…and this is a 
I've been away all day, shuttling family about, so I've been trying to catch up the ongoing drama in the conflict between those simpering accommodationists and us mean new atheists. If you've got a little time — there is a bit of tl;dr about it all — read Sam Harris's exchanges with Philip Ball. Sam Harris we all know; Ball is a very reputable science writer who is also very much one of those "I'm an atheist, but…" fellows. It's an infuriating conversation because, as usual, rather than talking about what us "New Atheists" actually think, Harris has to constantly go back and address the blithe misconceptions of the accommodationist.
But Harris's conclusion in particular is worth reading anyway.
I realize that my tone of chastisement has probably grown very tedious and could be mistaken for hostility. But I can't help but feel that there is a great asymmetry between our points of view - both in how fully they have been thought out and in their degree of the moral seriousness. I see the perpetuation of ancient tribalism and ignorance (read "religion") to be a grave problem, and the source of much unnecessary suffering in the world; you claim that the problem is either not very serious or that it is unavoidable--in either case there is not much to be done. You do not seem to see what an astonishing number of the world's conflicts and missed opportunities arise from people's false knowledge about God, and when specific instances are pointed out to you, you deem them to be inevitable (if it's not religion it would be something else), or you defensively say, well of course I object to that instance of religious stupidity: parents shouldn't withhold blood transfusions from their children!... But the truth is, a comprehensive response to the problem of religious ignorance is possible, and a piecemeal response is totally unprincipled and bound to seem so. Our world has be shattered, and is reliably shattered anew with each subsequent generation, by irreconcilable claims about God and his magic books. Until we stop enabling these competing delusions--by our silence and by our silly attempts to change the subject--we will have no one to blame but ourselves when medieval ideas come crashing into public life--as they do, and will, to our great detriment.
It's a weird thing to argue with an atheist who claims religion is unavoidable (Oh? So what's so special about you?) and isn't that bad or is actually beneficial (So why aren't you going to church for your health?), but they're out there and they are irritatingly inconsistent.
Then there's the mischaracterization of outspoken atheists and the apparent contempt for theistic scientists. Here's another example of that attitude.
We should not overlook the New Atheists' support for science, progressive views and legitimization of non-belief as a viable alternative. Unfortunately, their record is also marked by an intolerance of religious people and the alienation of potential progressive allies.
That always baffles me. So if I say that I'm proud to be an atheist, I think theism is a profound fallacy that is incompatible with scientific thinking, that's intolerance and then these religious allies are going to get pissy and decide evolution isn't worth defending anymore? That's an awfully broad interpretation of intolerance, and an extraordinarily dismissive opinion of the theistic evolutionists. I guarantee you that no matter how rude a New Atheist might be to religion, Ken Miller will never give up on teaching evolution or trying to explain science to creationists. The accommodationists can stop trying to scare us into silence with these goofy, unrealistic threats.
Mano Singham makes a similar point.
The accommodationists argue that it is a mistake to insist that science is antithetical to religion because if science is determined to be an intrinsically atheistic enterprise, then even so-called moderate religionists will turn away from science and not support efforts to oppose the teaching of religious ideas such as intelligent design in science classes. This kind of mistaken solicitousness for the sensitivities of religious people, the fear that they will take their ball and go home if others are mean to them, is not new. During the run up to the Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, there were many accommodationists of that era who did not want Clarence Darrow to defend Scopes because they felt that his scorn for religious beliefs would alienate potential religious allies. We now view Darrow's performance in that trial as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools.
There is no downside to godless vigor. Nobody has come up with a reason yet why we should sit down and shut up.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 24, 2009 10:30 PM
That is unquestionably true.
But no one can get around the fact that there is much greater resistance in many people to science when religion is perceived to be at stake, than when it is otherwise perceived.
There's a conflict between teaching science in a relatively receptive manner, and teaching atheism. Many seem to conflate the two, mainly because atheism and science are compatible in a way that theism and science really are not. Yet that does not mean that teaching that science tends to destroy meaningful religion makes science at all acceptable to many students.
Presumably the best course is to teach the science and let its implications be sorted out elsewhere, in other courses, or outside of the school. But it's not that simple for those who, like the NCSE, are trying to keep science from being censored by religion, or for those making official statements about science and its relationship to society.
Probably what is inevitable, and probably for the best, is for various voices to be heard, letting people listen to what they want to hear with respect to science's "compatibility" with religion. In any case, there's no point in keeping incompatibilists on our side silent, because the compatibilists will never persuade the bulk of the incompatibilists on the other side.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 10:40 PM
What I still don't get is why there is so much scorn for the tiny minority that is the atheist community for their saying that science and religion are incompatible, when atheists really don't have much of a voice in these communities. These children more often than not are born into homes with creationist parents, go to school with creationists peers, go to church each week where they are taught the bible contains a literal account of God's history... yet it's Richard Dawkins fault for talking about evolution and atheism on a TV program most of them will never watch?
Something really doesn't make sense about this tactic. Is it just me, am I missing something out of the bigger picture?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 24, 2009 10:40 PM
Yes, we consider Darrow's performance a high point, but it did nothing to prevent the forces of reaction from driving evolution from most of the schools, often by law. Whether his agnostic stance and argumentation actually led to greater censorship of evolution in schools, I don't know. What's clear is that it didn't prevent censorship of evolution in the schools.
What this means today is also in question, because at least we have the courts on our side now, and much else is changed. Yet to suggest that Darrow really accomplished the larger task of defending the teaching of evolution (at least during the middle decades of the 20th century) is to seriously misread history.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: JD | June 24, 2009 10:43 PM
Yep, you let a little shit through and the whole place starts to reek.
If they would just concede that it is *all* bullshit; then we could talk about the value of rituals, relics and tradition.
Posted by: Troy
|
June 24, 2009 10:47 PM
I was just reading this from Sam's website, he made excellent points like always.
Posted by: edw | June 24, 2009 10:47 PM
"There is no downside to godless vigor."
No, there's a downside to too much vigor in *anything*. Especially if it takes up too much of your time bitching about religion, when you could be doing better things.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | June 24, 2009 10:54 PM
Harris has continually said "All we have is dialogue." I totally agree with that, and applaud his willingness to get "in the ring" with people - atheist and theist alike - with whom he disagrees.
Is one an accommodationist, though, if one wants to talk with people of different religions to try understanding their beliefs? I don't mean to say "to see if their beliefs are rational" because I don't think religion is rational. But I find I can come to an understanding of another person without agreeing with them. I'd like to think it's a place to start.
But not if it means being an accommodationist. Can't one speak with people of religion while having an open mind (to the dialogue, not to the tenets of religion, nor to any of its specifically held beliefs), at the same time holding firm to one's own convictions and commitment to reason?
Posted by: Multicellular | June 24, 2009 10:57 PM
Accomodating theists is like saying the emperor has no cloths, but you really dig his invisible buttons. Totally senseless.
OT - the upcoming movie, "Creation" finally has a trailer out: http://www.creationthemovie.com/
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2009 10:57 PM
I will say up front that I am probably most sympathetic with Ken Miller's opinions and actions on the evolution/religion/science debate.
This is my understanding on this issue:
I dont think the 'accomodationists' (and other allies) have a problem with new atheists being out 'n' proud and putting forward their opinions - I think that PZ has mischaracterised the 'accomodationists' argument when he says that.
I understand that there is often a mischaracterisation of the 'new atheists' but it is untrue to say that this site (or Dawkins one) doesnt put forward grand generalisations and mischaracterisations of good scientists who have a religious bent...and no, I am not talking about Ken Hovind!
One example that comes to mind are the comments on Pharyngula re: Francis Collins. In particular, there was one a couple of months ago where people here were effectively arguing that he (and other scientists with a religious bent) should not hold political office or positions where they represent science/scientists.
Those types of blog posts/comments have been quite frustrating to read. Of course, everyone has a right to state their opinion, and this position isnt representative of a majority of the posts and comments - however by choosing to ignore that stream within the new atheist movement you dont do your argument any favours.
PZ is mischaracterising the new atheists and the accomodationists by saying that the problem the accomodationists have is with atheists being 'out and proud'. In fact the argument often put forward by the accomodationists is that it is the extreme rigidity of some of the new atheists who choose not to see scientists who have a religion as good scientists or intelligent people. Now, I agree that the influence of this current can be exaggerated by opponents of new atheists, but debates usually are prone to exaggerations - new atheists often exaggerate the positions of a minority of accomodationists and claim it to be a majority position (Ruse's position is one that I can think of that is quite often on this site characterised as being 'the accomodationists' position).
It is disingenuous to say that there is not a current within the new atheist 'movement' that is not blindingly rigid in relation to people who try to reconcile science and religion, or at least compartmentalise the 2 in their brain. Is trying to reconcile the 2 contradictory? Often, yes but some people choose to try to do so. And some new atheists think that these people should be shunned by the scientific community for that. Why pretend that strand of the 'new atheist' movement doesnt exist?
That's not to say that people shouldnt put forward their opinions, but I am trying to make the point that new atheists can often mischaracterise themselves and others- just as much as accomodationists and IDers.
I know that people will probably respond to my post, but please understand I am in a different country so I wont be able to respond so easily i.e. I'm not avoiding the discussion, I'm just in a different time zone.
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2009 10:59 PM
I will say up front that I am probably most sympathetic with Ken Miller's opinions and actions on the evolution/religion/science debate.
This is my understanding on this issue:
I dont think the 'accomodationists' (and other allies) have a problem with new atheists being out 'n' proud and putting forward their opinions - I think that PZ has mischaracterised the 'accomodationists' argument when he says that.
I understand that there is often a mischaracterisation of the 'new atheists' but it is untrue to say that this site (or Dawkins one) doesnt put forward grand generalisations and mischaracterisations of good scientists who have a religious bent...and no, I am not talking about Ken Hovind!
One example that comes to mind are the comments on Pharyngula re: Francis Collins. In particular, there was one a couple of months ago where people here were effectively arguing that he (and other scientists with a religious bent) should not hold political office or positions where they represent science/scientists.
Those types of blog posts/comments have been quite frustrating to read. Of course, everyone has a right to state their opinion, and this position isnt representative of a majority of the posts and comments - however by choosing to ignore that stream within the new atheist movement you dont do your argument any favours.
PZ is mischaracterising the new atheists and the accomodationists by saying that the problem the accomodationists have is with atheists being 'out and proud'. In fact the argument often put forward by the accomodationists is that it is the extreme rigidity of some of the new atheists who choose not to see scientists who have a religion as good scientists or intelligent people. Now, I agree that the influence of this current can be exaggerated by opponents of new atheists, but debates usually are prone to exaggerations - new atheists often exaggerate the positions of a minority of accomodationists and claim it to be a majority position (Ruse's position is one that I can think of that is quite often on this site characterised as being 'the accomodationists' position).
It is disingenuous to say that there is not a current within the new atheist 'movement' that is not blindingly rigid in relation to people who try to reconcile science and religion, or at least compartmentalise the 2 in their brain. Is trying to reconcile the 2 contradictory? Often, yes but some people choose to try to do so. And some new atheists think that these people should be shunned by the scientific community for that. Why pretend that strand of the 'new atheist' movement doesnt exist?
That's not to say that people shouldnt put forward their opinions, but I am trying to make the point that new atheists can often mischaracterise themselves and others- just as much as accomodationists and IDers.
I know that people will probably respond to my post, but please understand I am in a different country so I wont be able to respond so easily i.e. I'm not avoiding the discussion, I'm just in a different time zone.
Posted by: Jeeves | June 24, 2009 11:00 PM
Not to be a nattering ninnie or anything but Ball does repeatedly write throughout his responses that organized religion is a big problem and that he is all for steps to lessen its impact on the populace. He isn't playing Ruseian games and I didn't detect a NOMA presence, so what gives? But, alas, Harris was never my favorite of the Horsemen anyway.
Posted by: Multicellular | June 24, 2009 11:01 PM
Well spoot - that should be "Accommodating."
My apologies to the English police who patrol these waters...
Posted by: RichVR | June 24, 2009 11:05 PM
I am so tired of this accommodationist bullshit. Science and religion are enemies. I refuse to give an inch to anyone who professes to believe in a god.
Fuck you, you deluded morons. Your delusions are twisting the minds of children and destroying lives.
Godbots are the enemy. And while I won't ever physically injure a god blatherer, I reserve the right to abuse any and all that I meet.
Let your god fuck with me. I dare him, her, elephant, or whatever.
Fuck them all. You're all a bunch of twisted and deluded assholes. The world would be better without you. Shut the fuck up already.
Hide your sick beliefs the same way that pederasts and rapists do. If they are smart. Otherwise I'll be glad to make you miserable. Verbally of course.
Peace.
Posted by: kamaka | June 24, 2009 11:06 PM
Umm, excuse me, have you read the news lately? Given the worldwide religious wars, suicide attacks and clerical sex abuse scandals, objecting to the influence of religion is hardly bitching.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 11:07 PM
Michael @7,
No.
I would say one is an accomodationist* when one promotes the legitimacy of religion's role in shaping ethics, education and policy.
Posted by: articulett | June 24, 2009 11:13 PM
I'd like it if we could treat all superstitions including religion similarly-- there's no scientific support for any of it. All supernatural claims are in the same woo "magisterium", and so we ought to be able to treat religious claims the same way we'd treat claims of voo-doo practioniers, chupacabra believers and so forth. Do the accomodationists ever offer up a real reason not to? (Just the question tends to inspire apoplectic apologetics, the courtier's reply, and the tsk-tsking digression about how the "tone" of "new atheists" hurts the "cause".)
Should I remain silent when a student tells me that her mother told her she was "possessed" or can I tell her that humans have long attributed things they don't understand to demons and other supernatural beings--until science figures out the truth. Am I supposed to censor FACTS such as the FACT that humans share a common ancestor with their pets because it might challenge someone's faith? Am I supposed to pretend that isn't as much of a fact as the fact that our sun is a star? Should I cater equally to the beliefs of a possible Scientologist child who believe the world is over 70 trillion years old as I do to a biblical literalist? Exactly which sacred beliefs am I supposed to be respecting and why can't I teach science without worrying about peoples' superstitions? Why are my fellow scientists (the acoomodationists) granting special status to some brands of superstition that they'd never give to other brands. Aren't these folks just encouraging magical thinking? I am a science teacher because I want to give the gift of reason and critical thinking. I try to be the teacher I wish I had so that my students don't waste the years I wasted subjecting myself to supposed other ways of "knowing". I find the truth much more important than the protection of "sacred" beliefs. I don't want to enable magical thinking in my students, I want to give them the tools to understand the real world.
I don't want any superstitions protected in my science class. The truth should never be afraid of scientific inquiry. The accommodationists elevate the claims of liars (offering up supposed "divine truths") while furthering prejudice against those who tell the actual truth. http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Actualism They intone that there is some "special" way of "knowing" that only "faith" can tap into. Where's the evidence?
Posted by: RichVR | June 24, 2009 11:17 PM
Religion is a strange old fish
The basis is a simple wish
I'd rather pray and ignore life
And drag along my kids
My wife
They will obey my god you see
But basically
They'll Obey me
And if the cry, they bitch they
Squirm
I'll scare them with The Evil Worm
The snake is satan
Sleek and scaley
Then I'll fuck the babysitter, Hailey.
Apologies to Cuttlefish
Posted by: bassmanpete | June 24, 2009 11:18 PM
Mary @ 9 (and 10, not another Markus I hope) said 'In particular, there was one a couple of months ago where people here were effectively arguing that he (and other scientists with a religious bent) should not hold political office or positions where they represent science/scientists.'
But it's alright for the religious to say that an atheist shouldn't hold political office?
Posted by: JD | June 24, 2009 11:20 PM
Political, pusillanimous, parsimonious. Nothing less. Fuck 'em all. Each and every christard.
Posted by: kamaka | June 24, 2009 11:24 PM
edw @ 6,
Really, watch the DVD "The Magdalene Sisters".
I can assure you it is a fair representation of the outcome of "belief". This movie is but a snapshot of the horrors visited upon those detained over the last 100+ years for the "betterment of their souls".
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2009 11:30 PM
To bassmanpete @ 18,
Not at all! Did you actually read my post?
I put no religious views forward whatsoever, nor did I give any ground to the idea that religion should have a role in politics, school etc.
My point was that PZ and new atheists are complaining about being mischaracterised when;
1. They mischaracterise others positions themselves,
2. They choose to ignore certain trends within their own movement. There IS a significant,(though it seems not to be dominant) strand of new atheists who would like to undermine/alienate/disown scientists what are religious to the point where people have argued that they shouldnt hold senior scientific positions.
Look at some of the comments here already. Do you not see that trend? I was just reading another thread ( on people posting comments) where there was a discussion on who is a (good) scientist, and the same comments came out there.
new atheists do themselves a disservice when they refuse to recognise/admit their are elements of a type of "atheist fundamentalism" within their own movement.
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2009 11:34 PM
"... what are religious..."
that should be 'who are religious'
My bad, and sorry for the double post before.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 11:35 PM
For those at home playing buzzword bingo, mark off square #21Posted by: kamaka | June 24, 2009 11:43 PM
Nice try,Mary. It's a fundamental truth that there is NO evidence for the supernatural in any form.
We "fundamentally" want evidence for the woo-woo, and to tell you the truth, I "believe" that will never happen.
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2009 11:43 PM
To Kel, #21
What would you call a person who argues that religious people who are scientists shouldn't hold senior scientific positions because their own belief is that religion is a sham?
I dont know why people are getting pissy at my posts already. People seem to interpret them as being from a religious nut, when im not religious at all. I just find that kind current of thinking within the new atheists absurd and counter productive - and my point is that PZ's post is essentially saying that current doesnt exist...and now you, it seems.
Again, I am not defending the Hovinds' of the world, I am defending the Collins'.
Posted by: articulett | June 24, 2009 11:46 PM
Mary, this is a science blog where opinions are free... some might find you to be mischaracterizing others just as you find them to be doing so.
But the real problem is that some people want to enter-twine some supernatural beliefs with science in order to legitimize them. They would not allow this to happen with other supernatural beliefs. This is, not only hypocritical, it lends support to the idea that faith is a legitimate way of "knowing". Faith is something people ought to keep to themselves if they don't want to hear a scientific assessment to their claims. So long as their faith isn't about the actual world and doesn't affect the actual world, the scientist has nothing at all to say about it, right? If the accomodationist doesn't want to accommodate Scientologist theology, then they are being very ballsy to ask that we accommodate Christianity-light. When you lend credence to an invisible guy who talks to people, you are making people feel good when they imagine they got a message from that guy. Sometimes, you may recall, that voice tells them to drive airplanes into buildings or kill abortion doctors or threaten kiddies with hell. I want a world where believers in all supernatural claims are as private with their beliefs as they wish those believers in other wacky things to be. Is that too much to ask? Really? You know-- do unto others... The accomodationist isn't for accomodating all beliefs-- just the one they've been indoctrinated to protect. They don't admit this hypocrisy--instead, like you, they comment on "tone" or some other idiotic tangent-- anything to miss the point.
