…and this is a 
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum are discussing their book on Daily Kos. The subject of my review has come up a few times, and one commenter cited this sentence from me:
Following this, he proceeds to damn the "New Atheists" for "collapsing the distinction" between methodological and philosophical naturalism, and argues that Dawkins is taking a philosophical position and misusing science to claim it "entirely precludes God's existence."
Then the commenter asks, "My question is, did you in fact say that Dawkins uses science to 'entirely preclude God's existence?'"
Here is Chris Mooney's dumbfounding reply.
we use that phrase
although it is not attributed to dawkins.i've read dawkins book in some detail, and our objection is to his making god's existence a scientific question. i realize he does not ascribe full certainty to his atheistic conclusion--but he claims he can reason scientifically about god's existence. we're saying that a lot of theologians, philosophers, etc, would say that's a category error.
i really have to ask that you read our book, rather than its misrepresentation in skewed reviews.
This annoys me. Mooney can disagree with me, he can argue his side all he wants, but to accuse me of misrepresenting his book is inaccurate. I will now quote the entire damn paragraph from the Mooney/Kirshenbaum book. You tell me if I have in any way misrepresented what he said with my short summary.
But much like the anti-evolutionists do, the New Atheists often seek to collapse the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. In The God Delusion, for instance, Richard Dawkins makes the dubious claim that the existence of God is, as he puts it, "unequivocally a scientific question." Quite a lot of philosophers -- and scientists -- would disagree. It is one thing to say that scientific norms and practices preclude ascribing any explanatory force to God in, say, the movement of atoms, or the function of DNA. It's quite another to say they entirely preclude God's existence. In rejecting God or any other supernatural entity, Dawkins is taking a philosophical position.
Mooney has promised a reply to my comments later this week. He should take his time, or not even bother; I think his tactics have been foreshadowed enough here that I'm not going to find much of interest in his response. Although at this rate he may end up simply disavowing everything they actually wrote and trying to pretend it was a completely different book.
Comments
Posted by: Otto | July 12, 2009 2:45 PM
Offtopic:
Webradio
http://www.madelineisland.org/
Irreverent songs.
Just right for Sunday.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 12, 2009 2:46 PM
Maybe Mooney is reading a different version of his book than you are. Maybe Mooney misremembers what he wrote (possibly Kirshenbaum wrote that particular paragraph). Or maybe Mooney doesn't want to admit that he's wrong.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 12, 2009 2:51 PM
I suspect that the real Mooney is locked in a magical trunk someplace while either Lord Coiffure or Randy Olsen takes his place, swigging polyjuice potion from a hipflask every hour on the hour.
Ms. Kirshenbaum is simply a naif.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 12, 2009 2:55 PM
Massimo Pigliucci has been similarly misrepresenting Dawkins and TGD.Posted by: tomh | July 12, 2009 2:59 PM
In one short paragraph Mooney demonstrates what a lightweight he is. First he says "we use that phrase", then claims that quoting it is misrepresenting him. Then he represents Dawkins' view and, rather than refuting it, he says that unnamed theologians and philosophers would disagree with it. It all adds up to empty rhetoric. I don't know how anybody can take him seriously.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 3:05 PM
Why the hell should science be obligated to prove or disprove the existence of something that does not exist? It is not and should not be a scientific inquiry, and should be relegated to those philosophers so inclined to argue and babble over inestimable nonsense. Science has better and more worthwhile pursuits, one for instance, of getting us exploring on foot, wheeled vehicle, and a version of a helicopter to fly over that mesmmerizing terrain of Mars, which we could have done years ago if it were not for religious crap and so many diversionary bullshit. Screw the study of religion; Science is all. If the easter bunny were substituted for god, would there be so much exhaustive study and nonsense to prove or disprove it? There never was a god, never will be but only in the human mind which science has deigned to study but which cannot dispense with all the nonsensical trappings of imaginary gods. On to Mars, and sloughed off all religious crap.
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 3:06 PM
It seems to me as though Mooney et al have been completely failing to understand, or deliberately misrepresenting, what Richard Dawkins wrote!
In the quoted part, viz "unequivocally a scientific question", Dawkins isn't talking about a (foregone) conclusion (eg their particular god or any other god doesn't exist) but instead about the fact that any god which had any impact on reality at all* would absolutely be fair game for being poked and prodded by the methodology of science.
* ie everything ever claimed for their gods by actual theists rather than by weasel-like theologians (in insincere arguments which they only ever use for temporary convenience in switcheroo fashion).
Posted by: jdhuey | July 12, 2009 3:11 PM
If you read the sentences in the context of the paragraph then PZ accurately represented the meaning. On the other hand, if you take each of the sentences and treat them as separate and distinct statements then Mooney is correct that his statements were misrepresented. PZ made the error of reading the sentences in context - shameful.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | July 12, 2009 3:13 PM
"Dawkins isn't talking about a (foregone) conclusion (eg their particular god or any other god doesn't exist) but instead about the fact that any god which had any impact on reality at all* would absolutely be fair game for being poked and prodded by the methodology of science."
Bingo. I don't know why this is so difficult. If you want to believe in a god that never, EVER, does anything, then I suppose whether such a thing is real or not can't be answered by science. But what possible use is such a belief? Very few religious believers subscribe to deism in the first place, so I not sure that Mooney, et al who attack Dawkins on this point are doing anything productive.
If a god interferes with the universe in any way, shape, or form, that that is at least in principle detectable by science. What's so freaking hard about understanding that?
Posted by: Caine | July 12, 2009 3:14 PM
Mr. Mooney says: "i've read dawkins book in some detail"
Er, say what? Did he actually read it or just cherry pick it for details? Given his responses, I'm leaning toward the cherry pickin' answer.
Posted by: peter | July 12, 2009 3:17 PM
"Dawkins makes the dubious claim that the existence of God is, as he puts it, "unequivocally a scientific question."
