it up. Indeed, except for western Europe, religion is growing, so much so that secularization theorists like Peter Berger now reject the idea entirely.
Re 86: I agree that no assumptions should be immune from scrutiny. I try to re-evaluate mine constantly. Oh, in response to your last line and in my experience, those who make those types of statements are simply astounded that anyone could see things differently. We must be ignorant, deluded or mentally ill.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 12:02 AM
I did not claim that, I claimed that a bad explanation should be in no way preferable to no explanation at all. Surely you can agree with something like that. Or do you honestly think "God made man out of clay" is appropriate until something like Lamarkian evolution comes about? And do you think that Lamarkian evolution is fine until Darwinian evolution comes onto the scene?Shouldn't we test ideas on their own merits before testing the merits of that idea against competing ideas? That's all I was advocating, and despite asking you this enough times, you haven't responded.
Religion propagates. So what? It doesn't mean anything about the claims of truth therein. A bad idea is in no way preferable to no idea at all. What is wrong with this statement?Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2009 2:38 AM
What evidence is missing?
This is not just a red-herring, but a complete non-sequitur.
Stick to one topic, or admit that you have no counterargument.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2009 2:45 AM
"Works" in what sense? Makes people feel special? Creates social bonds?
And? So?
Quantify this vague assertion. Better yet, back it up with evidence.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 2:51 AM
Irreligion is on the rise here in Australia, and I'm pretty sure the same can be said for New Zealand. Even the US is seeing a rise in atheism.
But what does this have to do with anything? A bad idea should in no way be preferable to no idea at all. What is wrong with this statement?
Posted by: questioner | June 25, 2009 10:50 AM
Re 88: If your claim is so limited I agree. Of course, it isn't always easy to tell what's a bad idea. Nor is it always possible or even advisable to withhold action until all the evidence is in.
Re 89: *Any* evidence for ev-psych is missing. I think Coyne wrote on it on his blog recently. Re the deterioration of the secularization thesis, an easy starting point:
www.virginia.edu/iasc/HHR.../AfterSecularization/8.12PBerger.pdf
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2009 3:48 PM
I gave a specific example @#81, in response to your #77. What evidence is missing?
-- Is there no evidence that you do not wish to be a chattel slave?
-- Is there no evidence that most people do not wish to be chattel slaves?
Do you mean that you want an actual study supporting the thesis that most people do not want to be chattel slaves? If there were such a study, would you then agree that there was evidence for it? If not, what additional evidence is missing?
Link is broken.
I found it with some Google, and I see no quantification of your assertion: "Indeed, except for western Europe, religion is growing". It's a sociologist who states that he, at least, thinks that he was wrong that modernity correlates with secularization.
Actual data, please.
Posted by: questioner | June 25, 2009 4:49 PM
Re 93: Where is the evidence linking personal desires and moral choices? Thomas Frank has made a cottage industry in the USA wondering why voters vote against their seeming self-interest. Your example, like ev-psych generally, is a handy just-so story and nothing more.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/evolutionary-psychology-the-adaptive-significance-of-semen-flavor/
I pointed you to Berger because so many here seem to think that atheism will inevitably lead to a utopian godless society. Berger was (and is) a leading sociologist who once thought so too (or at least the godless part). If you're looking to add up numbers and play dueling authorities (I'd prefer an actual conversation - I thought the religious growth idea was pretty obvious - but suit yourself), start here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 25, 2009 10:31 PM
Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory (lots of free publications)
http://home.uchicago.edu/~decety/
Natural Ethical Facts
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9982
And probably others as well. I would need to review the literature before finding the most appropriate articles.
No. Mirror-neurons exist; the neural correlates of empathy exist; the psychology of morality exists. The exact scenario of how these neural functions arose will always be more or less uncertain, but given that they do exist, the most parsimonious explanation is that they evolved and function to enhance the survivability of a social species such as humanity.
Your deliberate false conflation of neuroscience with a joke notwithstanding.
I'm sure that it feels good to knock down a strawman. However, I doubt that you will find many that actually think that atheism as a cause will lead to any such thing.
As for myself -- I think that atheism is the correct conclusion of a rational and analytical approach to reality, and that a rational and analytical approach to reality in general will lead to a better society in general. But I don't insist that atheism, in and of itself, will lead to anything necessarily good.
It's all about the empirical and skeptical method. Without the method, the conclusion -- atheism -- isn't really that helpful.
And I suspect that I might say the same about other otherwise correct conclusions.
Odd, since he does seem to be a Christian theologian.
Ah. Your wording confused me. I thought you meant that religiosity is increasing; I see that your reference merely indicates (more or less) that the number of adherents of particular religions is increasing as populations grow -- I suppose the inference is that young children will automatically believe the exact same thing as their parents.
I hope you will pardon me if, unless you point to something like a a PEW or Gallup poll that shows increasing world religiosity, I find that less than impressive.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 10:50 PM
I like Michael Shermer's take on Evolutionary Psychology: [paraphrased] "regardless of what you think of evolutionary psychology, one thing cannot be denied. 99.9% of human history our species lived in the paleolithic environments."
Was listening to an interview between Dawkins and Pinker and one interesting thing that was pointed out was our fears - that people still largely fear spiders, but very few actually fear using a hair dryer while in the bath. The latter is far more dangerous and prevalent mode of death in our society, so why are we so wired up to fear the former?
The problem of evolutionary psychology, it seems, is not that there's any evidence to support the general tenets. But that there's there's not enough evidence (indeed there can not be) to get down to specifics and make broad claims. That while there may be a lot that is hard-wired, all we can do is post-hoc rationalisations - so using the discipline to be specific is putting too much credence into the process.
Scientific American had a good article about it in January.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 11:09 PM
The evidence is never all in, we make do with the best that we can. I don't get why it took you several posts to say that a bad explanation shouldn't be preferable to no explanation at all - that plausibility should come before parsimony, lest we suffer from the only game in town fallacy.Lets look at the question of the origin of life. Now we don't know how life began, there's work being done that is showing promise but as yet there's not a hypothesis sufficiently backed by evidence. Now what if someone came along and said "I think all life was created in the current form it is now by God." This gives an answer to the question, but it is a bad answer because a) it ignores all evidence that life has evolved, and b) puts an unknown mechanism as the force. This is a bad explanation, and is not plausible given what else we know about how life works.
Maybe the assumptions are wrong, the assumptions of evolution. Just as the assumptions of geocentrism were wrong when trying to map the orbits of wandering planets. But this degree of scepticism should not be dropped, and as always the burden of proof is the one making the extraordinary claim. We wouldn't get anywhere without that scepticism as knowledge would stagnate. But surely you can appreciate why one would dismiss homoeopathy as bunk or God as the fantasy of an infantile species until there's sufficient evidence to the contrary - because they simply aren't plausible based on what we know now.
And it may be that we reject truths this way, but if those truths really are as such, then they should survive the burden of proof and show the scepticism to be unfounded. There may be problems with big bang cosmology or general relativity, but it will come down to the ability to match ideas with evidence. The problem of quantum gravity does not entail in any way that we should listen to Deepak Chopra!
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 11:20 PM
lolI see theists come up with this a lot, funny that I've never heard an atheist express anything even remotely close to this. There's a huge difference between "I believe the world will be a better place with religion gone" and "I believe that the world will be a utopia with religion gone". And this doesn't make the truths that religion espouse any more valid, which is what almost all atheists I've ever come across focus on. God is a bad idea, regardless of what role religion plays in the world. Don't try to blur the line between the two, otherwise you'll never understand what the atheists are trying to say... and at the end of the day, don't we want the ability to better communicate?