You are asking that we treat some brands of superstition differently than we treat others... in this way you are enabling the "faith in faith" meme and the continual infection of people with that meme. Critical thinking and containment of the mind virus is the only way out.
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2009 11:50 PM
kamaka @24
Please read my post. What does 'proof' of the supernatural have to do with whether a scientist is good or bad? I wasnt arguing for the existence of god/s, I was arguing that believing that a scientist is not worthy of senior positions because of their faith (which has been argued here before)is a significant current amongst new atheists and is an extreme position to take.
Posted by: kamaka | June 24, 2009 11:53 PM
A rational thinker.
An alleged scientist who holds beliefs that are obviously irrational chooses to be doubted in rational discourse.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 11:53 PM
saneBut in all seriousness, beliefs are not born equal. Was PZ opposed to Collins because Collins had any beliefs at all, or because of a particular set of beliefs? It's nonsense to think that every belief as equal worth, and what is wrong with rallying against those whose beliefs have a higher tendency to pervade their work?
I'd doubt there would be much objection to someone like Ken Miller in a post like that, and I think that is a key difference. It's not rejection based on the notion that religion is a sham, rather that particular beliefs themselves are intrusive and detrimental. It seems like you are building up a straw-man argument by suggesting it's to do with thinking religion is a sham as opposed to the particular person and case.
Posted by: articulett | June 24, 2009 11:56 PM
And I don't think Francis Collins is treated any differently then he or other scientists would treat a Muslim scientist or Moonie scientist or Buddhist scientist making similar specious claims. You can be religious and be a scientist, but you ought not try to give respectability to your religion by pretending you came to your beliefs through science. Why doesn't he keep his faith as private as he's like the local Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses to keep theirs? Is that too much to ask. Doesn't his god admonish him to "pray in the closet"? Why not defend the truth tellers who dare to say the Emperor is naked rather than the mildly delusional? I find the enabling of folks like you to be far more disruptive to spreading critical thinking than the methods by those mean old "new atheists" you imagine at every turn. Could your own bias be the cause of your seeing things so differently? Maybe you've inadvertently learned to protect faith from scrutiny by imagining "militancy" that isn't there (or greatly exaggerating what is) in order to keep yourself from discovering this fact. You sure wouldn't be the first person to have done so.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 25, 2009 12:03 AM
"Atheist fundamentalism?" WTF?
Mary, would you care to read through articulett's post (#16) and answer his/her questions? Or for that matter, bassmanpete's question (#18)? Do you have any answer for any of them from your pro-accommodationist standpoint?
Almost every time I call up my mother, this is what we talk, argue and shout about. My heptogenarian mother accepts everything that modern science has to offer, understands the importance of science in our lives, but still clings to the nebulous concept of a 'spiritual plane', where some magical being 'makes everything nice-nice'. Whenever something good happens, the invisible magical being gets all the credit; and whenever something bad happens, she takes refuge in philosophy, the 'karmic philosophy' that hinduism espouses to explain everything - everything is bound by karma and its effects. Contradictory? You betcha.
Let me echo articulett's final statement in #16 (I couldn't have said it better). Tell me, Mary, if you can fault that statement.
And as atheists, we are supposed to be fine with the untruth? Bull-fucking-shit!
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 12:10 AM
My above post was to Mary. And I resent people coming to this website trying to tell the people here to tone it down. There's a whole internet of forums and thought processes. I come here because I like my truth unfiltered.
If you find people here to be unreasonable, Mary, you are free to find a tamer forum for your opinion proffering. Myself, I've had enough of the apologetic nothingness. You guys never really say anything while implying we should be more like you to further some "cause". But I don't want to be more like you--I want to be more like those you are trying to "tone down"... and my "cause" is the truth--what are your qualifications in leading such a cause? I'm tired of being silenced by those who imagine themselves to be some sort of peacekeeper for some nebulous cause. I like Pharyngula because people like you are promptly taken off your high horse. Great, you think Collins is treated meanly here. And I think PZ Myers, et. al. are treated terribly all over by those you apologize for --merely because they have the audacity to speak the truth--you know, the things that are the same for everyone no matter what they believe. Sometimes, the truth is harsh--but that's not the fault of the messenger, is it?
Go tell theists to tone it down. We've already gotten the message a million times. Tell the apologists and accomodationists to tone it down or keep it in the closet. Then you need never worry about silencing our responses.
Posted by: Mary | June 25, 2009 12:12 AM
To articulett @ 26,
"But the real problem is that some people want to enter-twine some supernatural beliefs with science in order to legitimize them. They would not allow this to happen with other supernatural beliefs."
Agreed, and I am not in favour of that...
"Faith is something people ought to keep to themselves if they don't want to hear a scientific assessment to their claims. So long as their faith isn't about the actual world and doesn't affect the actual world, the scientist has nothing at all to say about it, right?"
I agree. I think anyone who has faith should keep it a private matter and not try to find a scientific explanation to justify their beliefs.
"I want a world where believers in all supernatural claims are as private with their beliefs as they wish those believers in other wacky things to be. Is that too much to ask?"
No. again, I agree.
"They don't admit this hypocrisy--instead, like you, they comment on "tone" or some other idiotic tangent-- anything to miss the point."
I did NOT comment on 'the tone'. My comment was that there is a current within the new atheists who want to marginalise scientists with religious beliefs. PZ's post DENIES that this trend exists 9when it clearly does), and you are trivialising my argument by suggesting I was arguing against no more than 'the tone' of the argument. An atheist (or anyone) arguing that scientists with religious beliefs should NOT have access to certain positions is NOT trivial, it is a significant and extreme position to take. Do you agree with those that have argued this position? If so, please explain how that would be legitimate and productive.
"You are asking that we treat some brands of superstition differently than we treat others... in this way you are enabling the "faith in faith" meme and the continual infection of people with that meme."
Again, like I said above, I am NOT arguing that! I am arguing against that element of atheists that argue that scientists with faith should be marginalised within the scientific community. I dont think religion should have a relationship with science or be present in the 'public sphere', but to discriminate against scientists with faith, as some here have argued, is absurd. You on the other hand, seem to be arguing that it is okay. Can you explain why?
"Critical thinking and containment of the mind virus is the only way out."
Sure, but you seem to be arguing that that scientists who are religious are incapable of thinking critically and making a useful contribution to science. Why?
Posted by: Jeeves | June 25, 2009 12:17 AM
Okay, so has anyone read the series of letters from start to finish to see if Ball is being a namby pamby Neville Chamberlain? I just don't see it.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 12:17 AM
Wasn't the whole thing with Collins a polition position as opposed to a scientific one?
Posted by: AJ Milne | June 25, 2009 12:17 AM
I'm not really sure how the (it seems to me) rather hazy notion of the accomodationists that the existence of religion is inevitable really helps the accomdationist case so much, either. I'd say I generally suspect some level of irrational belief will always exist, too, and that religions probably will arise de novo out of those anyway, and thus in that sense religions will probably always exist, but this doesn't change my view one whit that where you find it, you do what you can to get rid of it.
I mean, hell, disease is pretty much inevitable, too, but that's still no reason not to get rid of those we can. Yes, there will always be pathogens--but if you can send polio packing with a proper immunisation program, damn fucking straight you get that done. I guess maybe the direction they would take that metaphor is: if you can't cure, ameliorate, contain, treat symptoms, whatever... But I don't buy that claim at all. Individual cases are the easy level of this to answer--insofar as you can chase religion out of people, on an individual level, quite obviously. Whether you can chase it out of society at large, that's another question. But unless they're confusing those two questions and their implications rather badly, again, I don't see where they get from 'it'll always be around' to 'play nice with those that carry it'. It does not follow, it seems to me.
Posted by: AntiTroll | June 25, 2009 12:20 AM
Anyone see this piece on Fundamentalists in the US military?
Third post down I think
Very nice post by Michael Shermer IMHO.
Posted by: Christopher | June 25, 2009 12:23 AM
"But no one can get around the fact that there is much greater resistance in many people to science when religion is perceived to be at stake, than when it is otherwise perceived."
I say offend the hell out of them and hope it inspires a positive direction for the natural rebelliousness of their kids. Religion isn't inevitable in the longterm, but I seriously despair of its complete abandonment within my lifetime. If there is much truth to the latest statistics showing godlessness to be on the rise among the youths, I say Fuck It! Let's have a good time and enjoy the downward spiral of religious values and nuts! to coddling the thinning herd of believers. If the "new atheist" stance offends them into stubborness, their children, or their grandkids will eventually learn enough on their own to see the light. The internet is our printing press, and has changed the flow of information forever, or, at least, until unforseeable, widespread loss of utilities. Knowledge no longer rests in the hands of a few pious scribes in a tower, waiting for a revolution or accidental fire to destroy everything worked for. Even if religious people gain increasing political power in the short term, they cannot stop the tide. I am pretty confident that our species will grow up if it survives.
We happen to be living during a time of great changes and it sucks that so many of us can't see what is happening and join in the progress. I forget who it was that said they might have had the internet in the 1500's, had it not been for Roman Catholicism. This is certainly an oversimplification made in jest, but it makes one think about what kind of explosion of technology and knowledge our descendants might achieve once they finally shed religion.
Along this line of thinking, rationalists have a duty. Traditional religions will change and, hopefully, die, but the masses will still have a strong appetite for superstitious wishful-thinking and need to have a skeptical voice available for consideration as well as decent educational standards. It will be a sad, sad thing for the majority of makind to end up UFO cultists rather than rational materialists, before some real planet-wide crisis strikes.
Since many, if not all, of us will expire before alot of this happens, let's make damn sure that the history books note that we told them so.
Posted by: AntiTroll | June 25, 2009 12:30 AM
Lemme try that again and sorry for the offtopic-ness.
Nice post by Michael Shermer on Fundamentalists in the US military
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 25, 2009 12:32 AM
Mary at #33:
Are you prepared to accept the answer to your question?1. Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. If you don't know or understand that, I am sorry I don't really have anything else to say to you.
2. Scientist 'A' is a human being with a human brain. If that same brain starts 'accommodating' batshit insane beliefs in a non-existent being, how long do you think that brain would retain the ability to consider everything critically, sift the evidence and present a rational conclusion? "Cognitive dissonance" is not just a term; can you even imagine (if you think rationally) what a tremendous amount of strain that is on a functioning brain - two completely contradictory ideas jousting in there? And you say, with certainty, that 'A' would retain the critical reasoning abilities and do science?
Posted by: Mr Eccles | June 25, 2009 12:36 AM
I did read the entire exchange from start to finish, and I certainly do see appeasement. Ball's characterization of his position as "picking one's battles" is, to my mind, indefensible. Niemöller's poem "First they came..." springs to mind for it's theme of inaction even if the subject is different.
Posted by: Mary | June 25, 2009 12:36 AM
To articulett at #30 and #32,
"And I don't think Francis Collins is treated any differently then he or other scientists would treat a Muslim scientist or Moonie scientist or Buddhist scientist making similar specious claims. You can be religious and be a scientist, but you ought not try to give respectability to your religion by pretending you came to your beliefs through science."
Agreed. I really only brought up Collins because he was the first example that came to mind when I read the blog. I dont know of any other scientists (apart from him and Miller who I know are religious).
"Why doesn't he keep his faith as private as he's like the local Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses to keep theirs?"
I dont know, ask him. I am not defending his faith, I am defending his right to be recognised as a scientist who has makes a good contribution to the field of science, and not be marginalised by atheists because of his beliefs.
"I find the enabling of folks like you to be far more disruptive to spreading critical thinking than the methods by those mean old "new atheists" you imagine at every turn."
Do you find Miller counter productive? I am not against the spreading of critical thinking, I am against the current amongst new atheists that says that anyone with religious beliefs should be/ have their work marginalised.
"Could your own bias be the cause of your seeing things so differently?"
No, because as I said before, I am not religious.
#32
"And I resent people coming to this website trying to tell the people here to tone it down...If you find people here to be unreasonable, Mary, you are free to find a tamer forum for your opinion proffering."
I couldnt give a rats ass why you come to this site - I came here to argue my point, if you dont like it, dont reply to me - but if you misconstrue what I say (as others did) I will post a reply .
I thought you said earlier that everyone had their right to air their opinions here - have I not got that right because I am a rookie? My posts are correcting mischaracterisations of my opinions by people who seem to have not read or misread my posts and choose to jump to the conclusion that I am the enemy.
I agree that PZ and atheists are not treated well by others, however, that has nothing to do with what I argued. My point is that PZ's post argues implies that there is no current within the new atheists who want to marginalise scientists with faith (of all stripes, not just christians - like I said earlier, I brought up Collins because he was the first example I could think of). He implies that the 'accomodationists misrepresent the new atheists by implying that. He seems to suggest that atheists are being victimised when that is implied.
My point is that there IS a current amongst the new atheists who want to do that and denying that undermines any valid argument the new atheists might have. Why complain about others misrepresenting you, when you do it yourselves? Wouldnt it be better to admit that that does exist, and discuss it openly, rather than crying foul?
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 12:37 AM
Mary I don't know the statement in question about the supposed fundamentalist atheist or what they said... only your allegations about it, and I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread-- only to your position that some people on Pharyngula are too strident.
I don't think I should know the private beliefs of my scientists any more than I should know their sexual orientation, fetishes, or other private matters. It's not relevant is it. I'd prefer to at least imagine that they are rational like me. I would hope all their science is supported by evidence.
But the opinions here are irrelevant; moreover, it's the out of the closet atheist that has much more to contend with than any religious scientist due, in part, I think to this "militant atheist" stereotype which you seem to be promoting. When are words "militant"? How can atheism or any lack of belief be "fundamentalist". Are there fundamentalist non-scientologists? I'm sure the scientologists would like to claim that you and I are such a person.
This post was about the Harris/Ball exchange... and you came here to tsk tsk some supposed "fundamentalist atheists" here without naming names as a sort of a tangential apologetic hand-waving regarding Ball credence (in NATURE magazine no less) to one particular brand of superstitious thinking. How is that relevant. To me it sounds like you are saying, "be nice like me, you mean old atheists!". Like Ball, you ignore the meat and run off on semantic tangents... you are familiar with the courtier's reply, right? How do you see your commentary as different.
Nature lended scientific cred to a superstitious idea... many of us find that abhorrent, and all the apologetics and tsk tsking of fundamentalist atheists on this site doesn't change that fact. It's not even relevant, frankly. I don't know what cause you imagine you are helping, but I see you as furthering prejudice against those who speak the truth in no uncertain terminology.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | June 25, 2009 12:37 AM
I am not responding to any particular comments, the last I read was #9.
I think we need only look at current affairs in the world to get an idea of how effective accomodating religious fundamentalists, or even religious moderates is when issues of real import that are clearly amenable to reasoned discourse are at issue. What seems clear is that when the religious, especially the priviledged religious have held sway, they have ruthlessly and brutally surpressed anything that threatened their hegemony.
The second point I would make is much more simple and obvious but is virtually never mentioned. Religion does not work. It can't deliver any predicitable result in any materialist sense of contending with nature, societies, or the nature of human beings. How does consulting scripture or earnestly praying to the imaginery being in the sky differ from casting sticks and consulting the I-Ching, or looking it up in Nostradamus, or resorting to palmistry or tea-leaves? I have to correct myself, it can deliver one predictable result, the fealty of its devotees. Whether that implies the antagonism of its enemies I leave to philosopers.
It is not at issue in any quantitative or logical sense, we already KNOW religion does not work. On what levels and with what complexity it tends to militate the suffering one "thinks" they are enduring on an individual basis is incomparable to the enormity of the suffering that even a child of 10 can realize is going on all around us, all the time. Provided of course we are not sufficiently insulated with colorful moving pictures and inane blathering.
The thing that is infuriating to the small percentage of all atheists who are vociferous enough to accept those two premises is that those who claim to be able to stand astride the widening chasm between belief and knowledge only serve as a bridge, over which the insanely power addicted radicals espousing the con game, can constantly attack and erode that tiny foothold on rationality, that has transformed the globe in only 200 years. They know their so called religion is nothing but a dog and pony show that gives them both ease in material ways, and the heady ambrosia of controlling other people's minds and actions. A gigantic perverse game of "Simon Says".
I don't use the word believe. I think. I am more often wrong not only initially but sometimes after long efforts, than right. So I go back to the last place where I knew I was on the right track and try again.
I know I have no guide but the closest approximation of truth. Discovered truth, tested truth, not truth given by pronouncement from those whose greatest fluency is lies.
So in sum, I can't see the usefulness of accomodationist thinking. It only provides a connection between those who never really think at all, and those of us who make it a point to try to think about nearly everything.
If the accomodationists were some sort of "line of supply" a source of new atheists who were willing to contribute, that might be a different thing. They might be in some sense, I, not being a social scientist, don't know. But I don't think so. Their desire to accomodate the religious seems a contraindication. They seem to be saying to their student, I may have convinced you, but don't be convinced.
So if we sever our tenous tie across the chasm? Should we disown the accomodationists and risk losing the value of their work? Become a stranded beach head on the great unknown shore, divested of the complex support system to which science is wedded by economics? I think the reality is that the world at large would not LET science become isolated, for the simple reason that they know it works.
Would any of those things happen if in fact the whole of the scientific community, so to speak, "went on strike" and simply said to the government and the population at large, live by reason or suffer the consequences? Hardly.
The fact that no such thing has happened before, or that no such thing is likely to happen in the future is testament to the reality that every aspect of modern life for human beings depends on the discipline and effort of those who do science, translate its results into technology, and gain a tiny advantage in the struggle against entropy. And the fact that they are mostly honest, ethical, and more interested in their work than in acquiring wealth and power. Not to say there are not exceptions.
From a geological perspective, none of it really matters a whit. Twenty million years from now everything will be different to varying degrees, and most probably Homo sapiens will be nothing more than a weirdly prominent fossil.
In a nutshell...
"The Bible says, faith can move mountains, but no one believes it. The atom bomb can move mountains, and everyone believes it." Bertrand Russell (may not be verbatim).
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | June 25, 2009 12:46 AM
So much for trying to stay on topic....
Posted by: Kausik Datta | June 25, 2009 12:49 AM
Articulett:
Damn straight! You are right, with the only proviso that while sexual orientation, fetish, and other private matters do not have any bearing on the science that they do, their religious mindset and willingness to believe in invisible, imaginary beings without evidence will almost certainly do.
Posted by: inkadu | June 25, 2009 12:57 AM
This argument is not because atheists are too aggressive, it is because they are not aggressive enough.