Even if Dawkins didn't make this claim, as soon as religion makes a claim that overlaps into the realm of the pysical world, where scientific methodology can be used to test those claims, and where evidence is required to support those claims - yes, then religion comes under scientific scrutiny.
The only role that is left for religion - if there ever was one - is the question of "why".
This question is answered differently by all religions - pick the one most suited to your taste.
Having followed Mooney's writing for some time - he strikes me as one keeps his options open, to revert to believe when it might be opportune.
Why else his pandering to religious sensitivities?
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
July 12, 2009 3:18 PM
Just the pot calling the kettle black.
Because Mooney surely do mirepresent quite well the "new atheists"...
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 12, 2009 3:21 PM
Not surprising giving his continued misunderstanding/refusal to understand that when we say science and religion are incompatible we don't mean it's impossible for people to adhere to both. It's all about the framing, not the substance of what he's saying.
Posted by: Lowell
|
July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
Wait, which misrepresentation of Dawkins's position are they using? Is it:
1. that "scientific norms and practices . . . entirely preclude God's existence,"
or
2. that the evidence precludes god's existence?
I've read The God Delusion, so I know Dawkins doesn't argue either position. I just can't tell sometimes which one Mooney and Kirshenbaum are using.
Or maybe they waver between them?
Posted by: abb3w | July 12, 2009 3:23 PM
The problem with "philosophical naturalism" is the definition for the term "nature".
In the sense that PZ and Dawkins use the term, "nature" is taken as a shorthand for "that which causes experience". (Human activity, from this standpoint, is merely a class within natural phenomenon.) From this vantage, "supernatural causation" is an oxymoron.
What Mooney considers a category error is a result of his implicit use of another definition for "nature". However, the real error is the failure to give a clear demarcation definition for what he means by "nature". It might facilitate progress in the discussion for PZ to ask about this. (Or, it may result in an invitation to hemlock cocktails...)
The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms. - Σωκράτης
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 12, 2009 3:28 PM
peter #11:
Eh, science answers that question too, people just don't like the answer so they invent different ways of trying to answer it. The 'why' something happens is because natural laws lead it to happen. 'Why' a rock falls when you let it go is because of the mutual gravitational attracion between it and Earth - extrapolate to however complicated you need to explain 'why' anything happens, it's just forces interacting. If you've already made the assumption that a 'why' question must be answered with some kind of teleological purpose then that's a seemingly unsatisfactory answer, but there's no reason to make that assumption.
Posted by: Gotchaye | July 12, 2009 3:28 PM
I wonder to what extent the disagreement is down to different uses of the word 'scientific'. In my experience, almost all (analytical) philosophers would agree that God's existence is an issue to be addressed "scientifically", where the word is used to indicate the objective nature of the appropriate evidence and the method of reasoning from that evidence. Most philosophers, after all, are non-theists, if not atheists (though they could be - I'm not sure).
But in everyday conversation 'scientific' is taken as only a subset of the scientific method. It's very easy to straw man Dawkins and read him as saying that all of the evidence for God's existence must be the sort of thing that one could produce in a laboratory. Many people read him as saying, more or less, that he stirred up some chemicals in a test tube and declared God's existence disproven. But Dawkins clearly means to allow things like the problem of evil as reasons not to believe in God. It's always seemed to me that what Dawkins took issue with was a retreat into subjectivity, where a believer declares that faith gives him or her sufficient reason to believe, or the use of sloppy thinking, such as supposing that one's own religious experiences are authoritative but ignoring the contradictory religious experiences of others. Except for a few of the loonier theistic philosophers of religion, I'm hard-pressed to think of a philosopher that would disagree. A theologian might, but that's because you get to be a theologian when you're too loony to be a philosopher of religion.
Posted by: Skemono | July 12, 2009 3:33 PM
Yes, but the problem is that people like this say that God and religion are nebulous, ethereal things about which one can never make concrete statements, so one couldn't ever say that they overlap with the physical world, because that's why "real"
Scotsmentheologians believe. The rest of the world, meanwhile, continues to believe that God sends hurricanes and wildfires to punish cities for vague sins.Posted by: Fallsroad | July 12, 2009 3:38 PM
@PZ: Mooney has promised a reply to my comments later this week.
PZ, don't hold your breath. That the authors have had time to respond to other reviews they perceive as positive (which they've attempted to use as proof your review is biased hate-spew), lob bombs at you on their blog by misrepresenting a commentator's words as your own, and wading into threads to further discredit you and not your actual review is a clear indicator of the likely response you'll receive.
Which is to say, it will be full of rank dishonesty, a twisting of your position, and utterly self serving.
They seem to really despise you. This isn't an argument about the facts or your review, but a judgment of who they think you are.
Posted by: Tim | July 12, 2009 3:40 PM
Doesn't it seem like, as a writer, the guy should at least know how capital letters work?
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | July 12, 2009 3:40 PM
They certainly do attribute it to Dawkins, and here are two more places.
In a footnote in p. 180, M&K explain, in a way that clearly attributes this idea to Dawkins:
"collapse the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism:" Richard Dawkins is one example of this, but the same goes for another New Atheist, Victor Stenger, whose book title say sit all: God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist.
the next footnote:
"unequivocally a scientific question": Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 59. In fact, Dawkins repeatedly claims that his critiques of the existence of God are 'scientific' in nature rather than philosophical or metaphysical. etc.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 12, 2009 3:41 PM
A MOONEY DEFINITION
When I said that I'd read Dawkin's book,
I meant that I'd taken a look,
At the sentence or two,
That I wanted to skew,
And hang from the sky on a hook.
Posted by: Alex | July 12, 2009 3:42 PM
Hmm, Mooney doesn't seem like the type to say something like that. It's kinda disappointing, but it's a good reminder that anyone--including yourself--can make horrible errors of judgment or hold patently false views, despite being otherwise reasonable.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 12, 2009 3:44 PM
Jason @ 13
"Not surprising giving his continued misunderstanding/refusal to understand that when we say science and religion are incompatible we don't mean it's impossible for people to adhere to both."
Exactly. I've told him that at least once on each post over the last five days or so - and he even regurgitated it in replying to one comment (not one of mine, of course) - but he has yet to really acknowledge that it makes a mess of what he's been claiming.
Posted by: whitedevilbrewco | July 12, 2009 3:45 PM
Seems pretty clear to me, PZ. I predict an abundance of hand waving and subject changing to follow.
Posted by: Bob O'H | July 12, 2009 3:53 PM
Eh? It looks to me that the problem is that PZed's writing is grammatically unclear:
I'd interpret this to mean that the quote is Dawkins'. From the whole sentence, it's ambiguous at best, and I would still interpret the sentence to be attributing the quote to Dawkins.
So, I think up to the final sentence, Mooney is quite correct. His final sentence then provides an interpretation that, well, could be more forgiving (which is understandable given the history). I don't think PZed meant to mis-represent Mooney and Dawkins, but that's how a lot of people will have read it.
Posted by: John D Stackpole | July 12, 2009 3:55 PM
Ref Jason A, #16 "Why does a rock fall?" Answer: "Mutual Attraction."
No. The rock and the earth are simply following their appropriate geodesic paths through mass-distorted space-time. That's "why". No "mutual attraction" at all.
But the point of this is that "why" is not really a scientific question - the answer varies with the physical model or understanding involved, just as the religious answer varies with their "model" = the theology they like.
"How?" leads to the only "correct" answer that describes the action of the rock/earth in the appropriate selected framework. I'm sure that when "quantum gravity" gets properly worked out there will be yet another model of "why", but it will still explain how the rock/earth system behaves in whatever framework you care to use. And it will have an enhanced predictive value, as general relativity did over gravitational attraction.
"How?" does the grunt work; "Why?" is just fun and games.
Posted by: CarlosT | July 12, 2009 3:56 PM
Scientists used to believe that light traveled through a special material called "the luminiferous ether" that was everywhere. However, predictions flowing from the existence of this material kept failing in experiments, and science jettisoned the idea in favor of electromagnetism and general relativity. In the same way, if the effects predicted by the existence of a god are not found, then the reasonable conclusion to draw scientifically is that it is likely no such entity exists and we can look to other things for explanations. So, it's not so much that science precludes the existence of a god, but rather that the scientific conclusion is that if a god exists, he is irrelevant to our universe and therefore can be ignored.
Posted by: Cujo359 | July 12, 2009 4:01 PM
Re: Posted by: jdhuey | July 12, 2009 3:11 PM
I'd put it a little differently. If Mooney's statements about what he said are taken as true, then it's a badly written paragraph. The paragraph as a whole support's PZ's interpretation. If one simply views it as a group of individual sentences grouped together for aesthetic reasons, then you can tease Mooney's meaning out of it.
So, ironically, Mooney's contention that the problem is that PZ is quoting him out of context is untrue. It's because he is quoting Mooney in context that the problem arises.
Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 12, 2009 4:04 PM
And in the comments to his own post on the Daily Kos review, which is a joke in its own right, Chris Mooney continues to sidestep any and all questions about anything specific at all about the main premises of his book. It's getting a bit silly, really.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 12, 2009 4:08 PM
@abb3w (#15)
In the sense that PZ and Dawkins use the term, "nature" is taken as a shorthand for "that which causes experience". (Human activity, from this standpoint, is merely a class within natural phenomenon.) From this vantage, "supernatural causation" is an oxymoron.
I think this is exactly right--although I prefer to only use the word oxymoron in its traditional sense where it's an intentional juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory terms done for literary effect. :-P
The whole concept of philosophical naturalism is a tautalogy that follows from the definition of natural, which is the only meaningful defintion to a methodological naturalist. Hey! Did you see what just happened there? ;-)
@JohnDStackpole (#27) & JasonA (#16)
What I've been saying for a long time and still stand by (at least as a way to live my own life) is that any "Why" question that cannot be reformulated into an equivalent "How" question, is not a question worth asking.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 12, 2009 4:09 PM
John D. Stackpole #27:
You're right of course, but I was trying to keep it a simple example :)
Posted by: jdhuey | July 12, 2009 4:10 PM
@cujo359,
That was the point I was trying to make but you did present it better.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 12, 2009 4:12 PM
Despite how "nasty" people like PZ and Dawkins are, it's stuff like this that convinces me they're infinitely better at framing than concern trolls like Mooney.
On the "category error," well, how exactly do these anonymous theologians and philosophers define the category? That's the problem. If gods do anything at all, they're subject to science. Do these theologians exclude their gods from science by saying they don't do anything?
Posted by: Aj | July 12, 2009 4:14 PM
#21
Thanks for the page reference, what Richard Dawkins actually says;
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice - or not yet - a decided one."
Hey, Mooney. Since we know you'll be reading this - has anyone told you yet today what a pissant little douche you are?
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 12, 2009 4:16 PM
Oh, I just think this "New Atheism" business has just become too popular for the cool kids. You know, just like Facebook and Twitter.
They've certainly earned the Comic Sans too.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 12, 2009 4:22 PM
After reading Mooney's and Kirshenbaum's posts at Daily Kos, I won't even bother to see if the library ever gets their book.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Mooney and Kirschenbaum are attempting to cash in on the boom in books written by "scientists" and purchased by those who feel threatened by atheism.
Whatever you do, don't buy the book!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Peter Beattie:
I read that thread, and I salute you.
Don't hold your breath for a substantive response from him.
Posted by: CW | July 12, 2009 4:27 PM
That is a profoundly flaccid response, even considering the source. Yes, a lot of theologians would say that. They would, as it happens, be wrong. But being wrong is a lot better than merely waving their hands about what someone else would say without, you know, doing anything so shrill and offensive as giving a straight answer to a simple question·Posted by: Mozglubov | July 12, 2009 4:28 PM
@Ophelia #24
Indeed, I noticed that too... but don't you know that contrary comments are invisible?