Atheists are fighting on the very narrow ground of science, so attacks will be on that ground.
If we had an effective policy of, say, pushing RELIGIOUS education in schools -- comparative religions, so that students would have a better opportunity to ask the obvious questions that lead to atheism -- you can bet we wouldn't be having as many conflicts over science.
Atheism needs to become more unmoored from science in the political realm if science is to be free from religious attacks.
Let us push the Overton window open a bit more.
And when I say 'us,' I mean you.
Posted by: Roy Sablosky | June 25, 2009 12:59 AM
Sometimes I want to slap these people across the face and say, "Feel that? That's intolerance. Burning someone at the stake for not believing in your god - that's intolerance. Writing a book in which you say you're not sure that religion is the greatest thing since sliced bread is not intolerance. It's called intellectual discussion."
Posted by: Mary | June 25, 2009 1:01 AM
"But the opinions here are irrelevant"
No they arent.
"moreover, it's the out of the closet atheist that has much more to contend with than any religious scientist due, in part, I think to this "militant atheist" stereotype which you seem to be promoting."
And my point is that new atheists are not helping themselves by misrepresenting themselves. Again, why deny a current that exists, as PZ does clearly - and you are doing.
Read PZ's post from the paragraph that starts with this sentence:
"Then there's the mischaracterization of outspoken atheists and the apparent contempt for theistic scientists."
Then reconcile that with the discussion that has/does happen on these forums (amongst a few) that suggest that scientists with religious beliefs shouldnt be taken seriously. It is disingenuous - that is why I bring up previous posts that have been written about Collins - because it is relevant and counters PZ's argument in this instance.
"When are words "militant"?"
When they advocate/incite discrimination based on arbitrary criteria, e.g.
-The pro-lifers who incite people to kill doctors,
-Fox news, who incite right wing nut jobs to kill,
-Human rights activists who incite people to fight for change
People with extreme positions can often fail to see the logical extension of their argument. This is true in the case of atheists who believe that scientists who are religious should be marginalised, or seen as lesser.
"How can atheism or any lack of belief be "fundamentalist"."
read above comment. When you want to marginalise people on the basis of their beliefs being different to yours, is that not fundamentalist?
"This post was about the Harris/Ball exchange... and you came here to tsk tsk some supposed "fundamentalist atheists" here without naming names...How is that relevant. To me it sounds like you are saying, "be nice like me, you mean old atheists!"."
i consider suggesting that work/shouldnt get a job because of their religion is a BIT MORE than being mean? That current amongst you guys should be addressed through honest discussion. Like I said, bringing up Collins was relevant in response to PZ claiming that there is no strand within atheism that would marginalise those with religious beliefs. read over some of the comments here, read over some of the comments in the thread about 'making your first post' and read the comments on previous threads on Collins.
"...but I see you as furthering prejudice against those who speak the truth in no uncertain terminology."
No. See the problem is that you are - ignoring at best, defending at worst - those 'new atheists' who want to discriminate good scientists based on their beliefs.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 1:03 AM
Ugh, I'm getting bugged by all my typos--I apologize folks. Anyhow, I am a fan of Miller and what he did at the Dover Trial. I think Francis Collins does great work on the human genome. I use them as examples of theists who have no problem accepting evolution. I think they ought to keep their beliefs private, that's all. I think Scientist should treat all supernatural claims equally-- gods are no more likely to be true than demons or fairies...there is no more evidence for the Christian God than there is for Buddhist reincarnation cycles. Souls are on par with Scientology Thetans. We can't disprove any of these claims, but we've never found an answer in science by appealing to the supernatural. In fact, such beliefs often impede progress and bias results. If we want students who aren't performing exorcisms on others, then we might have to lessen their hold on their gods as well as demons. It's not the fault of reality that science can't support their preferred delusions.
To Ken Miller, I'd say, if you don't want science meshed with Scientology, then don't try to mesh it with Christianity. I would like all believers to be as "in the closet" with their beliefs as they've made me feel (as an atheist) that I must be. I would like them to feel as private as they want other cults to be. The whole problem would go away if the theists could really intuit "do unto others" and that verse about "praying in the closet".
When people ask me what I believe, I tell them that I consider beliefs private. Or I might say, "Why do you want to know?" In science, the truth matters more than what people believe--the truth that is the same for everyone. It always seems to me that the apologists are demanding respect that they have no intent on giving atheists or others of different superstitions.
Miller is not "marginilized" because of his beliefs. No one needs to know his beliefs or any one else's. There's no test to tell what someone believes or how fervently they believe it and it doesn't seem theists are particularly clear on what exactly they believe anyhow--only that they feel "saved" so long as they can claim belief. Miller is dismissed when he tries to mix his beliefs with his science in the same way that he dismisses YEC's-- and for the same reason, really. What these guys really want is special respect for their woo from scientists-- respect that they'd never give any atheist.. and certainly respect that they'd never give someone of a faith that conflicts with their own.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 1:15 AM
I think theistic scientists and their apologists are forced to promote the "fundamentalist atheist" stereotype. This helps unify them against an imagined threat while keeping them them from having to realize what shaky ground their beliefs are formed upon. Their own supernatural beliefs are on as unsound ground as the beliefs they mentally mock. I think all the rhetoric and promotion of a the "strident atheist stereotype" is the only means they have of shielding themselves from this unsettling hypocrisy. This way they can imagine themselves some sort of "peacekeeper" or "moderate", to boot.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | June 25, 2009 1:18 AM
Um, re: Mano Singham's quote about Darrow -- keep in mind that as a legal matter, Darrow lost and we had evolution bans in much of the country for 40+ years as a result. Maybe this was inevitable given the constitutional precedents of the day, maybe not, but by sensationalizing the trial into a general fight about the credibility of traditional religion, Darrow certainly didn't give the the ACLU the best possible chance for overturning the law, however entertaining the cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan was.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | June 25, 2009 1:19 AM
Um, re: Mano Singham's quote about Darrow -- keep in mind that as a legal matter, Darrow lost and we had evolution bans in much of the country for 40+ years as a result. Maybe this was inevitable given the constitutional precedents of the day, maybe not, but by sensationalizing the trial into a general fight about the credibility of traditional religion, Darrow certainly didn't give the the ACLU the best possible chance for overturning the law, however entertaining the cross-examination of William Jennings Bryan was.
Posted by: inkadu | June 25, 2009 1:21 AM
This argument is not because atheists are too aggressive, it is because they are not aggressive enough.
Atheists are fighting on the very narrow ground of science, so attacks will be on that ground.
If we had an effective policy of, say, pushing RELIGIOUS education in schools -- comparative religions, so that students would have a better opportunity to ask the obvious questions that lead to atheism -- you can bet we wouldn't be having as many conflicts over science.
Atheism needs to become more unmoored from science in the political realm if science is to be free from religious attacks.
Let us push the Overton window open a bit more.
And when I say 'us,' I mean you.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 25, 2009 1:26 AM
I don't think it is. You might be correct - both about the marginalisation, and that marginalisation can be a bad thing - but 'fundamentalist' really isn't the appropriate term in this context.
Using 'fundamentalist' in place of angry, aggressive or inflexible is misleading. It seems to be something cooked up by frustrated Christians who think they're being insulting - when really they're displaying their ignorance and hypocrisy.
There is, as far as I can tell, only one 'fundamental' to atheism, and that's that one can be without belief in god or gods. Anything beyond that must be something else entirely.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 1:33 AM
To take the Sam Harris path in this:
Though again, wasn't the problem that the position was political as opposed to scientific?
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 1:35 AM
Mary, you are coming here trying to get the people you imagine to be "fundamental atheists" (through your own biases) to tone themselves down because you imagine they are hurting some "cause". You have not demonstrated or provided evidence for either claim nor have you shown that your method of vilifying the fundamentalist athiest does anything except further a prejudice against those who speak the truth. What did you imagine your tangential post tsk-tsking the "fundamentalist atheists" here would be? How is it relevant to the Harris/Ball conversation?
You want people to "hear" and acknowledge your opinion while not returning the favor when they give their opinion of your criticism (which I know you imagine is constructive.) But it's not constructive, because it misses the point (just as Ball does to Harris), and you are unaware of your "faith in faith" bias which makes you mitigate the words of the faithful while imagining "fundamentalism" and "stridency" in their opponents. You think you are smoothing things over, but you are really just confirming your own biases--and spreading them as well... and enabling others who would do the same.
The truth has nothing to fear from our words or inquiries or strident words-- but faith sure does. Quit protecting it. Nobody here is hurting anyone and it's unlikely they are hurting any cause despite your hysterics on the subject. But, as Sam Harris notes (and the apologists miss)--magical thinking hurts many people. The greatest gift of science is to give us real truths, instead of fake "higher truths" that must be "believed in" to "work" their wonders.
If faith is good, useful, or true-- then why should the faithful be bothered by our unwillingness to shield it? Ken Miller is a big boy-- all scientists support his science-- but many religionists don't share his faith... they have their own brands. I don't think a real god would need such protecting. I think everyone is shielding Ken Miller and others like him from realizing that their god might might be as imaginary as the invisible entities they dismiss.
Treat Ken Miller the way HE'D treat a Buddhist trying to suggest that science accommodates reincarnation because it can't "prove" that it's not true.
Posted by: cdx | June 25, 2009 1:35 AM
The question about Collins is whether his muddled thinking disqualifies him as leader of the public biology/biomedicine project in the United States. My vote is yes. That awful guitar ditty thing in the Pew Forum meeting...that just puts him outside the community of serious scientists and in with 'youth ministry' hucksterism. That's not expression of the life of struggle of the mind with the material and itself for understanding there, that's its overt capitulation in sadly cheesy and cheerful form.
I'm not a hardass about religion, personally, but the correlation between unsound religious views and inadequately sharp/rigorous scientific thought is remarkably strong in my experience.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | June 25, 2009 1:36 AM
"What I still don't get is why there is so much scorn for the tiny minority that is the atheist community for their saying that science and religion are incompatible, when atheists really don't have much of a voice in these communities. These children more often than not are born into homes with creationist parents, go to school with creationists peers, go to church each week where they are taught the bible contains a literal account of God's history... yet it's Richard Dawkins fault for talking about evolution and atheism on a TV program most of them will never watch?"
Among other things, "evolution = atheism" is one of the top two or three creationist talking points of all time. Many of us who put time in on the ground in communities where evolution education is contentious spend as much time debunking that one creationist argument as all the creationists' pseudo-science arguments put together. So it's a little frustrating to have Dawkins & the other horsemen come along and endorse the creationist talking point as if it were unproblematic.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 1:51 AM
I teach science too, and I think religion doesn't need to be mentioned at all except to say that science is involved with the world of evidence and things we can measure and things that are true for everyone no matter what they believe. There are lots of stories about how the earth came to be and legends about all sorts of things, but there is only one truth, and so far, the best method for illuminating that truth is science. Even when the majority of humans thought the earth was the flat and the center of the universe and they didn't know that our our sun was another star-- it still was a fact. The moon is not made of jello no matter how hard you believe that it is. Science deals in those kinds of facts.
It's not Dawkins fault or anybody else's that Biologists can give no more scientific support in favor of any creation story than an astrologist can give scientific support in favor of a "brand" of astronomy. I think Harris makes this point quite well. I am a teacher on the ground, and I appreciate Dawkins and Harris for being able to say aloud what I am afraid to. I am afraid to teach certain facts--facts that I find far more wondrous than any supernatural pablum. Teachers of evolution are walking on the same tightrope that Galileo was forced to walk on. I've had enough.
There are tons of creation stories and supernatural beliefs... science aims to separate the facts from what humans "want" to believe.
Posted by: Brock | June 25, 2009 2:07 AM
Hey, you picked up Mano's blog! Awesome! He's a friend of mine, and a good writer on atheism.
He covered Collins last summer and reviewed some of the arguments from The Language of God. He also did a long series titled From Scopes to Dover that's well worth reading for historical analysis. My other favorite series he wrote was titled The End of God, and you can guess what that's about ;)
Note: Each post series starts at the bottom of the linked page. Happy reading (and Happy Monkey)!
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 2:08 AM
That wasn't my point. My point was that the likes of Dawkins are never heard in these communities, so it makes no sense to blame them for any of this. How many of these people have been supporters of evolutionary theory then read the likes of Dawkins and became a creationist? Conversely, how many of these people were creationists then heard a Dawkins quote and stayed creationists? I'm going to guess that there aren't much in the former category and a lot in the latter category.My point is what the likes of people like Dawkins say simply is irrelevant to the spread and prevalence of creationism. Maybe it's counter-productive in the same way that the New Scientist argue about the tree of life was, but really to spend so much time chastising atheists instead of attacking the root of the problem is a waste of energy. I think the most dangerous thing about the likesof Dawkins is, well, evidentially he is right. Just look at all those who say that God and evolution are incompatible - a lot more of them are theists than atheists...
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 25, 2009 2:37 AM
I basically agree with Harris.
I have written some harsh articles about religion and some believes, yet I am mildly accommodationist to the extent that I think many liberal Christians (and Jews, Muslims, etc.) are basically secular humanists who go to church. They espouse secular humanist ideas but, through error or subconscious necessity, call them "Christian" (Jewish, etc.) They may be driven by social need, personal situations, family pressure, etc. It's irritating, but I can't condemn these people, as I generally avoid conflict.
What I strongly condemn is the fact that many knowledgeable Christians (the Collins types) know the problems of their positions and simply lie or distort Christianity or history or science to defend their religious beliefs. Terry Eagleton is the worst that I know of, as he simply pulls a "god idea" out of ass to claim that no one can refute his god, and he can't tell us how he knows anything about it, but it's the true god nonetheless.
Collins et al deliberately obfuscate what Christianity really says in order to make it seem compatible with science. Religion and science are gross opposites. While science does not absolutely refute religion, it a) offers no support for religion; b) destroys many specific claims by religions; c) shows religion is unnecessary to explain basic phenomena of the universe (gravity, motion, evolution, chemical reactions, medicine, etc).
So saying God somehow works behind the scenes is at best an untested, unproven claim that requires good evidence, and at worst is a lie designed to flim-flam the philosophically unwary.
As a finale, Christianity is one of the most murderous and brutally totalitarian movements in history. Crusades, witchhunts, religious wars, U.S. slavery and segregation, and Western fascism, sexism and homophobia are among its fruits ("And by its fruits shall we know it"). All of these things can be traced back to particular Bible verses and founding Christian theology, as well as expanded theology across the centuries..
So anyone arguing that Christianity should be accepted even if unproven or should be accommodated is handling rattlesnakes in a church. Maybe the snake is too woozy to bite (they're usually kept on ice in a chest to ensure they're lethargic), but whenever they happen to warm up enough, no amount of Christian love is going to stop them from sinking their fangs into the nearest part of your body.
Accommodationists had better keep strong anti-religion antidote very close at hand, at all times. Sooner or later, they will need it.
Posted by: Gorogh | June 25, 2009 3:05 AM
My first impression is that this is really an issue of legitimacy - much of religion is. It is about the legitimacy to influence the world, e.g. by statements regarding moral values etc. To me, religion has no such legitimacy, for it is basically a systematic array of fairytales hallowed by time and tradition (and sometimes memetically refined to a high degree) - and, as opposed to science, it does not "work".
Anyway, an accomodationist stance becomes intolerable if it accepts this false legitimacy (which is how it seems to be defined). As such, accomodationism is a largely political matter - opposition to it does not and should not equal opposition to private beliefs of people, if these beliefs are actually held private. A scientist fostering religious thoughts is not supposed to act on them in any political dimension in the broad sense, i.e. not express them if they are likely to be construed as legitimation of religion in fields where it really does not have any legitimacy; otherwise he conflates it with legitimate beliefs, making him an accomodationist.
The only intersubjective measure of legitimacy is, of course, the scientific method, but this is getting off topic.
@Kel (#62), I tend to wonder if direct and blatant outspokenness in the new atheist-sense it is actually the best approach, psychologically speaking, to spread this meme. My guess is that a great conspiracy à la Wedge Strategy, in which scientists try to eradicate item of item of religious "knowledge", little by little, and slowly gain political influence, might be a more promising approach (if it were possible, which it is not because science thankfully lacks the faith in authority necessary to "keep in line"). And yet, since intellectual honesty is what this is all about, it appears that the only consistent and ethical way to approach things is this way: direct, outspoken opposition - which is ought to hurt some religious feelings.
Posted by: Greta Christina | June 25, 2009 3:28 AM
I am so sick of this argument. Thinking you're correct about something, and making your case for why you think you're correct, is bloody well not intolerant.
I am hard-pressed to think of any other public sphere in which the statement, "I think you're mistaken, and here's why" is met with such shock and horror and people reaching for their smelling salts. More than any other subject, religion wants and expects to be treated like a little old Victorian lady with delicate sensibilities and a weak heart. If the case for faith is so good, why are they such shrinking violets about it?
Posted by: JThompson | June 25, 2009 3:46 AM
@Mary: The reason I'm leery of theist scientists can be boiled down to a single question.
Say you have a theist scientist that believes with all their heart in Jeebuz/Mo/whatever. They discover something that's absolutely irreconcilable with their religion. Totally disproves it. Now, would that scientist immediately share that discovery with the world destroying their own deeply held faith, or would they bury it in the deepest hole they could dig and pretend they never heard of it?
Would the truth be more important than The Truth?
Of course not. They're irrational religious people first, scientists second.
That and every time we give them a little bit of slack they pull something like ID out of their asses.
The only thing in this world that's irreducibly complex is the logical twisting required to think science and religion are compatible. They're not.
If someone believes in the schizophrenic ramblings of a bunch of bronze age lunatics, they are NOT a rational person. I don't really care what papers they've got.
So are we supposed to be respectful to ALL irrational beliefs, or just religion? All religions or just specific ones? Am I not allowed to call a flat earther the moron they are, just because they're in a different field of science? Am I supposed to take Timecube guy's feelings into consideration when I talk about mathematics? Oh wait, all the accommodationism talk is yet another version of "Free pass for religion, and only religion, and only the particular religion I agree with", isn't it?
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 25, 2009 3:49 AM
I'll believe the accommodationists when science stops trampling all over "religious theories" in physics, biology and psychology.
Science is a-theistic. Some people just haven't noticed yet.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 3:57 AM
If we encourage theists to keep their supernatural beliefs and notions as private as they wish others to keep opposing beliefs, then no one needs to worry about outspoken atheism. Outspoken atheism is a reaction to outspoken theism, after all. There are tons of supernatural beliefs a skeptic doesn't accept, but we only get vocal when someone sounds like they are trying to silence our opinions while gaining a platform for their own or trying to pass of their belief as fact. The sad truth is faith needs the respect of others to keep it afloat-- the truth doesn't. That's why believers can't stay private. They imagine their invisible friend wants them to sing his praises aloud (lest he take the goodies away.)