If it makes you feel any better, people just blew by mine as well...
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Reginald Selkirk @4--
I'm disappointed to hear this about Massimo Pigliucci--been reading his articles for years in The Skeptical Inquirer. Can you tell me where he's misquoting Dawkins?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 4:43 PM
Since I was just linking to something by Alan Sokal on another thread, and since he has written some pieces with Mooney, and since his own latest work AFAIK takes on religion, I'm curious about Sokal's response to this book/discussion.
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 12, 2009 4:46 PM
Can this really be the same guy who wrote the Republican War on Science? What the fuck happened to him? Spinectomy? Really, he went from investigative journalist to milquetoast pantywaist in a space of a couple of years?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 12, 2009 4:54 PM
In a new comment on Kos, Mooney has now openly admitted that he got it wrong.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 12, 2009 5:02 PM
So far I think this is still the most parsimonious explanation.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2009 5:04 PM
Because when "light propagates by means of the luminiferous ether" is a scientific hypothesis, and holding to that explanation rather interferes with productive inquiry.
Perhaps you would prefer to rephrase the question? Maybe with a bit of thought first?
Posted by: Aj | July 12, 2009 5:06 PM
Well he admits he got the facts wrong; but his point still stands, dammit.
(went to see if I should retract the accusation that he's a pissant - nope)
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 12, 2009 5:07 PM
I'd say it's even money whether Mooney even bothers to provide his promised response on Monday. We may well see a repeat of his "defense of framing," where halfway through he whined about how uncivil and unproductive certain comments on his blog were and declared that it was futile to explain himself.
Expect to see a post in which Mooney (1) brags about how well the book is selling and how many interviews, etc. he has to prepare for and do; (2) whines about how hard it is to keep up with all of PZ's posts (and Jerry Coyne's, and everyone else's); (3) cherrypicks the most inflammatory comments from here or his own blog; and (4) concludes by declaring that their book is intended to persuade the sensible majority of people, and it's not productive to waste his time bickering with a fringe minority of Angry Militant New Atheists Meanies.
Posted by: Steven Thomas Smith | July 12, 2009 5:15 PM
Please drop the hyperventilated rhetoric, even if Mooney did screw up, which he has. "A pissant little douche"? "Cash in"? Come on. This isn't even good snark, and hardly measured.
For better or worse, Mooney is an ally and a friend. Or in this case, a frenemy, or even bravo foxtrot. So let him have it, but in good humor.
Even the Hovind folks were gracious in their award of PZ's iPod, which was amazing. And that's to an authentic enemy. Good for them.
Correct Mooney, but in a way that inspires people to say good for you. Even if Mooney is wrong, and he is, criticizing him in a way that alienates people proves Mooney's larger point.
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2009 5:16 PM
For a guy whose whole shtick these days is that we have to do a good job of communicating well and without room for misinterpretation, he sure does a piss-poor job of it.
Posted by: Brian | July 12, 2009 5:18 PM
I've never really understood this dichotomy. If you're claiming something exists or that some mechanism is in effect you're making a scientific claim. The only category error is placing special rules of evidence on certain kinds of claims.
Posted by: terry | July 12, 2009 5:18 PM
Mooney is just a better class of concern troll. He has no interest in a real debate (i.e., a mutual exchange of ideas that would illuminate respective positions). Instead, he wants a high school debate where he gets to say what he thinks, to attack those that don't agree, and to change the topic if it looks like he's losing. It's clear that Mooney is unable/unwilling to engage in a scientific dialog (which maybe is not surprising since he is not a scientist) of the type where ideas are tested to destruction, but where people (as much as possible) leave their egos out of it.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 5:21 PM
They just don't get it.
What - these are two different groups now? And of course what they say about PZ in the book in no way contributes to setting anyone against anyone. Are they nuts?
*By the way, the suggestion that the Vatican has fully embraced evolution is not entirely true.
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2009 5:29 PM
Also, I now want to buy Sven a ticket to the HP6 opening next week in appreciation for comment 3. And a bucket of popcorn, even.
Posted by: Susan | July 12, 2009 5:30 PM
It only took 3 days to admit you were right on one one of your many points. At this rate, it will be about 9 months before he has finally conceded your review was spot on. I don't think I can take that much equivocating and whining.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 5:32 PM
recovering catholic @ 42
I do like Massimo Pigliucci, but he has made comments that for me, tend to question his sincereity.
I subscribed to both Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer for some time, but dropped Skeptical Inquirer for it's constant articles on debunking ghosts, etc, ad ifinitum. Try Free Inquiry for a while and I think you will like it better as it has better articles on the irrationality of religion and it's effects on society. Just my opinion as a long subscriber and making comparisons between the two.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 12, 2009 5:36 PM
I can't decide whether concern trolling on behalf of a concern troll is recursive or redundant.
What could possibly be more good humored than pointing and laughing? It's better than Mooney deserves, especially in light of post #45 from PZ.What's with frenemy, is it a confusion of enema with douche? The only reason Mooney isn't an outright enemy is because he isn't advocating that we "teach the controversy." The reason he isn't a friend is because he's here to "exploit the controversy," the controversy he just admitted doesn't exist as he framed it. Now for more pointing and laughing, as Mooney, Nesquick, Padfoot and Prongs frame their framing of a self-portrait as Dorian Gray.
Posted by: Thiago | July 12, 2009 5:49 PM
The part I don't get in Mooney's argument is this:
"It is one thing to say that scientific norms and practices preclude ascribing any explanatory force to God in, say, the movement of atoms, or the function of DNA. It's quite another to say they entirely preclude God's existence"
So god is in no way an explanatory force, he is not responsible for whatever it is that hysics, Chemistry, Biology, psychology, sociology and pretty much any other area of expertise studies. I agree with with Mooney on that (though I'm not so sure that's his position anymore)
But then he says that doesn't necessarily means god doesn't exit. I agree, like Dawkins does, but... if god has no role whatsoever, what's the point of invoking it at all? If it's not doing anything what does god do, besides existing?
Furthermore I'd argue there are levels of existence... I have no doubt that god, as a concept or cultral phenomenon (usually spelled "God"), exists. But that's not the same as saying that some sort of supernatural all powerful being exists.
That god, which many theologians can relate to, according to Mooney, is no other than the god of the gaps. The twist is that this time they have the nerve to say that something like 'god lives in the very hollow created by the absence of gaps'. Very pomo.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2009 5:51 PM
I prefer to use the language in a way that keeps both words useful.
The fact that far (FAR!!!) too many "how" questions are phrased as "why" doesn't mean that all "why" questions should be "how" questions. "How" requests causation, "why" requests intent.
Of course, some people -- perhaps most in the world -- insist on ascribing intent to issues like orbital mechanics. The correct answer to "why does the moon orbit the earth?" is "It wasn't my idea -- or did you mean, 'how?'"
On the other hand, you'd really be straining to ask someone how she wore a suit today instead of her usual jeans. In justice, you'd get a full description of the process involved in getting dressed.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2009 5:51 PM
Hey--why didn't anybody tell me that Looney got all bent out of shape about something I said in PZ's thread reviewing his piece of shit book :::Wham!::: What was that? Oh--Looney just fainted because he clutched his pearls too tightly.
I'm famous! LOL
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2009 5:54 PM
Shit--I forgot to include my new sign off for any Looney thread:
Looney can fuck right off.
Sheesh...
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 12, 2009 5:58 PM
Thanks, Holbach! Have to admit I've been getting a little tired of SI's supernatural debunking lately (though the last issue's article on the "Hobbit" was excellent and well-balanced, I thought).
Will try Free Inquiry. Hope to find it on the newsstands.
Posted by: Aj | July 12, 2009 5:59 PM
#50
No hyperventilated rhetoric involved, just good old contempt.
By the by, which of Mooney's screw ups were you referring to;
~Assigning a philosophical position to Richard Dawkins which he does not hold (it can hardly have been an easy error; he's read "dawkins book" in detail, don't you know).
~Denying having assigned that position to Richard Dawkins and claiming "misrepresentation in skewed reviews". Right before his own book was quoted back at him.
...because the first makes him look really douchey and the second a pissant.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2009 6:04 PM
I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that Mooney is in way over his head.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2009 6:07 PM
Carlie:
My whole beef with the accommodationists is that all their pussy-footing has made things worse, not better. We are actually in a worse position now than we were when the creationists first revved up their screeching to jet-engine level in the late 70s/early 80s. One side of the debate shut up in an attempt to be super-nice. And the other side kept up the screeching. A lot of other things went into making the situation this bad, but where were the accommodationists during this time? Quiet. Trying to sing Kumbaya with people who wanted anybody who didn't think exactly the same insane way dead.
The other side doesn't play fair. It never has, never will. Looney is essentially suggesting that we bring a casserole to a knife fight.
And Looney can still fuck right off.
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 6:12 PM
In the "you're right" comment on Kos, ChrisMooney is still whinging that Richard Dawkins "does still try to claim that God's existence is a scientific question". Whereas, I think that issue is another one where Mooney et al are clearly in the wrong.
Any god which does anything at all in the current real world¹, such that they are worthy of being regarded as a god², has to (by definition of "real world") have had effects which science is best suited to study³. In exposing itself that way, the deity/theity would have invaded science's purview, without wearing sufficiently concealing clothing, and would therefore definitely count as having asked for it*.
¹ ie as opposed to some absentee-landlord, experiment-setting, utterly irrelevant, deist god.
² especially a personal one of supposedly known habits and particular worship requirements!
³ and ought to be entirely at liberty to do so, rigorously, were any such miraculous god-stuff ever to happen. Which, of course, it hasn't - hence all well-informed, sane and honest people provisionally concluding that there are no gods who can be bothered to exist.
* reference to previous misrepresented article on rape.
Posted by: Anonym | July 12, 2009 6:18 PM
M&K title might better have been something like: "Prelude to Imminent Crash & Burn."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 12, 2009 6:26 PM
The accommodationists are more deluded than the creationists. At least the creationists can point to the Bible as evidence for their claims. The accommodationists' opinions are based on wishful thinking and "gee, wouldn't it be great if we all got along."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 6:27 PM
Aquaria, let me see which list she is on. If not the top list, time for promotion.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2009 6:36 PM
"we're saying that a lot of theologians, philosophers, etc, would say that's a category error. "
In other words, a cop-out. An evasion. A dodge.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 12, 2009 6:40 PM
@ 43
"Since I was just linking to something by Alan Sokal on another thread, and since he has written some pieces with Mooney, and since his own latest work AFAIK takes on religion, I'm curious about Sokal's response to this book/discussion."
Ah yes and also since there's a long section that disses Sokal - not the way they diss PZ, but in a breezy ignorant 'oh that was all a fuss about nothing' way - I'm curious too. I've still got that section on my list to write a note about but haven't gotten to it yet.
God, that sounds self-important - I just mean I can fill in a little information.
Posted by: Anon | July 12, 2009 6:42 PM
Whether or not god's existence is a scientific question (it is, with the usual caveat of operationalization--there may be many ways to explore the question, and people may disagree about the merits of one versus another operationalization of the question), there is no question that belief in god is certainly a scientific question, just as belief in anything, mundane or paranormal, is. Belief formation, attitude change, and persuasion are fertile areas of inquiry in experimental psychology (mostly social psychology, but also cognitive, developmental, and even behavioral psychology).
I have unintentionally insulted people by treating their religious belief in the same manner as any other belief (in particular, cult indoctrination really seems to be a touchy comparison--go figure), but I see no a priori reason to assume that this one category of belief is qualitatively different from others.