So we must try to get people to keep their beliefs as private as they keep their bowel habits and fetishes. Of course, no matter how gently we do this, we risk being called "shrill" and so forth. We are the messengers of a truth they don't want to hear--they feel special and righteous and humble for their beliefs.
Perhaps the eye-rolling approach we'd give someone who is starting to exhibit the signs of Alzheimers would be kinder. I think sarcasm and satire are strong tools too. Or dismissal--as if they are not grown up enough to participate in the conversation. Certainly the believers would do this to Scientologists or Moonies trying to garner respect for the woo they feel so enlightened for believing in. Why should they expect any more respect for their own brand of superstition? If they are sensitive to criticism, all they need to do is to keep their beliefs away from nonbelievers-- and there are an increasing number of us out here.
I want the faithful to know that this atheist thinks their beliefs are as embarrassing and untenable as Mormonism or Animism or Sylvia Browne's church--or whatever else it is they find woo-ishly wacky. And if they judge those folks, rest assured, I am probably judging their beliefs just as harshly. I find them just as gullible, and I don't want to feel like the person who accidentally spoiled a child's fantasy by leaking the notion that Santa isn't real. They really need to be as private in their unscientific beliefs as they want these other believers to be. Really. For the same reasons. They need to keep their faith out of the schools and the public arena to the same extent that they want other cults to keep theirs. They must not put us in the position of enabling or being complicit in their delusions. Like Sam Harris, I find magical thinking harmful and dishonest and intellectually suspect.
Besides, if these beliefs are true, then it should not matter whether we mock them or not. They'd still be true, right? Just like evolution doesn't stop being true despite the creationist straw men and endless declarations that it's about to be "overturned" in favor of some supernatural explanation.
Of course, it matters quite a bit, if their beliefs are not true... because it means they've invested a lot of mental powers propping up a lie that is no better than the lies they reject. And if they aren't ready to examine that possibility, then they ought not to voice such beliefs in mixed company. I don't care what Ken Miller believes any more than he cares what I believe. I care that he doesn't mix his naturalistic explanations and science with his supernatural belief and nonsense.
Posted by: Gorogh | June 25, 2009 4:04 AM
Exactly.
Posted by: bassmanpete | June 25, 2009 4:04 AM
Mary @ 21
Yes I did read your post and yes, I realise that you didn't put forward any religious views. However you did appear to be criticising Pharyngulites for opposing the likes of Francis Collins from holding senior scientific positions. My question was intended to point out a double standard in that, in the US and to a lesser extent here in Australia, a self proclaimed atheist stands little or no chance of being elected.
I take back my Markus comment as you did have the good grace to apologise for your double post.
Posted by: Steven | June 25, 2009 4:51 AM
The "I'm an atheist, but…" canard is philosophically stupid. I am an atheist but everything. I am not defined by one thing I don't believe in.
Posted by: Steven | June 25, 2009 4:53 AM
How about "I'm an atheist but I don't have faith that the scientists of the world will lead up to a secular utopia."
Posted by: Steven | June 25, 2009 4:58 AM
Ball agrees that the scientific method is philosophically incompatible with a lot of religious beliefs.
Posted by: Steven | June 25, 2009 5:20 AM
Ball agrees that the scientific method is philosophically incompatible with a lot of religious beliefs.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 5:21 AM
I can understand where Mary is coming from on this one. A lot of individuals, both atheists and believers, fail to realize that science is the practice of methodological naturalism. So long as you are doing that then you are doing science. The reason why Miller and Collins are respected as scientists is that they have proven that they can work within this framework. I too have been disappointed by the reaction towards Collins as a possible candidate for the leadership of the NIH on this and several other blogs. There certainly may be better candidates available but whatever about his private Language of God type pronouncements he has shown an ability to work within the framework of methodological naturalism in his job. To reject him out of hand is akin to saying that Ken Miller cannot write biology textbooks because he too believes in miracles (despite the fact that he does not include this belief in his textbook).
That said I still claim the right to question and laugh at Collins religious beliefs.
By the way Nick Matzke above mentioned the problem Dawkins et al cause in the US creationism debate by equating evolution = atheism.
Its probably apt to point out that the consensus view in science is that evolution = science = methodological naturalism.
The Discovery Institute argues that methodological naturalism is itself atheism. Their entire objective is to remove methodological naturalism as the centerpoint of modern science. Why not get both theistic and atheistic scientists to publicly come out to defend this common ground?
Posted by: DLC | June 25, 2009 5:27 AM
There have been any number of scientists who believed in god(s) and who still produced quality scientific work.
It's not about if you are religious or not, but about if, and how much your religious beliefs (if any)influence your work.
As for myself, when someone tells me they wish me to believe in their particular deity, I ask them for empirical evidence of said deity's existence. Usually things progress much in the way described in Sagan's "Dragon in my garage" story.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 25, 2009 6:06 AM
I'm still amazed at the number of people who think that PZ and ERV were somehow wrong to express their opinion that Collins' outspoken religiosity makes him a bad pick to head the NIH. Nobody suggested that theists in general or Collins in particular should be legally barred from anything! Yet still the complaints come.
Posted by: Lynn David
|
June 25, 2009 6:09 AM
Well.... religion/religious beliefs might be unavoidable in an animal which achieve sentience. Mainline religions are rather good at providing charitable work in their local areas. And it might be argued that one religion that unites a people/tribe/nation may well create a greater effort towards the common good of that population, thus facilitating their offspring. Thus adherance to this order/religiosity in a people/tribe/nation might be selected for by natural selection. Unless they go bugger off and kill themselves like Jonestown or the Branch Davidians - thus religion in moderation. . What is wrong in acknowledging that man is an animal subordinated to his religiosity - thus his religions? It's the first step in killing them off anyway. Recognize the beast, name it for what it is, then watch it whither in the heat.Posted by: Carlie | June 25, 2009 6:40 AM
What frustrates me the most about the Collins debacle is that it's another example that "faith" is privileged far above knowledge in our society, to the point of being enshrined in government. There were many other scientists as equally qualified as Collins, and some just as well-spoken. Studies hither and yon note that around 90% of prominent scientists are atheists. Yet, who. out of a group of many qualified scientists who were (statistically) probably mostly atheists was plucked out for a prime political appointment? The one who just happened to also be a gooey Christian who likes to muse about waterfalls and sing kumbaya.
And yet, we're somehow the ones making a big deal out of scientists who are proselytizing Christians.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 25, 2009 6:42 AM
Mary,
Can you quote a specific statement made by someone saying that Collins can't be allowed to hold his position? I think there is a big difference between "I think someone else is a better choice than Collins" and "Collins should be disqualified from any science jobs." A concrete example would help the discussion along. The conversation right now consists of several people making good points about what the other seems to be inferring, but not saying.
p.s. I'm not really interested in any of the obvious quotes from us of the semi-anonymous-pharyngulite-horde.
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2009 6:47 AM
What a wonderful discussion about basically something other than the Ball/Harris exchange ... It seems to me that Harris-atheists have to answer the charge Ball-atheists make; something that Harris does not really seem to reply to.
Ball's main charge is this ('the discharge from Ball's', as it were):
"Religion is part of a further complex of societal control structures - some of which are beneficial to the 'believers', some of which are not. It is no different from other such societal constructs, secular or not."
Another one is this. Lifted "generously" from Dennett (even though he does not seem to subscribe to Ball-atheism, or rather I really don't know):
"Religion is the result of a natural 'drive' embedded in our evolved brains for memetic production through - amongst other things - language. Science itself owes much to this underlying biological tendency; after all, both science and religion are artifices of humanity."
Harris-atheists really want to discuss 'beliefs' and their (often harmful) consequences such as this:
"I believe in an invisible sky-man. My sky-man want women to look like walking tents."
Ball-atheists really want to discuss 'religion'. Ball-atheists want to examine the above tent-proposition in the light of its root causes which is societal organisation. The argument against Harris from a Ball-atheist is that Harris is arguing against specific belief propositions without realising that these beliefs are embedded in a deeper societal structure. Were Harris to realise this, he would also realise that his tactics would never work.
Is this a fair characterisation of their disagreement?
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 6:56 AM
The whole Francis Collins derail is reflective of what Ball did to Harris. It's off topic and designed to put the atheist in a defensive position. This always happens when the the conversation comes too close to this fact: the accomodationists are really asking for special privileges for one "brand" of magical thinking--an accomodation they have no intention of offering to those with conflicting beliefs.
Until our appointed representatives contain non-theists in direct proportion to the non-theists in the population as a whole, I won't be losing any sleep over someone objecting to the appointment of Collins to the NIH because of his supernatural beliefs.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 7:06 AM
I think you are wrong on this one, articulett.
You seem to be mixing up the debate between accomodationalists versus non-accomodationalists with a separate debate over methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism. I myself am a non-accomodationalist but have no problem with Francis Collins as a possible candidate as head of the NIH. This is with the proviso that if appointed he resigns from Biologos and keeps his religious views private while in the NIH post (I think Jerry Coyne has also suggested as much).
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 7:07 AM
What Sam Harris objects to is Nature magazine seeming endorsing faith as a means of knowledge. It isn't. It's directly opposed to the scientific method.
Science is our best weapon against magical thinking. Faith requires it. Science should not need not concern itself with believers in gods any more than it needs to concern itself with believers in rain dances.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 7:12 AM
I don't have a problem with Francis Collins being appointed to the NIH either. It's irrelevant to this thread and part of a derail about supposed fundamentalist atheists.
I, however, support Sam Harris and his contention that it's intellectually dishonest and nonscientific for Nature Magazine to shield some brands of magical thinking from scrutiny and catering to the lie that there are "special" ways of "knowing" "divine truths". That's what Sam Harris' conversation and this thread should have been about.
Posted by: Logicel | June 25, 2009 7:15 AM
Mary, you are confusing the right not to be refused a job based on that job's candidate's religious beliefs with the duty and responsibility to do the job that believer was selected to do. For example, if a Muslim hospital worker refuses to wash patients than that worker, if after warning, does not do her job, than job dismissal is not marginalizing that particular religious believer. You could say that the religious believer is choosing to marginalize themselves.
As far as to this 'current' which you perceive as being part of new atheism, where some would refuse a particular science job to a candidate solely based on their religious beliefs, I just don't see it as being significant enough to focus on it more than it already has—some do confront that aspect. And as there is no head honcho or card-carrying members in new atheism, that is all we can do.
Your implying that PZ is being both hypocritical and supporting the suppression of civil rights for religious believers through his supposed silence regarding the oppression coming from his side just does not wash based on the reasons you have given. No wonder many here are regarding you as a concernnik.
We all court cognitive dissonance, it is one of the many clever coping devices us humans use daily. It only becomes a problem when the cognitive dissonance is so substantial that one can't do their job. Once that happens, then that person becomes unfit for that job. And that is the focus that many commenters here have.
If a religious believer has already demonstrated such actions that could very well jeopardize the carrying out of their responsibilities, let's call a spade and a spade and be upfront to realize that spade is NOT DOING THEIR JOB, and not the more fanciful one of their being marginalized.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 25, 2009 7:16 AM
Mary
Well, let me point out a view few things:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/more_on_what_we_can_expect_fro.php
Here, in which PZ Points out that Collins should not use the post to promote his religion, he should do the damn job.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/another_disappointment_from_th.php
In which PZ Myers highlights Collins using the standard creationist argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This was an argument out his religion, which impacted his science.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/dis-appointment.php
To quote PZ "His writings reveal a man with an extraordinarily poor grasp of scientific reasoning and a surprising lack of understanding of evolutionary biology (his argument that morals could not evolve, for instance, is stunning in its ignorance)."
Overall, the criticism of Collins has not been due to him being simply religious, but due to him allowing his religion to taint his work. It would be the same if someone was a communist, or a libertarian and them allowing it to taint their work.
If you want to piss off an atheist, you don't have to be a sexist, a racist or anything other, than basically dishonest.
And concern trolling, is basically dishonest.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 7:19 AM
By the way, if Francis Collins was a devout Scientologist even though everything else was the same (his science etc.), would you still find him the "best" man for the job? How about if he was a practicing Wiccan?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 25, 2009 7:20 AM
This was an argument out his religion, which impacted his science.
Should be
This was an argument out of his religion, which impacted his science.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 7:36 AM
I can understand the points about Collins but I have to disagree. I have yet to see any solid evidence that Collins supernatural beliefs have impacted on his previous administrative work as head of the US Human Genome Project.
He has made a few silly statements, to be sure, but where is the evidence that this has affected the direction of the research that has happened under his control? If there was the slightest evidence that he would prevent stem cell research or studies about the evolution of consciousness or moral structures due to some religious predisposition then sure, that would be a valid reason to object to him. Without that you are simply acting on faith - you see no evidence yet you believe (and isn't that what we are trying to avoid?)
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 7:45 AM
Sigmund @90, heard the expression "conflict of interest"?
When, say, judges recuse themselves where there is a potential conflict of interest, is it because there is evidence that they will likely be partial?
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 25, 2009 7:53 AM
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 7:36 AM
The question isn't simply Collins as an administrator, it is the percieved authority that comes with the job that can spill over into Collins promoting junk science from a position of greater authority amongst laypeople.
The job requires a far, far more cautious hand with science than a guy who uses the second law of thermodynamics to argue god.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 7:58 AM
While we're at it, John Morales, lets ban evangelicals from flying commercial planes, we don't want a potential conflict of interest in the event of the rapture.
Look, the idea of a comparing a 'potential conflict of interest' in this matter with that of a judge who knows the defendant or accused or who has a personal interest in the outcome of the case is, quite frankly, laughable. What are you saying, that Collins will cancel the funding of scientists who want to work on the evolution of altruism because its in conflict with his religious belief that God poofed morality into humans a few tens of thousands of years ago when he ensouled us?
Show me the evidence that Collins is likely to act in such a way rather than some vague 'possibility'.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 8:03 AM
How exactly does someone who describes himself as an "Evangelical Christian" keep his supernatural beliefs (which he imagines himself "saved" for believing) separate from his naturalistic beliefs?
Sigmund, you didn't answer the question about whether you'd have the same viewpoint if you knew Francis Collins practiced Scientology or considered himself a Wiccan. I think it's very telling that you avoided this question.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 8:14 AM
Who is talking about banning? I suppose showing your disagreement is equivalent to banning, just as speaking your mind as an atheist makes you a fundamentalist...
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 8:15 AM
Obviously someone who practices a religion that actively discourages necessary medical treatments (such as Scientologists with psychiatry, christian scientists with most medical treatments and Jehovahs witness with blood transfusions) and who advocates that these are made part of the policy of the department, should not be appointed the head.
As far as Wiccan? I don't really know their views on medicine but if he stuck with evidence based medicine I would have no problem with Collins as a Wiccan (it would even be worth it for the reaction of the evangelicals to the idea of a 'witch' as head of the NIH!)
"How exactly does someone who describes himself as an "Evangelical Christian" keep his supernatural beliefs (which he imagines himself "saved" for believing) separate from his naturalistic beliefs?"
I guess cognitive dissonance can be wonderfully useful at times.
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 8:15 AM
Sigmund @93,
Odd. Most times, the response comes after the challenge, not before. :)
Posted by: XD | June 25, 2009 8:16 AM
I think a more interesting scenario would be if Miller had got the job, and his Bishop had told him that if he allowed the funding of embryonic stem-cell research (or contraception research), he would be excommunicated. Would he have capitulated, rebelled, or resigned?
Posted by: Julia | June 25, 2009 8:17 AM
I love the smell of atheist bashing each other in the morning!
And I love Sam Harris! His arguments for pre emptive nuclear war and torture, in TEOF, are PRICELESS!
Yay Atheists!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 25, 2009 8:21 AM
Arguing your point, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Anri | June 25, 2009 8:22 AM
As several people have already expressed, I have to wonder if a certain semantic problem is getting in the way: 'should not hold' as opposed to 'should not be allowed to hold'.
As an example, a liberal might very well say that a conservative 'should not hold' high office without ever inferring that they 'should not be allowed to hold' that office. I honestly don't know if that is a source for confusion in this issue, but it certainly seems to have that potential. Therefore, it might be a good idea to clarify your stance on this during the discussion.
Just my 2 kopecs.
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 8:24 AM
Rev BDC, ;)
That little bit of attempted hyperbole fails in a couple of ways, and here's one: Tunisian pilot who prayed as his plane went down jailed in Italy.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 25, 2009 8:34 AM
@Julia: congratulations, one day you will grasp that atheists are not a homogeneous group or a religion, and can therefore argue with each other fiercely on all kinds of issues. Then, maybe you'll grasp that a person can be right on one issue and wrong on another, and we should therefore debate issues and ideas rather than lining up for or against individuals.
Posted by: XD | June 25, 2009 8:38 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying that people should be banned from certain positions because of their beliefs. To do so would be unconstitutional and impossible to implement. What people are questioning is whether someone who subscribes to an ideology which might be at odds with certain types of research should be in a position to control the money-flow to those programmes. Imagine how psychiatry departments would feel if the job had gone to a Scientologist.
If Prince William came out as an atheist, and ascended to the throne, would the Church of England be happy having him at its head?
And lets remember that the constitutions of some states still demand that those being considered for office should believe in a supreme being.
Posted by: June | June 25, 2009 8:44 AM
Imagine the leading Astronomy Journal starting to defend Astrology because it (1) involves the planets, (2) is popular, (3) is really harmless, (4) is just another viewpoint, etc. And when astronomers object, they end up having to defend themselves. Or imagine PZ writing a serious post about having perceived God from viewing a tree.
From now on, all Nature articles need to be examined for woo infection, and that is a sad side effect.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 8:50 AM
Probably not the best example to use. I rather imagine that for a number of clergy and laity it would not matter at all.
Posted by: Mano Singham | June 25, 2009 9:01 AM
Regarding the above comments about Clarence Darrow and the Scopes case, we have to remember that Darrow wanted to lose the case at the local level so that they could argue that the Butler Act prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional at the Appeals Court and Supreme Court levels. Darrow even requested the jury to bring in guilty verdict against Scopes, which they did. This strategy was thwarted by the Tennessee Supreme Court declaring that the law was constitutional but overthrowing the Scopes conviction on a technicality, making further appeal impossible.
It was the adoption of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Series (BSCS) textbooks by Arkansas in the 1960s that allowed for another good test case (Epperson v. Arkansas) to be brought forward, which resulted in the Supreme Court ruling unanimously in 1968 that banning the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 9:06 AM
XD, the problem with your point is that using the criteria that ones ideology might affect the use of the funds of the organization you direct really leaves you in a no win situation. Does it rule out everyone who is even mildly religious? What about other ideologies? How about politics? Everyone is somewhere on the spectrum and is thus more to the left or the right than others. Cannot this sort of ideology affect ones potential decisions?