Of course, if the data showed that this was a different animal, the initial assumption of similarity would have to be rejected. Thus far, it has been a useful hypothesis.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 6:49 PM
Doesn't sound at all self-important. Can't wait to read it.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 7:04 PM
Anon @ 73
The existence of an non-existence god is not a scientific question, and should never be construed as one but only relegated to the discussion of all nonsensical claptrap.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 12, 2009 7:08 PM
Ugh, ugh, ugh - there's so much boasting on that Kos thread. 'the book unpacks all that' 'the book unfolds this whole picture.'
No it doesn't! The book is very sketchy. It gestures rather than arguing - much in the style of 'lots of philosophers and theologians think X.' The book doesn't unpack - that's exactly what it doesn't do.
The bit where Mooney admits he got Dawkins wrong is interesting. I wonder if it will cause him to consider the possibility that he got other people he dislikes wrong...
Posted by: SteveL | July 12, 2009 7:12 PM
It's clear that the New Atheists are the problem. Just look at what has happened in the last three years since books like The God Delusion and God Is Not Great came out. Compare that to the good old days of the first term of President Bush, when Americans weren't scientifically illiterate and science education was widely promoted.
No wait. Now I'm confused. I read this book called The Republican War on Science that said things weren't so good for science back then. In fact, they were terrible.
Nah. The guy who wrote that book probably just didn't know what he was talking about.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 7:39 PM
But if gods - and their works - can't be observed scientificially because they don't have any capacity to operate in the physical world, how is adherence to Christianity possible? How could Jesus have worked his miracles or been resurrected? These are all clearly scientifically testable claims. Are they saying that this didn't happen? No doubt Judaic apologists would be fine with that, but they aren't the yappy ones demanding scientists shut the hell up about not finding any evidence for their god despite all their other discoveries.
My major concern with this whole business is that it's scientists - well, a certain group of them - who are doing all the accomodating, bending over backwards to please the religious.
What's is religion's contribution to this? Where are the quotes from significant religious figures agreeing to meet halfway? I don't remember reading any articles where a bishop or somesuch has come out and say that they did once expect to find god using science, and that not finding any evidence threw a bit of a spanner in the works - but they're not going to let that hold them back.
On the contrary; the defense is always, 'Oh, no - we never believed we'd find evidence for God. Why, just read this quote by Augustine. You have to admit that that's what he meant; ergo, that's what we all believed right from the beginning.'
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 12, 2009 7:43 PM
#50
Are you suggesting that we accommodate an accomodationist???
Posted by: Skemono | July 12, 2009 7:50 PM
Okay, so Mooney says here that Dawkins considers the existence of gods of any stripe to be a scientific question. I think that's a fair assessment of Dawkins' position, and what a reasonable position it is.
Mooney seems to go on to say that no, the question of the existence of gods is a theological or philosophical question.
But... how? How can one conclude whether something exists or not based on philosophy? With philosophy, you're just contemplating (read: making stuff up), but that doesn't actually make the things you imagine real in any objective sense.
...oh.
Posted by: windy | July 12, 2009 8:05 PM
For some perverse reason, I was wondering when Nisbet was going to review the book. And now he's posted, not a review of the book, but a critical review of the Dailykos review, criticizing the "fall from grace narrative". Curiouser and curiouser!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 8:11 PM
And a lot of intellectually honest commentators would say that's 'moving the goalposts'.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 8:16 PM
Sven's comment - the only one so far - made my day.
Posted by: Kagato
|
July 12, 2009 8:26 PM
I always take some umbrage at the suggestion that science answers the "how", and religion answers the "why". No, it doesn't.
Science does indeed seek to answer the "how" of all things, and is the process by which we find those answers.
Religion, however, does not seek answers to "why". It just makes the answers up out of whole cloth. There is no real "seeking" involved, just bald assertions and conjecture.
Posted by: Anon | July 12, 2009 8:44 PM
Holbach @#75--
You have confused "question" with "answer". For any question where we can operationalize the workings of a god, we have a scientific question. For those where we cannot operationalize, we do not have a scientific question (which, I believe, was your point). You are saying, perhaps, that we cannot ever adequately operationalize the action of god. But of course, empirical claims of god's action are made quite often (yes, of course, these claims dry up when confronted with evidence, but that is precisely the point of a scientific question!); claims of healing, claims of financial reward, claims of prophecy... Today's Boston Globe has a story ( http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/12/modern_miracle_when_saints_intervene_nowdays_it_tends_to_be_in_healthcare/ ) of the Catholic Church's testing for miracles. They are making empirical claims (improperly equating "unknown" with "miraculous", but the claim of miraculous healing can be, and often is, falsified by evidence), as are many others (until their claims are actually taken seriously as empirical claims, naturally).
It is my opinion that such claims and questions should not be "relegated to the discussion of all nonsensical claptrap", but rather, those who make such claims should have their feet held to the fire of empirical investigation and have such claims dismissed, not simply out of hand, but because they have been demonstrated to be without merit.
(For what it is worth, I do not recommend chasing after every single such claim. There are too many. But if, on occasion, an enthusiastic blogger or several wish to shoulder the burden, dismissal out of hand is not nearly so impressive as a good sound empirical thrashing.)
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2009 9:00 PM
Aquaria, I totally agree. I know how certain segments of religiosity think, and they totally steamroll over anyone who is the least bit acquiescent. Also, when I finally tipped completely into atheism my attitude out of the gate towards religion was "The fuck you say?" and it's just gone downhill from there. :)
Hey, Bronze Dog, good to see you!
Posted by: Badger3k | July 12, 2009 9:37 PM
What I find amusing is that on the Kos thread, Chris himself either tries to distance himself from Framing, saying he doesn't do it, or else his book is not about it. If anyone can find it, or read it, please link. I read it earlier today and now can't find it.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2009 9:50 PM
The truth is the the religionists are the ones holding back science education. If we want to improve science education we are going to have to offend them. Science doesn't only provide the public with with increasing life spans and technological wonders. It provides a framework where ideas are criticized heavily and need to be shown to held up against reality. Most religious people intuitively understand their religion cannot survive under those conditions. This is well understood in the Muslim world and is why many in power there have tried to hold back scientific education. In the West the popular position has been a sort of compromising non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) position. The old "science ask how, religion asks why" position. It had the advantages of appealing to both sides and allowed progress, albeit not too fast to upset some. It has the disadvantage of being complete nonsense. Just like the positions of holding black people to be 3/5 of a person or having "civil unions" but not marriages for homosexuals. The NOMA position has served its transitional purpose. We need to battle against the religious.