If I were to judge Collins on the potential of his evangelical religion I would of course run screaming from the interview room. Evangelical beliefs are anathema to modern science. Then again many of Collins stated beliefs are anathema to evangelical religion. Its his actions when administering a large department that we should be examining.
I tend to look at the overall question of Collins suitability in a slightly different way. A few months back Matt Nisbett called for Collins to be appointed official Presidential Science advisor because, to paraphrase Nisbett, Collins religious beliefs would allow him to connect better with the US population.
I objected to this idea for the reason that the job was a scientific one and the religious beliefs of the individual should play no part in the process, only his scientific competency and experience. (As a matter of fact I dont think Collins experience makes him suitable for that particular post).
In the current NIH scenario the same exact standards apply. It is again primarily a scientific post and the candidates religious beliefs should not play a part in the process. The job should be open to atheists, evangelicals, catholics jews, hindus, buddhists, muslems and yes, even wiccans, so long as they have the experience and competency. In the case of the NIH I think Collins IS a suitable candidate although not the only one so I wouldn't necessarily say he's the best person for the job.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 25, 2009 9:15 AM
Nobody has come up with a reason yet why we should sit down and shut up.
Because otherwise the Baby Jesus will start a gawdawful caterwauling and the neighbors will call the cops.
Posted by: strangebrew | June 25, 2009 9:18 AM
102#
Unfortunately the CVR tape was found to contradict the headlines by some wide margin.
It was not allowed to be used in the trial for some technical reason in Italian law...but the jury were never informed of the real conversation that happened aboard that flight deck in the last few moments.
The suspected reason this was dealt with so harshly by a Italian court was more to do with political expediency and Italien authorities covering their thread bare bum.
The Italian Air Traffic Control seemed... when the emergency was declared...woefully inadequate and extremely slow to respond...in fact it revealed that the response was in fact far below international standards for emergency response from an ATC unit.
By the time the ATCO had finally understood the situation the plane...some two or three MINUTES the craft was below minima and had no where to go accept in the drink...
On the contrary the 'praising to god' remark was made by an enthusiastic journo sensationalist claptrap piece whom the authorities hid behind with the real truth!
The Pilot realised the problem immediately the cockpit alarms sounded...his comment was along the lines of "Oh my God!"....With a similar reference about two mins later...in between those comments before and after were heard the Pilot and Co-pilot doing the numbers and preparing the check-lists for emergency procedure...and trying to alert the ATC which was a joke to be believed...they were calm...professional and above all PILOTS!
The nonsense about ditching in panic is just that complete nonsense...they were in no position to make land...they were too downwind... too low and too slow in IAS.
The Pilot informed the ATC this was the case...and there was not one recommendation made to the pilots by ATC to alleviate the situation....including the prompt emergency call to coast guard from the ATC unit in charge of that area.
I have heard the cockpit voice recording...(they are still available on the net)...I have no concerns that this was a cockpit crew meltdown...it is the largely considered opinion that those tapes were not interfered with...according to the aviation experts...they were however definitive proof that the claims made against those pilots was gross...political manipulation and simply wrong...owing more to do with Italian terror policy and disguising their own weaknesses in administration then to actual clinical exactness.
Those pilots actually saved lives because they deliberately had to ditch near ships enroute to other ports...that allowed the Pax to be picked up quicker then waiting for rescue ships from the marine authorities.
I report this not to fight the apologists war...but to try and insure that any battles so fought are on responsible and accurate grounds.
I do have bias I admit to...I have no time for religious apologists of any flavour...and I do not approve of them in science simple like so...but that is only my opinion...it is not a position I either expect or demand others to take.
But I cannot defend that position on the back of erroneous sensationalism...that is not required...logic and rationality are the guiding principles and long may they be so!
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 25, 2009 9:29 AM
I love the smell of atheist bashing each other in the morning! - Julia
It's true arguments between atheists here can get heated - but none of us have yet resorted to burning each other at the stake over our differences, in true Christian fashion.
Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | June 25, 2009 9:41 AM
The more thoughtful of the "New Atheists" probably won't become like Fred Phelps towards religious people. There might be some that construe new atheist's arguments as a reason to despise the faithful to the point marching in hate-based protests. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Maybe some of the rhetoric could be toned down a bit.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 9:48 AM
"There is no downside to godless vigor. Nobody has come up with a reason yet why we should sit down and shut up."
There *is* a damn good reason to sit down and shut up. When
a man like Miller is fighting the good fight - as at Dover -
you should sit down and shut up (unless he needs assistance
in some form, such as sources). You can whine about his
corrupted science as much as you want afterward.
What possible good would it have done for someone like PZ
to step forward at such a junction to proclaim that
Miller's science (and indeed, his very ability to think)
was damaged because of his religious beliefs?
Hard-core atheists are an interesting contrast to
fundy types - fundies close ranks in public and
play nice with other fundies who have similar views,
but fight bitter battles over power and money and
over nonsense when they think nobody is listening.
Hard-core atheists appear to have as great a
desire to stab the person standing beside them
as they do to stab the person opposing them.
Posted by: strangebrew | June 25, 2009 9:57 AM
What on Earth is a hard core atheist?...is that a fundamentalist one under another heading?
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 10:01 AM
Yet people keep pretending that this proverbial knife is a machete as opposed to a plastic knife that you take on picnics.Yep, creationism surely is the atheists fault. If only Dawkins would shut up, then Ken Ham will disappear into the aether...
Posted by: --E | June 25, 2009 10:04 AM
Communication issues abound. When a New Atheist says, "Religion is a bunch of superstitions without any proof" he is stating a simple fact.
But what a religious person hears is, "You are an idiot, believing a bunch of lies."
People are intrinisically reactionary. Very few people change their minds when they think they're being called idiots.
I'm definitely not an accomodationist, and I have no problem stating openly to people that I am an atheist, often without anyone asking. (I credit this blog with helping inspire that.)
But I try to be mindful of tactics. Contempt and sneering at public idiocy is fun, and the targets are thoroughly deserving. But sometimes I worry that mildly religious people--those who might easily be reached by logic and evidence--are pushed deeper into religion because they are repelled by what they see as high school Mean Girl nastiness.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 10:04 AM
Chamberlain, what on Earth are you talking about?
I don't think Ive ever heard a new atheist questioning Millers science, just his justifications that science and his religion are compatible. Science is a methodology, not a religion. So long as you stick to that methodology then you are doing science. Stray outside it (such as talking about theological questions) and you have stopped doing science. The latter point is where Miller picks up flack from atheists whereas he gets nothing but support over the former. The act of maintaining strict evidence based methodological naturalistic explanations is difficult and results in some heated arguments amongst some of us on here but I think you'll find far more agreement amongst us compared to a group of religious types debating the same question.
Posted by: Gwydion | June 25, 2009 10:17 AM
I'm an atheist. Have been my whole life, practically -- ever since I was 11, which puts it at about 30 years. I got suspended in school for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "under god." I believe in rational ethical humanism and I'm very proud of it. And I also agree that, on balance, religion has done far more harm than good for many thousands of years.
Despite all that, I'm bothered by the anti-accommodationist language, the tone of which reminds me more than anything of the tone frequently adopted by recovering alcoholics -- "I stopped drinking, so you should, too, right away, right now, or we'll all die." I do agree that it would be better for all of us if the world stopped believing in god... but I also have patience about that transition. It's going to happen, in time... but only when people are ready.
To help people make that transition, we have to be kind to them. Persistently challenging their delusions, of course, and not letting them get away with wackaloonery, but with gentleness in our hearts -- just the way the textbooks tell us to treat people with addiction problems. They have to want to help themselves, and we have to love them even when they don't. (While of course protecting ourselves at the same time.) At least, that's how I see it.
Posted by: Gwydion | June 25, 2009 10:17 AM
I'm an atheist. Have been my whole life, practically -- ever since I was 11, which puts it at about 30 years. I got suspended in school for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "under god." I believe in rational ethical humanism and I'm very proud of it. And I also agree that, on balance, religion has done far more harm than good for many thousands of years.
Despite all that, I'm bothered by the anti-accommodationist language, the tone of which reminds me more than anything of the tone frequently adopted by recovering alcoholics -- "I stopped drinking, so you should, too, right away, right now, or we'll all die." I do agree that it would be better for all of us if the world stopped believing in god... but I also have patience about that transition. It's going to happen, in time... but only when people are ready.
To help people make that transition, we have to be kind to them. Persistently challenging their delusions, of course, and not letting them get away with wackaloonery, but with gentleness in our hearts -- just the way the textbooks tell us to treat people with addiction problems. They have to want to help themselves, and we have to love them even when they don't. (While of course protecting ourselves at the same time.) At least, that's how I see it.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 10:17 AM
"Communication issues abound. When a New Atheist says, "Religion is a bunch of superstitions without any proof" he is stating a simple fact.
But what a religious person hears is, "You are an idiot, believing a bunch of lies."
You make it sound like a bad thing!
Here in Sweden this is simply the normal way to refer to religion and the religious when they try to push religious beliefs into the public sphere. It has the effect of making the religious keep quite about their beliefs in public (for fear of inviting laughter). You seem to think the objective should be convincing the religious to change their beliefs. I disagree. One should use ridicule not to try to change their minds but to encourage them to keep their beliefs private.
Think of the Golden Rule - treat others as you would want others to treat you. Personally if I went around telling people that a Magic Fairy had created everything I consider it would be best for me to be be encouraged (through gentle ridicule, rather than censure) to keep those beliefs private.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 10:19 AM
And again, it really must be said that the majority of this argument is merely arguing for the right to express a point of view. That atheists who argue incompatibility are being told to shut up, that their views are unhelpful to the cause, when really all they are doing is putting their own case out of it. It speaks so little for the audience they are trying to reach, trying to protect the authority of science into coddling believers towards the scary notion that we are animals.
What is wrong with putting alternative voices out there, with promoting disagreement, and putting out an opinion that might be a little more realistic? It's really important to remember that the vast majority who are espousing the incompatibility are the creationists themselves, so maybe there's something to there being a difficulty of reconciling science with theistic belief. But no, can't say that. It's unhelpful. It's stabbing people in the back who are on your side.
Nevermind that creationists are born into creationist homes with creationist parents, that they have creationist peers and creationists teachers, that they are exposed to creationists material by creationist pastors... it's the ivory tower atheist who also thinks that God and evolution are incompatible that is the real problem.
All this feels like the failure of moderates to properly reconcile science with religion, that the shortcomings in making a satisfactory argument is ignored in favour of blaming those throwing fuel on the fire. Could it be that there is no satisfying way of reconciling science and religion? Can't suggest that, it might be too close to the truth. To quote Jerry Coyne:
Maybe there's a reason why people like Sam Harris are coming down so hard on faith. It's now 150 years since Origin of Species, yet despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, creationism still prevails. What is there left to do but come down on faith itself? But no, we can't do that. That's being intolerant. That's being militant. We have to show tolerance to those who show none, to be conciliatory towards those looking to push their beliefs on others. Do we need another event like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria before we start taking the defence of reason seriously? And surely that defence starts by preserving the voices of anyone who wants to speak open and honestly.
Posted by: Sasha | June 25, 2009 10:31 AM
The problem I have with accommodatists is that they are unwilling to acknowledge that science and SOME religions are obviously incompatible at many instances.
If I suspect there is some "force" out there that created the universe, yes, perhaps this type of philosophy or God of the Gaps religion can be compatible with science, but this is not the type of religion the new atheists are talking about and the accommodatists know it.
Literal young earth creationism is not compatible with geology/biology and scientiology is not compatible with psychiatry. Religions that speak of miracles, and nearly all of them do, and divine healing is not compatible with science. It is confusing when accommodatists keep insisting they somehow are. How?
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | June 25, 2009 10:37 AM
articulett #68,
What I wanted to say to that was that theists have been shouting for millennia, mainly to be heard over their most direct competitors - each other ('burn the heretics!', 'is he quite orthodox, do you think?' and all grades in between). I note the remainder of your post (sorry, I haven't read all of them, you really came out today!) does acknowledge the multiplicity of sects, but I didn't see you apply it to the relative-outspokenness question. The rhetoric of the religious has always been overheated, and where political power has been tied to orthodoxy (most places and times) the one thing they've always been able to set in law is that atheists must be stamped out. Any retreat from that position is a major win for us.
Sigmund #75,
If Miller, Collins et al. really believed the god-stuff they spout when they're off the clock, they'd be able to defend it scientifically, with evidence and sound logic. It's pretend belief; that's what religion is. (Don't let the pretenders steal the useful word 'believe' from the rest of us! - like Silver Fox wants to steal 'epistemic' - pfft). The only reason they don't put it in textbooks is that it's a bunch of crap, and they are smart enough to know it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 10:42 AM
I have raised this point time and time again, and the best (if you can call it that) response I have is that it the frequency of miracles that is important. If they happen infrequently enough I think the idea is that they can be swept under the carpet as far as science goes. Personally I am not at all clear on why the virgin birth and resurrection can be accommodated within a scientific viewpoint and the YEC cannot.
Posted by: Penguinsaur | June 25, 2009 10:50 AM
"Your all filthy disgusting godless sinners who DESERVE to be brutally tortured for eternity in a fiery pit!"
^a christian 'expressing their beliefs'
"Someone who constantly tries to bend science to fit their irrational and unproven superstitions isn't a good scientist"
^a 'militant' 'fundamentalist' athiest 'attacks' 'marginalizes''insults' a believer, but only in christianity. You can point out how someone who believes in astrology, ghosts, chi, chakras, etc. isn't a good scientist and no one gives a shit because Americans aren't expected to kiss the ass of astrologists or jump through hoops to assure people science hasn't ruled out ghosts.
Posted by: Robin | June 25, 2009 11:07 AM
"Unfortunately, their record is also marked by an intolerance of religious people and the alienation of potential progressive allies."
This seems to be telling us not to have an opinion about something in case we end up opposed to people with different opinions.
Posted by: Sigmund | June 25, 2009 11:10 AM
Matt Penfold said,
"If they happen infrequently enough I think the idea is that they can be swept under the carpet as far as science goes. "
That's certainly the argument they use on Biologos. I honestly can't see how that can make sense to anyone apart from the trivial instance of miracles happening at a frequency of zero - above that you start having problems.
I remember a radio interview with Collins a few years back when he was asked about miracles and waffled on a bit before being asked the obvious question for a scientist - If you can accept miracles occur then how can you trust any experimental is real finding consistent with the laws of the universe and not simply a miracle. He was asked this in relationship to a hypothetical experiment that involved bacterial colonies. His response was that it is silly to think that God would use miracle for things like causing or preventing bacterial colonies (ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that human beings are no more special than bacteria in terms of evolution).
Posted by: SplendidMonkey
|
June 25, 2009 11:19 AM
I've been really digging this accommodationist debate. My unsolicited OM nomination goes to articulett.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 25, 2009 11:19 AM
Mike @81:
Is this a fair characterisation of their disagreement?
No, I don't think so. "Ball-atheists" don't seem to want to discuss religion at all, unless it's in vague, praiseworthy "faith in faith" terms. Worse yet, they don't want anyone else to discuss it, either.
The notion that Sam Harris doesn't realize that there is a "deeper societal structure" to religion is insulting. It's not that Harris doesn't realize the societal or cultural underpinnings or aspects of religion; he just doesn't think they're an excuse to avoid discussion.
Slavery was part of a "deeper societal structure," too. I suppose someone like Ball would have been saying, "well, yes, of course I agree with you that slavery is wrong. But there's no point in railing about it in public. Hierarchical structures are just part of human nature and are here to stay. But maybe, if we're very very polite to slaveowners, we can convince them to be a little nicer to their slaves. Unless you militant fundamentalists anti-slavery people screw it up."
Posted by: Tulse | June 25, 2009 11:19 AM
That seems awfully presumptuous of him, to claim to understand God's ways.
I know that if I could do miracles on demand, I'd be using my powers right and left.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 11:22 AM
# 116
That's nothing more than the "rebellious teenager" or "spite" argument: The position that a person will gravitate towards a behavior, especially a questionable behavior, if they are treated with scorn over even mild association with it.
That's childish behavior, and most of us grow out of that after our teen years. As an adult, if I am presented with a solid, reasoned, and evidence-backed argument, even a scornful one, against a behavior I might be displaying, the last thing I would do is further embrace that behavior out of spite. I might be irritated by the delivery, and think the person delivering the message an ass, but I won't certainly dismiss the argument out of hand... especially if I can't make a cogent argument against it.
Persons who would retreat deeper into a fallacious point of view out of spite deserve to be derided for it, frankly.
Posted by: Lynna | June 25, 2009 11:39 AM
I'm always impressed by how much Money plays a big part in what are supposedly "philosophical" differences. PZ linked to some of the Templeton prizes in an earlier post, and Sam Harris also linked to stories about Templeton prize winners: so we have the world's largest prize etc. etc. and the prize is for increasing awareness of spirituality (and look! he's a scientist too!). The money angle is critical. The Templeton Foundation is just one example of the way religion buys a good reputation in the minds of many.
Phillip Ball said (in many ways, with many words) that religion is really not that big a deal, so don't waste your time fussing...and don't alienate my friends who are religious and are comforted thereby. It's okay with Ball if we give tax breaks to organizations that preach against stem cell research (well, yeah, he did say he didn't like the brakes put on stem cell research, but also thought the alternative of good medicine was too dearly bought if we offended a bunch of believers by forcing the issue).
Ball doesn't live where I live, and Sam Harris at least understands where I live. Religion doesn't stay in the church, it infiltrates the economy, education, medical practice, gay rights, women's rights...and on and on. Ball is a good writer, but he's not attending John Birch Society meetings, ID lectures at 4H clubs, Boy Scout prayer meetings, and Relief Society meetings in Utah. (Mitt Romney would love Phillip Ball.)
Let's at least create a level playing field and tax those religious businesses. Maybe then they won't have so much money to put behind specious prizes, Prop 8 campaigns, and Creation Museums.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 11:51 AM
Kel @115
"Yep, creationism surely is the atheists fault. If only Dawkins would shut up, then Ken Ham will disappear into the aether..."
Where did I blame atheists for Creationism? Criticize me for what I say. Don't give me the same kneejerk reaction you would give to
a creationist.
I agree with almost everything PZ says. Almost. I simply
think there are times when it behooves a thoughtful atheist
to shut up, and I gave an example.
Posted by: strangebrew | June 25, 2009 12:03 PM
'their record is also marked by an intolerance of religious people and the alienation of potential progressive allies.'