Public relations shouldn't be the primary weapon in the fight against irrationality. That's the religonists' and political propagandists' main weapon. They slander, they appeal to emotion, they ignore all substance, and it reflects badly on them. Scientists' best weapon is their method: rationality and empirical evidence. Don't get lowered into fighting them on their level. Point to empirical evidence and make them do so. Call them out when they are lying. There's a reason the top three professions trusted were ones where rationality and empiricism are valued: doctors, teachers, and scientists. People see through the lies.
When scientists challenge hard-core religious believers they aren't going to change most of those people's minds. They have invested years of their life to their religious beliefs and hold them sacred. They aren't going to let something as trifling as a rational argument change their mind. During the debates the scientists are really appealing to those in the middle and the younger minds in the crowd. These people are reachable. If their side whines, complains and cannot handle scrutiny, well I think that reflects poorer on them than it does on us.
[Apologies for the length of this rant]
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 12, 2009 10:09 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5803300/Swearing-can-reduce-the-feeling-of-pain.html
Well, science seems to spit in the face of Mooney with the whole swearing thing.It's actually helpful.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 10:13 PM
The biggest load of nonsense about this position is that if science were more positive on the evidence for the existence of God, I'm betting there wouldn't be many theists who would try and claim different categories. If there really was a talking burning bush, or that Jesus' DNA only showed one parent, or that prayer to the Judeo-Christian god had a much higher success rate than praying to any other deity - of course they wouldn't be trying to say that it's a question for philosophy.
But no, it's only that science tells a very different tale to one that is theistic in nature. So we get people complaining about framing, about categorisation; and any attempt to say otherwise is being "fundamentalist". All this is excuses for the absence of God, this is the death of theism. In it's place stands anthropic deism and western pantheism.
Posted by: hje | July 12, 2009 10:24 PM
With props to Hawking: "When I hear of a 'category error' I reach for my gun." This is a stock phrase of Christian apologists. Right up there with "world view," as promoted by faux philosopher Francis Schaeffer and his disciples.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 12, 2009 10:37 PM
#83 - Sven's comment where? When I follow the link to Nisbet, I see no comments whatsoever. Did a comment get...expelled?
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 12, 2009 10:48 PM
@ #92 : Yes, it did. It was up 20 minutes ago or so.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2009 10:51 PM
Nisbet had written "Christina Lis" and pointed out that her last name was Pikas, LIS was an acronym and that Nisbet was an idiot. Looks like he changed it to "Christina Pikas" and deleted Sven's comment, given further evidence that his "framing" is really just censorship.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 12, 2009 10:57 PM
Anon @ 85
To my way of thinking and reasoning, the question has no answer and deserves none, and the answer cannot be determined by science or any other method since the question is based on something that can not be answered. The brain can formulate whether a god exists, but cannot in any way prove that it exists if it does not exist. I have not an iota of doubt that I am correct in this idea, and no amount of science delving or philosophical maunderings will ever come up with a positive answer. If it does not exist, then it does not deserve speculation or investigation of any kind. Rumination yes, but you might as well ruminate that you can walk from here to the Andromeda Galaxy. You will never do it, nor will you ever prove the existence of something that does not exist. So the question is as useless as a useless answer. Science has better things to do than question hypotheses that will never be answered. I am adamant and content with this as I am with my atheism. Science has questioned and answered my atheism with blatant reality. To have it question nonsense not only belittles it but impairs it's integrity. A non-answer deserves no question.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 12, 2009 11:02 PM
@ Wobagger # 78
Here is an example of religion's contribution from the RCC, for which it does not matter what any of the sciences say, nor does it matter what an electorate and its representatives decide - the “supreme jurisdiction” over matters social and economic is the Pope’s.
May I present His Holiness, Pius XI, in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno , 1931:
41. … that principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.[27] . . . For as to these, the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.
As best I know, Quadragesimo Anno is still fully in effect. Accommodate THAT !
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2009 11:06 PM
Nisbet had written "Christina Lis" and [Sven] pointed out that her last name was Pikas, LIS was an acronym and that Nisbet was an idiot. Looks like he changed it to "Christina Pikas" and deleted Sven's comment
WOW. Not even a hat tip to Sven for alerting him to the error? That's bizarre levels of information control and sensitivity. Seriously, Nisbet can't handle someone pointing out that he got a name wrong? That's just... I have no words.
Posted by: Fallsroad | July 12, 2009 11:27 PM
Busy beavers are Mooney and Kirshenbaum:
Why America is flunking science
Don't just blame poor education for our nation's scientific illiteracy -- but our politics and pop culture
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/07/13/science_illiteracy/
Posted by: Allin | July 13, 2009 12:01 AM
The actual point at issue?
I may have scanned too quickly (quite possible) but I don't think anyone above has actually come to grips with the (good) point PZ was making.
That is, PZ had commented on Mooney (hereinafter "the wanker"), saying that he had wrongly accused Dawkins of claiming to rule out God's existence on scientific grounds. The wanker comes back and says, "Oh no, that's not what I said; I was making the PoMo point that treating God's existence as a scientific question at all is a 'category mistake'".
PZ then quotes from W's book the smoking gun, i.e. wanker's assertion, "It is one thing to say that scientific norms and practices preclude ascribing any explanatory force to God in, say, the movement of atoms, or the function of DNA. It's quite another to say they entirely preclude God's existence. In rejecting God or any other supernatural entity, Dawkins is taking a philosophical position."