When appeal to not be mean to the nice staunch xian folk fails...then resort to threat and claims of impending doom & gloom for atheism emerges without pause to breath...
Seems it is a ploy used by all nests of apologetic and accommodatist bunnies barking almost in union.
I think it is a last ditch line of defence of delusion...the problem is that is stymies critique from most institutions... schools...political and media outlets quite well...so far...
There is no apparent fall back position for the afflicted...words of doom to the enemy are their last bastion of hope...it is a simple threat...in reality an empty one at that...but it is crumbling and will continue to disintegrate...
I am surprised that not more folks see through the nonsense...maybe that is part of the dissolution process...it takes a little time for folk to achieve boldness and outspoken criticism.
Bottom line is a un-evidenced and basic juvenile tacky 'belief' in a sky fairy of magical traits...it is just a fairy story incarnate...it deserves all the lack of respect it gets from the more astute in society.
The deluded are pretending untouchable status out of shear desperation...they are hiding behind the skirts of polite and deferential attitude for their 'belief' by the non-fooled...they are also aware that the battle is in the media...and they are gambling that no body can be or should be rude enough to call them out on their delusional dogma because the media can be manipulated and spun to reflect assumed and projected negativity on the part of the atheistic god murderers.!
But it is a losing bet methinks...and deep down they know it!
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Sigmund
"I don't think Ive ever heard a new atheist questioning Millers science, just his justifications that science and his religion are compatible. "
Sorry Sigmund. Don't have time to look it up now but there was a fight about two weeks ago where PZ said something to the effect
that Miller and Collins were crippled (I think that's the word)
by their belief. I never did get clarification (might have missed it if PZ did clarify) regarding whether it affected the quality of the science they do.
I don't believe science and religion are compatible. Period.
There are, however, exceptional indvididuals in the woo woo camp, and I believe it is foolish to waste time alienating someone who wants to be your ally.
Will Miller go Creationist on us and reject science because we
hurt his Catholic feelings? No way.
Would his time - including his blogging time - be put to
better use fighting creationists rather than atheists?
Darn straight it would.
Posted by: Paco | June 25, 2009 12:06 PM
Of course religious people have managed to do great things in science. Many scientists of the 18th Century through today were and are religious. I happen to work at a world-renowned physics R&D laboratory with many physicists, engineers, and computer scientists who are religious and who do great things in science...Many are even Mormons (Queen of the Batshit Xtian Religious Phylogeny).
Me? I'm a militant atheist, myself. (Sam Harris and PZ rock!) For the record: To hell with the accommodationists! I enjoy attacking the beliefs of the religious and those who support the lopsided gestalt of religious tolerance in the US.
HOWEVER...trying to make the argument that holding unrealistic ideas about religion in your head somehow disqualifies you from doing credible science is ridiculous. It's a nice fantasy for atheists like me/us, but it's simply a generalization that sounds nice and doesn't hold up against the obvious evidence.
For the life of me though, I don't know how they function with that sort of high-order cognitive dissonance sizzling in their brainpans...the human brain is an amazing thing indeed.
Posted by: Pogo | June 25, 2009 12:12 PM
2 questions:
1) Where has the militant, no accommodation-at-any-cost position gotten us? It seems to me that the NCSE, Ken Miller, Michael Ruse, etc. have done much more for the 'cause' in and out of the courts than PZ or Dawkins ever have or ever will.
2) What's wrong with the 'old atheists'? I dunno, but Spinoza, Hume, and even Aristotle seem to have gotten things pretty much right the first time around.
Posted by: Alex | June 25, 2009 12:16 PM
I spewed coffee all over my screen at this point. Harris 1, Nature 0.
Posted by: tsg | June 25, 2009 12:19 PM
I agree with this. What I see happening, though, is people like Mary equating saying "Collins shouldn't be director of the NIH because he lets his religious views interfere with his views on science" or "the director of the NIH shouldn't be espousing his religious views on the internet" with saying "Christians can't be good scientists" and claiming it's the "new atheists"[1] who are saying it. It's a strawman.
[1] I hate this term. There's nothing new about it. The term is "uppity atheists" because that's what these people are objecting to.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 12:21 PM
The fact you still need to use the courts is telling. If the accommodationist strategy is supposed to be so good, how come it has had so little success in the US ? You still have school board trying to get creationism into the classroom, and yet the accommodationist position is the one that has been dominant in the US for the last 20-30 years.
You also need to remember the creationism vs evolution battle is but one aspect of a much larger war against the imposition of a religious agenda. The Catholic Church may be an ally in the battle against creationism, but it is not when it comes to abortion, HIV prevention, gay rights or birth control. In fact creationism is not that important a battle compared with those.
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2009 12:27 PM
On the off-chance that PZ actually believes his statement that the campaign to show that evolution does not rule out religious belief is aimed at folks like Ken Miller, I'd like to make a correction to this post. In Ohio in the first half of this decade we had a long tiresome battle with the Ohio Board of Education and their fundamentalist constituents over the teaching of evolution. If it were not for the Clergy Letter Project, and the political support we received from the religious community and avowedly Christian board members and politicians, "teach the controversy" would be the Ohio standard for the teaching of evolution. Its the majority of the population, who really don't give a damn about evolution but who do go to church, who have to be educated about how science is not a conspiracy to destroy religion, not professors and educators. I personally solicited support from clergy during this time, and yes, the preception that science has an atheistic social agenda was a problem. If the false notion that science necessarily rules out religion had any more popular acceptance than it does then yes, the majority would throw biology education under a truck. In defending the teaching of science the NCSE, AAAS, etc., must deal with the creationist propaganda that evolution is an evil conspiracy of the atheist scientific community (of whom, BTW, the majority are not), and not something that little Johny necessarily has to take as a reason to give up faith. This doesn't mean that NCSE et al., are teaching religion, or that they're muzzling atheists. Clergy are not in the business of teaching science, so they can't be relied on to deal with science vs religion issues.
The debate here is over two concerns that do not have to be in competition. One is the teaching of science in US public schools. The other is prostelytizing atheism. One camp believes that having an electorate that understands what science IS is of critical importance. The other camp is placing their social agenda before education. This competition isn't going to be helpful to either concern.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 12:42 PM
# 137
Apples and oranges, pogo... while the NCSE and Ken Miller, etc, have done great things in keeping science education secular, for example, they are also used as examples for creationists to keep their foot in the door... to still have a place at the scientific table, as it were. And clearly they don't belong there. To say that the NCSE hasn't done a good job in keeping science education secular would be wrong... but my view, and the view of other new-atheists, is that they could have done and could be doing an even better job if they would kick the religious foot out of the door altogether.
And I think you severely underestimate just how much good for the "cause" Dawkins and PZ have done...
Oh, please... If Aristotle knew the half of what christianity (and religion in general) was to force the world to endure in the 2300 years after his death, I'd wager he'd be as militant as Dawkins or PZ.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 12:45 PM
No, this is not the debate, or at least not all of it. Not even most of it actually.
Religion is posing problems around the world, be it Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan that seeks to deny women an education, or the Catholic Church in Africa spreading lies about condom use and thus helping spread HIV, or Right-Wing fundamentalists seeking to deny gay couples the rights they allow straight couples. Attempts to have creationism taught in the classroom are a problem, but they are not of the same magnitude as some of the other problems religion poses.
As I said up-thread, if you want to stop creationism being taught in schools then the Catholic Church will be your allies. If you want to ensure all women have access to birth control and safe abortions then you will find yourself on opposing side. Of course, people who are being adults can do that. Richard Dawkins has allied with Anglican, Catholic and Jewish religious leaders to condemn the teaching of creationism in UK schools. He did not abandon his strident criticism of religion in order to do so, merely accepted, as did the religious leaders, that in this instance their aims were the same.
The idea that being outspoken against religion means you make it impossible to form alliances with religious groups is a lie. Sadly it is one that all too many people are happy to repeat.
Posted by: RJ | June 25, 2009 12:50 PM
This is pretty far down the list, but here goes...
There is roughly zero evidence that 'New Atheists' are as a group intolerant, period. Let's get clear on something: saying that religion is ridiculous just is not intolerance. Actually, saying this is pretty much hate speech against the so-called 'new' atheists, because it advances the proposition that it is unethical for them to argue their case vigorously.
Violence, attempting to have the government ban organizations - that's what intolerance, when the word is correctly used, means. To say that Harris or Dawkins or any of the well-known 'New Atheists' act in a manner deserving to be compared to this - hate speech.
Compare the following statements:
1. The sky is usually blue when it is sunny.
2. Obama is not a communist.
3. Vigorously arguing one's position, even with some sarcasm, etc, is not properly called intolerance.
4. Classical mechanics does not correctly describe molecules.
I view these as similar in how well-established they are. Let's be clear: if you want to call Dawkins et.al. intolerant, you're wrong, period. There's no reasonable argument to be had here. Your are being unfair and irrational, and that's that.
Mary's accusation that so-called 'fundamentalist' atheists want to bar religious scientists from top positions. A bit of hocus-pocus there Mary. Firstly, members of scientific organizations are entitled to give their reasons certain qualities are desirable in high officer positions. I only speak for myself here, but 99-1 most of those sympathetic to PZ would agree, I would have no problem with a religious person in any office of a scientific organization to which I belong. It's just that Collins and guys like him have published bullshit arguments that give a false impression about the relationship between science and religion. I'd just prefer to be represented by someone who doesn't publish bullshit.
Finally: I find here in this life that most people that agree with my political opinions, and who form my pool of likely friends with similar interests, are liberal religionists. I'm quite serious about my anti-religious views, but this does not keep me from having religious friends or political allies. I call it 'being an adult'. I don't have horns you know.
Posted by: cousinavi | June 25, 2009 12:56 PM
I don't post over here all that often...frankly cuz you motherfuckers scare the hell out of me.
PZ linked to something I wrote ONCE and my blog stats page almost had a fucking stroke.
In any case, I wrote something about Sam Harris off the linked bit and I decided to share. It's just a thought!
I'm drunk...and I'm sharing.
I am also armed.
Take that as you will.
Posted by: Lynna | June 25, 2009 12:56 PM
Mary @33: We don't have to advocate a policy of removing scientists like Collins from science-related public office, but we are obligated to point out the cognitive dissonance his beliefs engender. We're also right to point out that his harboring of so much dissonance makes us trust him a little less than we might otherwise.
If you want to look at the correlation between strongly-held religious beliefs and bad public policy, you need to look at a bigger population sample (not just one scientist). I suggest that you do some research on pyramid schemes by state (state laws in Utah are too kind to multi-level marketing schemes); on detrimental "alternative medicine" sales (look for state laws that protect and endorse questionable medical practices, and practices that include MLM schemes for distribution); on the use of Prozac in Utah (desperate women for the most part); on the percentage of people, by state, that pay for online pornography; on birth defects that result from inbreeding (again, by state); on the ratio of caucasian males holding office to women or to minorities holding office (compare to population stats); on the number of "cold fusion" pseudo-science claims made by PH.D's; at the numbers of homosexual young men who commit suicide...well, you get the idea.
Any population that is primed to believe the unbelievable, any population that has nurtured credibility at the expense of intellectual discernment -- that population will fostert bad public policies and will exhibit psychological difficulties across the board.
Posted by: Mike Caton | June 25, 2009 1:03 PM
I think this debate is getting muddled around the definition of "accomodationist". I've seen the term used to describe atheists or scientists who actively promote that we shouldn't attack religion (or should try to co-exist, like the guy debating Harris here); I've also seen it used to describe people who limit their rhetorical approaches to try to make them more effective. I'm one of those. I don't consider myself as accommodating religion, but I feel like I might be considered accommodationist by some folks.
Decide for yourself: I fully believe that science (and just plain clear thinking) is antithetical to religion, and my goal the eventual erasure of religion. But those aren't the first aspects of science or evolution that I trot out in debates. How well would this work: "Hey, theistic creationist, here are the reasons why you should accept that evolution produced life, and in the process you'll lose your faith." People *do* lose their faith as a result of studying evolution, or the historical basis of their own religion and scripture. But you don't have to tell them that from the get-go.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 25, 2009 1:03 PM
I don't see God as being bothered in any fashion by evolution or a 16+ billion year old universe. Then again, I don't see God as being limited to a human level of ability, or limited by human imagination.
I also admit that at the moment the weight of the evidence speaks against the existence of God. I haven't the tools needed to prove His existence. Frankly, I don't see why it makes a damn bit of difference. You need some invisible sky fairy to keep you on the straight and narrow, then you aint worth my trust. I believe in self-responsibility.
I have faith in science because it is practiced by people who verify things. Not all the time, not consistently, but in the long run well enough to produce a consistent world view, a consistent model of the universe. For that reason I say people such as Hitchens and Myers do more on God's behalf than any number of God annoyers. Scientists as a group have shown me they can be trusted. The same can not be said of creationists and their fellow travelers.
Posted by: Penguinsaur | June 25, 2009 1:04 PM
Does Europe try to 'accomodate' the Flying Spaghetti Monster into science like we do in America? Because they dont ever seem to have people trying to teach about his Noodly Creation story in school, even the 'scientific' Smart Spaghettification gets laughed out of the building over there
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 1:22 PM
Europe does have creationists trying to get ID/Creationism into the classroom. There is something of a East/West divide, with the former East Bloc countries being a bit more susceptible to that kind of woo. A notable difference in Western Europe though, compared with the US, is the lack of political support for creationism. For example in the UK no major political party supports the teaching of ID/creationism, and only one minor party, the Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland only). The DUP needless to add is a party dominated by protestant religion. Thankfully although they share power in Northern Ireland they do not get to decide what gets taught in science classes, as the UK devolves that to experts.
Posted by: cousinavi | June 25, 2009 1:28 PM
@ Mike Caton:
"Hey, theistic creationist, here are the reasons why you should accept that evolution produced life, and in the process you'll lose your faith."
People *do* lose their faith as a result of studying evolution, or the historical basis of their own religion and scripture. But you don't have to tell them that from the get-go.
Gloves are OFF, now. Now you want me sacrifice FUN for EFFECTIVENESS!
Haven't you ever wanted to just drive around a theistic neighbourhood, smacking them with brooms and laughing? Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Ahem.
Especially in Coral Gables. I would never smack people involved in public proselytizing with a broom in Coral Gables...of all places...
Hehehe.
That would be...not fun at all.
/no habla anglais
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 25, 2009 1:36 PM
Chamberlain @ # 113: There *is* a damn good reason to sit down and shut up. When a man like Miller is fighting the good fight - as at Dover - you should sit down and shut up (unless he needs assistance in some form, such as sources).
Chamberlain @ # 133: I simply think there are times when it behooves a thoughtful atheist to shut up, and I gave an example.
Guess what: this blog was active during the Kitzmiller trial, and our host made numerous remarks on same. If you want to "give an example", cite something from that period which you find counterproductive. Otherwise, stop pretending you've made a useful contribution to the discussion.
Posted by: Lynna | June 25, 2009 1:46 PM
Oh, bleh! Obviously, I meant "credulity" and not "credibility" in my post @146. Sheesh. Slinking off now to hide under a rock.
Corrected bit:
Credulous. Yeah, that.
Posted by: Lynna | June 25, 2009 1:48 PM
Perfect ... I corrected credibility to credulity, but left the typo for "foster." I need a bigger rock to hide under, one where I can live out my days.
Posted by: cousinavi | June 25, 2009 1:52 PM
How YOU see god isn't the problem. It's the dogmatic assumptions taken on its behalf, the unwarranted impositions on public policy that arise therefrom, and the TOTAL lack of evidence for any of it that's the problem.
There MIGHT WELL BE some omnipotent, omniscient, caring, intervening ghost...but I've had it about up to fucking HERE with ALL of the contradictory fuckwits that want to TELL me about it.
YOU DON"T HAVE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE! Now shut up and go about your business. Don't make me all stabby.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 1:56 PM
Pierce @152
"Guess what: this blog was active during the Kitzmiller trial"
I know. I was here.
"and our host made numerous remarks on same. If you want to "give an example", cite something from that period which you find counterproductive. "
I don't recall PZ being part of Kitzmiller?
Otherwise, stop pretending you've made a useful contribution to the discussion."
If you stop pretending that you have any sort of authority in
this blog I will stop telling you to fuck off. Is that an
acceptable compromise?
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2009 2:02 PM
Re: 144
There is roughly zero evidence that 'New Atheists' are as a group intolerant, period.
Of course there is, at least for the spokesmen. What's being proposed in this latest campaign is not simply being "neutral" in countering creationist propaganda. The assertion is being made that pro-science promoters must acknowledge that science disproves all religion when it does nothing of the sort. Therefore, there can be no "accommodation" of assuring the general population that the teaching of evolution should have no consequences for children's religious beliefs. That's intolerant by any definition of the word I know of.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 25, 2009 2:16 PM
Chamberlain @ # 156: I don't recall PZ being part of Kitzmiller?
Google "goalposts, moving", please.
Posted by: CJO | June 25, 2009 2:18 PM
The assertion is being made that pro-science promoters must acknowledge that science disproves all religion when it does nothing of the sort.
I haven't seen that assertion made anywhere. But the opposite is put forward by Collins et al, that science supports certain religious propositions, when it does nothing of the sort.
there can be no "accommodation" of assuring the general population that the teaching of evolution should have no consequences for children's religious beliefs. That's intolerant by any definition of the word I know of.
Should there be accomodation of assuring the general public that the teaching of history should have no consequence for children's political beliefs? If not, what makes evolution so uniquely fraught with peril? It's the truth, as best we can figure it, and it flatly contradicts some religious beliefs. Such an assurance would either be disingenuous or it would entail a less-than-thorough coverage of the subject for all students in order to molly-coddle the primitive superstitions of a few.
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2009 2:29 PM
Re: 143
Richard Dawkins has allied with Anglican, Catholic and Jewish religious leaders to condemn the teaching of creationism in UK schools.
PZ is not going to ally himself with religious leaders to successfully convince a political body to reject teaching creationism in public school science classes.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 2:32 PM
"Of course there is, at least for the spokesmen. What's being proposed in this latest campaign is not simply being "neutral" in countering creationist propaganda. The assertion is being made that pro-science promoters must acknowledge that science disproves all religion when it does nothing of the sort."
This is simply untrue. For example Dawkins does not say god does not exist. He wrote a long chapter about this in The God Delusion where he shows that whilst the existence of a god is very unlikley it cannot be proved god does not exist.
Dawkins also shows that for most religions, science does indeed prove problamatic. This is because most religions posit that their god(s) can intervene in the Universe. He makes it clear that he does not extend his criticism of religion to those religions that make such claims.
If a religion wants to claim its gods has any role in the Universe (and this intervention is not simply rules by which the universe works studd) then, by definition, it is in conflict with science. Science is clear that only naturalistic explanations are allowed. Godditit does not qualify.
Dawkins does not say that people cannot believe in an interventionist god, he just points out people cannot claim to believe in such a god and accept the very foundation of science at the same time.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 25, 2009 2:34 PM
Mary #9 wrote:
I think part of the reason we appear to be ignoring the "strand" of the new atheist movement which apparently wants to "shun" religious scientists is because this view -- while, yes, we can find it -- hasn't been put forward by any major new atheist spokespeople, and seems pretty much confined to good old-fashioned village atheists. Complaints against Collins' appointment were much more focused on both his bad science regarding the inexplicable miracle of human morality, and the not unreasonable fear that he would use a national position to keep on beating the drum that there's no conflict between faith and science.
Harris asked Ball to compare Christianity to Wicca, and see if he would take the same stance if he was dealing with Wicca. I think a better comparison is pseudoscience. When you strip down to basics, religion is rather like a form of pseudoscience: claims about reality which are supposed to be supported by strong evidence and reason, but which fall apart under scrutiny and hide beneath weak pleas for 'tolerance' and 'other ways of knowing.'
Pseudoscience meshes with the practice of science as long as it's not too extreme, and keeps itself confined. On one level, sure. But not at the deeper level, because the method is wrong. And because the method is flawed, the rules of science don't have to be followed. If they are, it's due to individual taste.
Religious accomodationists then are like people who promote "Complementary medicine." They certainly don't advocate only alternative medicine. No. We ought to use regular Western, allopathic, scientific medicine, sure -- but it's fine to ADD reiki, or homeopathy, or other quackery, because they work so well together.
And when you point out that these forms of alt med conflict with the principles and practice of the science they're supposed to be used with, suddenly it turns out that 'alt med' is really about diet, exercise, nutrition, mild massage. Which are already reasonable parts of scientific medicine, not alt med. Bait and switch.
Thus, under criticism, religion morphs away from belief in miracles and supernatural intervention to vague expressions of the importance of kindness or valuing creativity and exploration -- which would have passed for secularism if it hadn't been used to defend religion.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 2:35 PM
Mike, authoritatively blathering...
Really? You know this, do you? Do you have any other assertions as to what else PZ is not going to do? I'm sure he'd be interested...
Posted by: tsg | June 25, 2009 2:36 PM
@Mike #157
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here:
By whom?
There can be no assurance that teaching evolution won't have consequences on children's religious beliefs if those beliefs are directly contradicted by evolution (eg. that all life forms were placed on earth in their present form by god). At least, not without gutting evolution to accommodate those religious beliefs.
If you are referring to not contradicting their religious beliefs with scientific fact as being intolerant, then, by strict definition of the word, I agree. However I don't believe it is undesirable or something to be avoided under the connotation of "intolerance" in the sense of "dislike of that which is merely different". I see no benefit, and quite a bit of harm, in being tolerant of ignorance.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 2:36 PM
Pierce @158: Google "goalposts, moving", please.
As I stated earlier, I've been reading here since at least
Kitzmiller. I believe I know the games played here as well
as you do, and (possibly unlike you) I know there is a difference
between the deceptiveness of intentionally moving goalposts as compared to explaining/defining my position.
As far as the actual Kitzmiller trial was concerned PZ (and afaik, everybody else here) was a non-entity. PZ was just another blogger/wanker like the rest of us here.
I am under no false impression that anyone here will change anybody's mind with anything I say. I can bitch all I want
about the people's front of Judeatheism, and it won't
make a difference to your beliefs or your attitude, or those of anybody else here.
Most importantly Judge Jones won't be reading this, sitting there thoughtfully stroking his chin and thinking "by $deity, that Chamberlain is right!".
Judge Jones did, however, conclude that Miller, the man on the
spot, was right.
Seriously now - if PZ was present at the trial, would he
start babbling about Miller's brain being damaged by religion?
Would you *want* him to go on in the courtroom about the pernicious effects of religion?
What possibly could Miller have done that would have made the
outcome of the trial better?
Posted by: cousinavi | June 25, 2009 2:39 PM
@ Sastra
Elegant. Well said.
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2009 2:40 PM
I haven't seen that assertion made anywhere.
Strains credulity.
Should there be accomodation of assuring the general public that the teaching of history should have no consequence for children's political beliefs?
Non-sequitur.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 2:40 PM
"PZ is not going to ally himself with religious leaders to successfully convince a political body to reject teaching creationism in public school science classes."
I have some bad news for you.
He has. Clearly you missed the letter he and some religious leaders wrote to The Times calling on the Government to ensure schools do not teach creationism in science classes. This was at the time there was the furore over Emmanuel College, in NorthEast England.
It is true that they did not convince the Government to prohibit teaching creationism, but then that was never Government policy so the point is moot.
Either withdraw your claim, or provide evidence that Dawkins never wrote, nor signed, the letter in question.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 2:49 PM
Chamberlain,
You view Dover as a victory. Viewed from Europe it was a defeat. Not a defeat in terms of the ruling, but a defeat because the case needed to go to court in the first place.
If you are fighting creationism then to have to go to court to ensure it does not get taught in publicly funded schools is a failure.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 2:53 PM
Matt @169.
Defeat?
That's a really weird thing to say,
and I'm not sure how to respond other
than to point out that I'm not American
either, and that the "defeat" at Kitz
is infinitely preferable to whatever you
would call an ID victory.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 25, 2009 2:57 PM
And you still insert gratuitous line feeds that make your posts look like Vogon poetry? Wow.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 25, 2009 2:58 PM
Doesn't Harris, as a Buddhist (dunno how much he "practices") perpetuate his own "ignorance" and "tribalism"?
It's NOT a "psychology," Sam. Yes, it may be atheist, but it's still metaphysical, with non-materialist, unamenable-to-investigation concepts like karma.
Posted by: tsg | June 25, 2009 2:59 PM
@Chamberlain #170
It was a failure in that it never should have happened in the first place. Yes, it was preferable to an ID win in the court room. It would have been far more preferable for the idea never to have entered the heads of those responsible for making decision about educating children.
Posted by: CJO | June 25, 2009 3:00 PM
I haven't seen that assertion made anywhere.
Then it should be a simple matter to show me where it has been made. As Sastra points out, the demonstration would acquire additional force if you can show where a prominent "New Atheist" has made the assertion publicly.
Should there be accomodation of assuring the general public that the teaching of history should have no consequence for children's political beliefs?
I disagree. My point is, why should inculcation in the basic facts of history (be they sociopolitical or scientific) come attached with any assurances whatsoever that they do not conflict with any given dearly held belief? And if you wouldn't attach such assurances to one set of historical facts, why do you want to with another set? Your blithe dismissal suggests you don't want to talk about anything else, that evolution is somehow unique. My question then is why?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 3:03 PM
Chamberlain,
Yes, defeat. If you do not think, almost 150 years after the publication of Origins, that having to go to court to stop "goddidit" being taught as science is a defeat then I am not sure what you would classify as a defeat. Yes the court case was won by the pro-evolution side, but why was there a court case in the first place ?
Posted by: --E | June 25, 2009 3:04 PM
#131: "That's childish behavior, and most of us grow out of that after our teen years.
-->I want to run around with the people you know. Most humans on my planet don't grow out of this tendency. They get better control in many areas, but the push-buttons linger in the places where they are stupidest.
If a "solid, reasoned, and evidence-backed argument" could reach them so easily, they wouldn't be religious in the first place.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 3:06 PM
Chamberlain
Well, first off, I'm not sure that within this thread or discussion, anyone has directly criticized Miller's performance at the Dover trial. That's a strawman.
Secondly, are you just being intentionally thick in thinking that the way PZ presents himself on his personal blog would be representitive of his disposition at a formal trial in a court of law? Please, Chamberlain... that's reaching, even for you.
I know you've listened to at least one of PZ's radio appearances and / or debates with creationists and other religious types. He is consistently courteous, polite, and fairly soft-spoken, while still being assertive and direct in his arguments. The persona he's able to project in a forum like his own blog is not one he would necessarily put forth in a courtroom. Even you must concede this...
So who's not being serious... seriously, now...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 3:15 PM
-E
Exactly my point! So, when the solid, reasoned argument is useless, what we are left with is ridicule and derision.
I disagree... and perhaps that is because I work in the academic field (we can discuss the strange dynamics of an IT manager in the academic world later.. heh), and am more apt to be surrounded by people for whom this is less often the case.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 3:16 PM
TSG & Matt:
I agree inasmuch as it is shameful that the
(former?) most powerful country in the world
should be so appallingly crippled by religious
nonsense.
However, under the circumstances, considering
that there had to be a trial, I think things
went as well as possible.
I suspect most "new" atheists are all-or-nothing
people. That's great. All or nothing people are
the only ones to achieve great things, but they
are also probably the most likely to be spectacular
cranks, whereas middle-of-the-road folks like myself
try to work within whatever framework we are stuck with.
That's why you see it as failure -and you are correct,
in the grand scheme of things - while I see it as
as big a success as it can be.
Yes? No?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 25, 2009 3:21 PM
Chamberlain @ # 165: As far as the actual Kitzmiller trial was concerned PZ (and afaik, everybody else here) was a non-entity. PZ was just another blogger/wanker like the rest of us here.
Having created an utterly hypothetical situation, you excuse yr previous comment (# 113) by saying the hypothesized contingency was not occurring. That's why I mentioned mobile goalposts.
Here's a handy rule of thumb: the strictures of successful courtroom testimony are unique to that venue; ergo, when pontificating on same, it is advisable to specify the context. In my experience on the stand, one key strategy is simply to stay very narrowly on-topic.
Now, got any other "reasons" why atheists should siddown 'n' shaddup?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 3:21 PM
"we can discuss the strange dynamics of an IT manager in the academic world later"
I spent sometime working in IT in an acdemic environment. Providind IT support to the School of Computing. I used to get at least 3 calls a week from various faculty members who taught networking complaing they could not print to the networked laser printer(*). It was always becuase they were not logged onto the network at the time.
(*) If I tell you it was an HP Laserjet III, and it was considered cutting edge at the time, you will get some idea of how long ago this was.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 25, 2009 3:26 PM
PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?
Also, Chamberlain:
Please stop adding in
those useless newlines
like I'm doing now
Just to show you
What I'm talking about
Since you didn't
get the hint earlier
It looks dumb
And it is annoying
Because you keep people hoping
That your post is actually
A Cuttlefish poem
So please stop
Hitting Enter
Unless you want a new paragraph
You don't have to
Computers are really smart
They can wrap text automatically
Unlike typewriters
Thank you
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 3:27 PM
"That's why you see it as failure -and you are correct,
in the grand scheme of things - while I see it as
as big a success as it can be.
Yes? No?"
I do not dispute the result of the court case was a good, if not better, than the platiffs could have expected. It would have been even better had the defendents not thought they could impose their religious views on others in the first place.
Posted by: SusanR | June 25, 2009 3:45 PM
Mary
I think you argued your points very well.
I think some religious scientists are able to do proper science without their beliefs interfering. It depends on the branch of science and the extremity of the beliefs. But I also think some religious scientists, especially as they get older, become less able to separate their religion from their science, and then become a danger to science. This may be because religious beliefs are usually based on emotions such as fear of death, which become more real as we get closer to death. My father was an excellent mechanical engineer. He spent most of his career working for the government in Nuclear Test Engineering. He was a lax Catholic. If he had been one of those expecting and hoping for the Rapture to come at any moment, he might not have been trusted to work on nuclear weapons.....
Posted by: cousinavi | June 25, 2009 3:48 PM
I ain't scared of you motherfuckers anymore.
If this thread is any measure, you're mostly a bunch of shallow navel gazing fuckwits yammering at yourselves in an immensely vast prepositional echo chamber.
Which is (of course) an entirely self-affirming (if not ego-maniacal) proposition.
Still, though...have a peek.
Take a breath, folks...
If Sam Harris doesn't break a sweat, why should YOU work yourself into a lather?
Never argue with idiots. If you do, that's what the idiot is doing, too.
Posted by: tsg | June 25, 2009 3:48 PM
@Chamberlain #179
I think you've hit on the crux of the issue in the accomodationist debate: people like Philip Ball are content to put out the forest fires where religion directly interferes with good science and ignore it everywhere else, while people like Sam Harris are looking at the "grand scheme of things" and trying eradicate the magical thinking (of which religion is a subset) that leads to those decisions, in essence, to continue the analogy, trying to get people to be more careful with their matches. What makes it particularly irritating to those of Sam Harris' ilk (of which I count myself) is that Ball and others like him are just as willing to go after other kinds of magical thinking but, for some reason, give religion a free pass. Either they think that religion is not a form of magical thinking, or that it is somehow special and exempt from criticism.
So yes, given the circumstances, the decision at Dover was a win. I personally happen to think that the circumstances themselves were a failure and that accommodationism enables and directly contributes to those circumstances. If people have the right to not have their views questioned then there is nothing to stop them from inflicting those views on others eg. stem cell research, birth control, AIDS, gay marriage, etc., etc., ad infinitum. That we even have to have an argument about stem cell research is a failure, and we're losing it.
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 4:03 PM
"Well, first off, I'm not sure that within this thread or discussion, anyone has directly criticized Miller's performance at the Dover trial. That's a strawman."
Actually that's a lie, or at best sloppy reading on your
part. I never claimed anybody directly criticized Miller's
performance. In fact, that is my point - the point that you
have been assiduously avoiding. Miller's performance
was exemplary, accusations of brain-dead religiosity notwithstanding. That's why I have repeatedly asked
(across two separate discussions) what he could have
done better than he did.
This bit is really bizarre, insults aside:
"Secondly, are you just being intentionally thick in thinking that the way PZ presents himself on his personal blog would be representitive of his disposition at a formal trial in a court of law?"
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're too angry
to be subtle enough to make it work.
I believe PZ would *not* present himself in court the
way he presents himself here. I believe
that he would have worked with Miller & Co. in a most
effective and professional manner - despite his
intolerance of "accomodationists" in this forum.
In short, I believe he would sit down and shut up,
at least as far as religion is concerned, although I have
no doubt that he would answer directly and truthfully
when the ID side tries to polarise the courtroom by probing
into his atheistic views.
Note that Miller was immune to this trick - nobody in
the courtroom would be angry at Miller being exposed as
a Catholic. Not even PZ. I think.
Which comes back to my original point in this forum -
that there are, in fact, times when "new" atheists should sit
down and shut up.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 4:27 PM
Hmmmm... ok... let me read your post again...
OK... so the point of asking this question is exactly what then, if not to insinuate that we are criticizing his performance?? I don't think it's sloppy reading on my part... but there is certainly something sloppy here. Feh.
Mm-hmmm... you're somehow discerning my emotional state while insisting I not put words in your mouth. How ironic.
I'll give you that perhaps your point was meant to ask the question rather than to make the point of differentiation. That said, even in re-reading it, I'm not sure I believe that's what you meant... but whatever. I'll concede that point.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 25, 2009 4:33 PM
Oh, and by the way, Chamberlain...
I fail to see how:
necessarily equals:
But, you do seem to be fond of telling us all to sit down and shut up.
So... lest I have to hear it again, let me just say, for myself anyhow... fuck no.
Perhaps you should stop feeling compelled to tell others far more accomplished than yourself how they should carry themselves in their arena of expertise.
In short, shut up and fuck off.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 25, 2009 4:41 PM
Chamberlain @ # 165: What possibly could Miller have done that would have made the outcome of the trial better?
Lured Philip Johnson, Ken Ham, William Dembski, & the Hovind family into testifying. Tom Cruise & Pat Robertson, too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 25, 2009 4:42 PM
I never claimed anybody directly criticized Miller's
performance. In fact, that is my point - the point that you
have been assiduously avoiding. Miller's performance
was exemplary, accusations of brain-dead religiosity notwithstanding. That's why I have repeatedly asked
(across two separate discussions) what he could have
done better than he did.
If you never claimed anybody criticized Miller's testimony, then why have you been repeatedly asking what he could have done better.
Why is that even relevant?
that's a rhetorical question, because the answer is obviously, it's not.
It's a fucking red herring is what it is.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 25, 2009 4:45 PM
Note that Miller was immune to this trick - nobody in
the courtroom would be angry at Miller being exposed as
a Catholic. Not even PZ. I think.
You obviously haven't the slightest clue what this discussion is actually about.
Is this John Kwok sockpupetting?
Posted by: Chamberlain | June 25, 2009 5:00 PM
Ichthyic.
I'm not sure how - or why - I should be defending myself
accusations of being someone else.
The entire situation I find myself in is too bizarre for
words.
I thought, originally, that I fit in here very well.
I am appalled at the behavior of the Hovind types of
this world - any sort of woo woo nonsense, including
godbotherers of all stripes. I agree with PZ on
most things he says, and I'm delighted with the science
he has shown us.
Honestly. I don't know what else I can do to prove
the sincerity of my above comment.
I also know that PZ generally approves of discussion
tactics that border on outright abuse. No problem. I
accept those conditions.
Unfortunately I find myself falling into the currently
villified category of "accomodationist" because I
took offense to the way PZ criticized Miller in
an earlier thread from a couple weeks ago.
The only thing that matters, IMO, is the quality of
the work Miller does/did. As far as I can tell
it is top quality. That (and the unwillingness of
every PZ enthusiast here to answer) is the only
reason I repeately ask what is wrong with Miller's
science, what he could have done better. The closest
thing I get to an answer is that nobody is critizing
Miller's performance as a scientist in general
or at Kitzmiller.
Good. So why does PZ accuse Miller
of being crippled by his religion when
the evidence suggests that his performance
(especially at Kitz) was unparalled, and
arguably better than PZ could have done?
People in this forum are slagging a good man
(one with a proven track record) and it annoys
me.
That is it in a nutshell. Tear me a new one
because I don't like the way you treat a man
who has accomplished far more than anyone else
here.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 5:01 PM
Nah. Chamberlain has not mentioned where he went to school once. Kwok could never manage such restraint.
Also he has not claimed Ken Miller is his best friend, or made a demand that he be sent photography equipment.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 25, 2009 5:04 PM
Chamberlain,
Are you trying to write in verse ?
Only what is with all these line breaks. It makes reading what you have to say difficult.
Posted by: tsg | June 25, 2009 5:51 PM
@Chamberlain #193
If you can link to the post where PZ accused Miller of being crippled by his religion that you didn't have time to find when you first brought it up, it might go a long way in clarifying what the hell it is you're talking about.
Posted by: RJ | June 25, 2009 5:57 PM
Some comments here show how misunderstanding leads to unfair accusations against Uppity Atheists.
1. It's been noted that when someone like Dawkins says that religion cannot be rationally justified, theists often hear, "You're stupid." I think it’s true and a regrettable consequence of the human tendency to view things as a package deal. It seems clear too that this tendency is particularly magnified by the tribal ethics that characterize many groups within the modern religious right.
This is an educational problem that arises in other contexts too. More generally, people of all stripes, atheists included, tend to view criticism as an attack. Scholarship and science offer a partial cure.
While it is understandable that people tend to feel this way, at some point our society has to grow up. Unless criticism of views can be separated from attacks on persons, no real progress can be made in discussions of important matters (everything, not just science). So, following the 'three comment; rule, the thing to do is to politely ask the theist to listen at least two times. Separating criticism from personal attacks from criticism is rule 0 of rational discourse and if someone can't do it, that's not my problem.
2. I'm seeing all kinds of fantastic claims about horrible discriminatory attitudes exhibited by Uppity Atheists. Please listen to what they say; do not make paranoid extrapolations. Specifically, unless I'm deeply confused, there are no prominent atheism advocates proposing that science must become explicitly atheistic in its rhetoric. PZ, and several others involved with this discussion, have explicitly said just the opposite: science should not mention God one way or the other.
Several commentators have claimed that Uppity Atheists are seeking to require science be explicitly atheistic. It's a paranoid strawman construction, and until someone shows me unambiguous evidence to the contrary, I stand by this judgment.
If someone wishes to challenge what I'm saying here, please take careful note of the word preceding 'evidence' above.
Again, I don't have horns. It saddens me to see some of my natural allies and colleagues unhappy with this situation, and to see them driven to unreasonable and frankly absurd claims.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 6:18 PM
Where did I say that you blame atheists? Criticise me for what I say. ;)I can see how you would take it that way, what given the same post and all. But really, I'm just continuing on with my argument that atheists are basically irrelevant and have no bearing at all at what theists believe.
Posted by: articulett | June 25, 2009 7:16 PM
I'm perfectly willing to accommodate the accomodationists so long as they accommodate my view that faith is a means of ignorance disguised as knowledge and all faiths should be treated similarly by science-- the exact same way that the believer wants scientists to treat those who have conflicting faiths.
Also, Kudos to Sastra. Most Excellent.
I want no part in enabling anyone's delusion. I think beliefs about invisible undetectable entities should be kept private.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 25, 2009 8:12 PM
"I think beliefs about invisible undetectable entities should be kept private."
I don't see why. (Unless we're talking about public school teachers or other situations where there are Establishment Clause issues.) Let's not fall into the trap of telling other people to shut up.
But I do think that when someone makes those beliefs public, it's fair game to criticize them. If you're going to write a whole book on "Finding Darwin's God" and speculate about your imaginary friend hiding in quantum fluctuations, then some people are going to criticize you and point out the unscientific nature of that kind of thinking.
Posted by: Mike Caton | June 25, 2009 8:40 PM
@cousinavi
Like many rationalists I too confess a logical mean streak. What I would like to do goes WAY beyond broom-smacking. I've often fantasized there were some magic syllogism that I could say to a theist and they would clutch their head and scream "Stop! No! NOOOOO! You're breaking my brain! My faith is meeelllttinng..." But that never works, so yes, I do sacrifice fun for effectiveness. Patience! Be like Johnny Atheistseed. Quietly plant doubts and walk away.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 25, 2009 8:42 PM
Chamberlain - perhaps this will illustrate how Miller's words not long after Dover failed to win friends and influence people.
And yes, the renowned PZ Hyperbole™ is undeniable in that link. Please don't take it too personally on Miller's behalf unless he so requests.
Posted by: cousinavi | June 25, 2009 10:33 PM
@ Mike Canton
Be like Johnny Atheistseed. Quietly plant doubts and walk away.
Sorry. I want to pin the fuckers off weak premises, full mount them over vapid rebuttal, hammer slaps of logic from their ears to their kidneys, and STUFF RIPE APPLES INTO THEIR GAPING MAW until they either agree to reason or stop thrashing about.
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Posted by: Wendy Cheang | June 25, 2009 11:17 PM
Before I get flamed for this post I'd like to say for the most part that I agree things with most of the things PZ says. I'm a highly liberal atheist who makes her decisions based reason and science.
But when people blame religion for the Scoops trial, setting kids on fire and promoting conservative ideas they forget that religion can do good things and religious groups are often the impetous for liberal change.
MLK was a minister and the leader of the Southern Baptist convention. Ghandi was a faithful Hindu. JFK is Catholic. More than that all these people drew on religion to support liberal policies and fight against tyranny. Buddhist monks lead the protest in Myanmar and 30 years ago Iran overthrew a corrupt government with help from the clergy. Abolionists and early feminists both invoked God to fight against the status quo
What people don't realize is that religion is a tool. It's a powerful one and in the wrong hands it can do damage but in the right hands it can do alot of good. Religion connects people and inspires powerful feelings. By appealing to a higher authority you can oppose accepted practices - something can be good or bad
I might be accomindationist but it's true. Religion can good or bad and instead of fighting why not try to work with them. It will achieve more results
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 11:25 PM
So is a rocket launcher or a nuclear weapon, and to be honest I would prefer that those kinds of tools are kept out of the hands of the general public.Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | June 26, 2009 1:34 AM
#205
And frankly it is a little difficult to see how ---
"What people don't realize is that religion is a tool. It's a powerful one and in the wrong hands it can do damage but in the right hands it can do alot of good."
First of all we know it is tool to effect the wishes of those who wield it. Secondly I concur with Kel, it is rather like a nuclear weapon. Someone please explain to me how in the right hands a nuclear weapon can ---
"do a lot of good".
Thank you....
Posted by: Kel | June 26, 2009 1:45 AM
Saying "religion is a tool" really belittles what religion is. It's typical liberal apologetics, missing the life-defining characteristics religion has for so many. It's a worldview, a communal drawcard, a giver of meaning and purpose, a guide for behaviour, and so on...
Say the king of England comes into your house and starts pushing you around :PPosted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 26, 2009 2:05 AM
Wendy Cheang wrote:
Do you know something we don't?
Posted by: Foster Foskin | June 26, 2009 5:26 AM
I am an Australian atheist. I have lived in Asia and traveled the world. In most European countries religion no longer means much or anything to the majority of people. In Thailand, where I lived for a number of years, they claim to be Buddhist, but they are also atheists as they don't believe in any gods. Instead, they deify Buddha and the government cynically uses Buddhism to control the population. As a result, the general population is kept ignorant and their lack of awareness about the world around them is stunning.
One thing has struck me very forcefully when comparing the countries that are mostly or totally atheist (Japan, for example) and the religious countries. The religious countries suffer from a lower IQ and general intelligent awareness. This is not a scientific statement, but merely my own observation.
Watching what goes on in the USA, I see a vast majority of people who seem to be very religious, mentally lazy and consequently stupid. Yet we have people like Myers and Harris who are obviously very intelligent. The reason why is obvious to me. Surely this is also obvious to others?
Posted by: Foster Foskin | June 26, 2009 5:31 AM
I am an Australian atheist. I have lived in Asia and traveled the world. In most European countries religion no longer means much or anything to the majority of people. In Thailand, where I lived for a number of years, they claim to be Buddhist, but they are also atheists as they don't believe in any gods. Instead, they deify Buddha and the government cynically uses Buddhism to control the population. As a result, the general population is kept ignorant and their lack of awareness about the world around them is stunning.
One thing has struck me very forcefully when comparing the countries that are mostly or totally atheist (Japan, for example) and the religious countries. The religious countries suffer from a lower IQ and general intelligent awareness. This is not a scientific statement, but merely my own observation.
Watching what goes on in the USA, I see a vast majority of people who seem to be very religious, mentally lazy and consequently stupid. Yet we have people like Myers and Harris who are obviously very intelligent. The reason why is obvious to me. Surely this is also obvious to others?
Posted by: Foster Foskin | June 26, 2009 5:35 AM
I am an Australian atheist. I have lived in Asia and traveled the world. In most European countries religion no longer means much or anything to the majority of people. In Thailand, where I lived for a number of years, they claim to be Buddhist, but they are also atheists as they don't believe in any gods. Instead, they deify Buddha and the government cynically uses Buddhism to control the population. As a result, the general population is kept ignorant and their lack of awareness about the world around them is stunning.
One thing has struck me very forcefully when comparing the countries that are mostly or totally atheist (Japan, for example) and the religious countries. The religious countries suffer from a lower IQ and general intelligent awareness. This is not a scientific statement, but merely my own observation.
Watching what goes on in the USA, I see a vast majority of people who seem to be very religious, mentally lazy and consequently stupid. Yet we have people like Myers and Harris who are obviously very intelligent. The reason why is obvious to me. Surely this is also obvious to others?
Posted by: Foster Foskin | June 26, 2009 5:38 AM
I am an Australian atheist. I have lived in Asia and traveled the world. In most European countries religion no longer means much or anything to the majority of people. In Thailand, where I lived for a number of years, they claim to be Buddhist, but they are also atheists as they don't believe in any gods. Instead, they deify Buddha and the government cynically uses Buddhism to control the population. As a result, the general population is kept ignorant and their lack of awareness about the world around them is stunning.
One thing has struck me very forcefully when comparing the countries that are mostly or totally atheist (Japan, for example) and the religious countries. The religious countries suffer from a lower IQ and general intelligent awareness. This is not a scientific statement, but merely my own observation.
Watching what goes on in the USA, I see a vast majority of people who seem to be very religious, mentally lazy and consequently stupid. Yet we have people like Myers and Harris who are obviously very intelligent. The reason why is obvious to me. Surely this is also obvious to others?
Posted by: Foster Foskin | June 26, 2009 5:40 AM
I am an Australian atheist. I have lived in Asia and traveled the world. In most European countries religion no longer means much or anything to the majority of people. In Thailand, where I lived for a number of years, they claim to be Buddhist, but they are also atheists as they don't believe in any gods. Instead, they deify Buddha and the government cynically uses Buddhism to control the population. As a result, the general population is kept ignorant and their lack of awareness about the world around them is stunning.
One thing has struck me very forcefully when comparing the countries that are mostly or totally atheist (Japan, for example) and the religious countries. The religious countries suffer from a lower IQ and general intelligent awareness. This is not a scientific statement, but merely my own observation.
Watching what goes on in the USA, I see a vast majority of people who seem to be very religious, mentally lazy and consequently stupid. Yet we have people like Myers and Harris who are obviously very intelligent. The reason why is obvious to me. Surely this is also obvious to others?
Posted by: Foster Foskin | June 26, 2009 5:42 AM
I am an Australian atheist. I have lived in Asia and traveled the world. In most European countries religion no longer means much or anything to the majority of people. In Thailand, where I lived for a number of years, they claim to be Buddhist, but they are also atheists as they don't believe in any gods. Instead, they deify Buddha and the government cynically uses Buddhism to control the population. As a result, the general population is kept ignorant and their lack of awareness about the world around them is stunning.
One thing has struck me very forcefully when comparing the countries that are mostly or totally atheist (Japan, for example) and the religious countries. The religious countries suffer from a lower IQ and general intelligent awareness. This is not a scientific statement, but merely my own observation.
Watching what goes on in the USA, I see a vast majority of people who seem to be very religious, mentally lazy and consequently stupid. Yet we have people like Myers and Harris who are obviously very intelligent. The reason why is obvious to me. Surely this is also obvious to others?
Posted by: cousinavi | June 26, 2009 6:17 AM
@ Foster
You're an idiot.
I live in East Asia, and hace (apparently) a raher finer and more subtle understanding of Asian theologies and the relative weights thereof.
On first blush, you haven't the foggiest fucking idea what the hell you're yammering about. Take it from me, son...your travels, passport visa stamps and certainty does NOT equate to anything like proof or contact with reality. You're a yammering fuckwit who should never have left Adelaide...where stunted jabbering apparently counts for something.
JAPAN? Mostly ATHEIST?
You shallow, ignorant FUCKWIT!
It's not even possible to debate people who insist on Warp Drive Unicorns.
Your utterly BLIND perceptions are so far off the mark, there's not even a fair way to BEGIN correcting you.
Your STUNNING ignorance of Buddhism and its effective presence in Thailand convinces me of one thing - you've never been further than the Lady Boys on Koh San Rd. Shut the fuck up, you fat, backward sex tourist.
Great googly jumped up jesus on moogly! I'm from AUSTRALIA! I see things UPSIDE DOWN and BACKWARDS.
Shut the fuck up, you kangaroo humping MORON.
Posted by: cousinavi | June 26, 2009 6:30 AM
Damn typos...got carried away.
Not my fault.
Koala boy provoked me,
Posted by: Bill Schultz | June 26, 2009 8:55 AM
I am now, and will continue to be, something of an accomodationist because I believe the New Atheists continue to fail to offer any positive program of engagement which will take the place of religion in the lives of the vast majority of people who need something of the sort.
All social orders begin with a political and a religious establishment of some type or another. When you send religion to the trash heap, you lop off the better half of the social order and put society onto the path towards self-destruction.
I agree that religion has many horrors to answer for. But I do not agree that those are inherent within the institution of religion but rather attributes of specific beliefs or practices which were (generally) abused and/or misued by the power structure.
I am, instead, more in sympathy with atheists like Michael Newdow, who asserts that atheism is a species of religous belief, and the earliest Humanists, whose atheistic organizations sprang out of religious institutions.
Ignorance of the historical function of religion in all human societies is something the New Atheists need to remedy among themselves.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 26, 2009 9:12 AM
Bill Schultz - read some Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett - or even a few back issues of The Humanist and Skeptical Inquirer - and then come tell us about the "ignorance" of "new atheists" about religion in history, whydontcha?
Posted by: tsg | June 26, 2009 9:25 AM
They don't need anything to take the place of Santa Claus, why should they need anything to take the place of god?
Religion is a heavy suitcase. All you have to do is put it down.
And I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, based on the evidence, that anyone who uses the term "new atheists" sincerely is an idiot.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 26, 2009 12:18 PM
"an astonishing number of the world's conflicts and missed opportunities arise from people's false knowledge about God"
First I would say that I agree with Harris' assessment. However, I would make an emendation to his statement. He refers to "false knowledge" about God. Well, that's the problem. They don't have "knowledge" about God; they have "notions" or "ideas", but not knowledge. If they actually had knowledge, then most of the missed opportunities and conflicts would be eliminated.
If you're a lazy theist you're probably a victim of iconic representations of the deity and have never reflected beyond that, although it would seem reasonable that one would sit back and reflect at some point in time on what a deity would have to be like in order to be one. That would certainly dispel most of the anthropomorphic ideations.
The New Atheists, in spite of all the chin-wagging they do about rational analysis, are a rather simplistic group. They prefer the proverbial baby and the bath water approach. Since the bath water is dirty, lets throw everything out. Of course, when you do that you're going to rid yourself of the essence of what's in the bath water. It's an awfully high price to pay to rid yourself of dirty bath water. But the quick and easy way is usually not all that rational even though it gives the practical appearance of being so.
Many atheists are fond of pointing out that they "were" religious but at some point came to see the "light". What they mean is that they were iconic representational religious who, when they saw the inanity of that, decided to give up the ghost rather than do the hard work necessary to see what there was to believe in. This is what I mean when I say that the atheist lives in half a world. He lives in the easy half. To have the other half takes work but it also gives one the richness and grandeur of a worthwhile life experience.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 26, 2009 12:18 PM
"an astonishing number of the world's conflicts and missed opportunities arise from people's false knowledge about God"
First I would say that I agree with Harris' assessment. However, I would make an emendation to his statement. He refers to "false knowledge" about God. Well, that's the problem. They don't have "knowledge" about God; they have "notions" or "ideas", but not knowledge. If they actually had knowledge, then most of the missed opportunities and conflicts would be eliminated.
If you're a lazy theist you're probably a victim of iconic representations of the deity and have never reflected beyond that, although it would seem reasonable that one would sit back and reflect at some point in time on what a deity would have to be like in order to be one. That would certainly dispel most of the anthropomorphic ideations.
The New Atheists, in spite of all the chin-wagging they do about rational analysis, are a rather simplistic group. They prefer the proverbial baby and the bath water approach. Since the bath water is dirty, lets throw everything out. Of course, when you do that you're going to rid yourself of the essence of what's in the bath water. It's an awfully high price to pay to rid yourself of dirty bath water. But the quick and easy way is usually not all that rational even though it gives the practical appearance of being so.
Many atheists are fond of pointing out that they "were" religious but at some point came to see the "light". What they mean is that they were iconic representational religious who, when they saw the inanity of that, decided to give up the ghost rather than do the hard work necessary to see what there was to believe in. This is what I mean when I say that the atheist lives in half a world. He lives in the easy half. To have the other half takes work but it also gives one the richness and grandeur of a worthwhile life experience.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 26, 2009 12:25 PM
And how exactly do you go about getting actual knowledge of god?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2009 12:35 PM
Silver Fox, either show the physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or acknowledge youself in front of the whole of Pharyngula to be a liar and bullshitter. Put up or shut up time. You have nothing to show for your stupid delusional efforts except our contempt. Your imaginary way of knowing is that-imaginary. We are totally uninterested in what you have to say. But you keep saying it anyway. What is your problem? Why can't you just go away?Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 26, 2009 3:32 PM
SilverFox...
In nearly every one of your meandering, nonsensical, conjured-world posts, you go on and on about the "half a world" you get to experience that we all miss out on because of our refusal to simply accept your invented delusions... I'm starting to think that perhaps you might be schitzophrenic... it would explain a lot.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 26, 2009 3:47 PM
of course, that word is schizophrenic... not sure where the superfluous "t" came from... I blame Rev. BDC.
Posted by: Donny | June 29, 2009 12:09 PM
Dear PZ,
Sit down and shut up? No, go ahead and argue that there is no God; that that is what science indicates. But when you start saying that religion or tribalism or whatever is "bad," that isn't scientific. Tell me that religion isn't compatible with science and back it up with evidence; you can't do this when you tell me we would be "better off" without religion without me moving you from the category of "scientist" to that of "social commentator". We may lump Darwin and Marx together in the history books, and both, being human, had agendas, got certain things right or wrong. But only one of those men was a scientist.
So if you campaign against a set of beliefs in the name of science do so on the grounds that those beliefs are wrong, scientifically. Your cause at its root may be to better the world, I'm sure most cancer researchers would say that is their cause, but keep that to yourself if you want me to listen to you and think of you as a scientist.
While debating the existence of God, morality will likely come up. This is the point where an atheist scientist, if he or she is making a scientific argument, give his or her theory of how morality came to exist without divine intervention. Seperate from this is an argument advanced along moral lines that religion has a "negative effect" on society, which cannot be addressed scientifically. Even if religion were shown to have a certain societal effect such as contributing to the existence of warfare (scientific evidence could be found), that would have no bearing on whether or not the supernatural exists. This argument has no place in a scientific case against deity yet it is often included in them.