So, wanker in his book ascribed to Dawkins precisely what PZ complained about, namely that idea that science entirely precludes God's existence. Whereas, as PZ, Dawkins, et al., say, science as we know it simply assigns a very, very small probability to God's existence on current evidence.
People such as Wanker have good reason to equivocate. If they're really saying that the existence of God us not a scientific question, then in effect they're saying it's not a factual question, but just one of attitude -- I choose, or not, to consider the world as having a God. This is a self-denying ordinance that few "true believers" would have any time for.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 13, 2009 1:01 AM
Sven, I owe you about two dozen beers by now for all the times you've made me laugh. After this one I think I owe you a keg. Ninkasi?
@Feynmatic. I debated even giving Nisbet a hit by clicking to read Sven's comment, but I did see it before the correction/deletion. What a spineless wanker Nisbet.
Posted by: Ziggy | July 13, 2009 2:12 AM
"It is one thing to say that scientific norms and practices preclude ascribing any explanatory force to God in, say, the movement of atoms, or the function of DNA." has nothing to do with whether the existence of god is a scientific issue. "Does god exist?" is a scientific question if we would expect the world to be different if the answer was yes than if it was no. Methodological naturalism is entirely off topic.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 3:17 AM
FIFY."Does god exist?" is a scientific question if we would expect the world to be different if the answer was yes than if it was no.
Well said, Ziggy. Either the existence of god would change nothing, in which case god is a null entity, or it would change something (anything), in which case it is open to scientific inquiry.
Skemono @80,
But it makes complete sense if you're stuck in an Aristotelian mindset where you can use "pure reason" to determine that men have more teeth than women, and this higher form of reason can only be corrupted by looking at the world around you.
Posted by: Rusell Blackford | July 13, 2009 4:04 AM
It's a silly distinction to make a fuss about. Science and philosophy are continuous with each other anyway. The point is, it's a question that can be investigated by reason, drawing on what we know about the world and the kind of rational arguments that philosophers and scientists both use. If Dawkins wants to call that "science" we can an interesting discussion about the boundary between science and philosophy, but it's really no big deal. The question is simply, "How cogent are Dawkins' arguments?" Whether they are classified as philosophical arguments or as scientific arguments isn't all that important.
Posted by: DrCogSci | July 13, 2009 4:12 AM
Funnily enough, I'm about to start teaching a course with a reading in it by Gilbert Ryle, one of the aforementioned philosophers. Certainly one of the goodies.
The interesting thing is that a "category mistake" was used to argue *against* mind/body dualism, and hypostasization, (basically, in being able to name "God" there must be an existent referent for the term)
So before we get mean to the Philosopher types, bear in mind that a "category error" isn't some kind of post-modern excuse to not criticise one's concepts. It's a MISTAKE that some use to try and prove the existence of things... God much?
So, Mooney is not only full of it, he's now misunderstanding philosophy as well. Hooray, we can all feel slighted together!
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 13, 2009 4:22 AM
Excellent point. Has this really been addressed? Is it that people don't like Dawkins' arguments or the manner in which he speaks them? For me I see a lot of the latter.Posted by: Azkyroth | July 13, 2009 4:38 AM
This is unfortunate.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 5:22 AM
DrCogSci,
Indeed. The vast majority of the time category errors come up for me in meatspace, I'm pointing out to godbots or new age woo-meisters that they're making category errors by trying to do things like assign agency to inanimate objects. (Sadly, the point rarely gets across, and the colorless green verbs continue to sleep furiously.) Mooney seems pretty much indiscriminate in his ignorance and abuse of concepts. Science, philosophy, netiquette... When life gives him ideas, he makes FAIL.
Posted by: Brian | July 13, 2009 5:36 AM
If they're really saying that the existence of God us not a scientific question, then in effect they're saying it's not a factual question, but just one of attitude.
That's it in a nutshell. If something exists, it and it's effects, can be studied. If it can't be studied then it can't exist. There's no such thing as nonoverlapping magisteria. No more accommodationism.
Posted by: 386sx | July 13, 2009 6:56 AM
In The God Delusion, for instance, Richard Dawkins makes the dubious claim that the existence of God is, as he puts it, "unequivocally a scientific question." Quite a lot of philosophers -- and scientists -- would disagree. It is one thing to say that scientific norms and practices preclude ascribing any explanatory force to God in, say, the movement of atoms, or the function of DNA. It's quite another to say they entirely preclude God's existence.
He isn't precluding God's existence. He's being inquisitive. Did God create the universe or not? Yes or freaking no? Doesn't sound like much of a "category error" to me either. Oops I made a category error just then. Sorry. Oh wait, that was a category error. No the one before that one. No wait, this one is a categorty error but the other one wasn't. Oh damn I just did it again. Darn!
Posted by: 386sx | July 13, 2009 7:04 AM
I thought religion was for "why" questions. Dawkins doesn't want to know "why". He just wants a yes or freaking no answer to whether or not God created the universe. Oh wait. Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Must be a category error!! Damn.
Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 13, 2009 7:10 AM
» Ophelia @76:
The book is very sketchy. It gestures rather than arguing - much in the style of 'lots of philosophers and theologians think X.' The book doesn't unpack - that's exactly what it doesn't do.
That's certainly the impression one gets when watching Chris avoid giving even the tiniest bit of specific information. I unpacked his skirting in a comment on his blog.
Posted by: Daniel Yamaro | July 13, 2009 9:38 AM
Yeah I agreee with you guys.THanks for the very relevant comments.
IBuzzPro
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 10:22 AM
I think the fact that he speaks them at all is a problem for some, never mind how he says them.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | July 13, 2009 10:53 AM
I think that the most telling of PZ's criticisms of M&K is his use of Comic Sans and Gumby for quotes from the book!
Posted by: Chris Mooney | July 13, 2009 11:35 AM
We have begun our response to PZ here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/13/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-summary/
Posted by: Jewbacca, vile New Atheist | July 13, 2009 12:07 PM
Uhm... no you haven't, Chris. You've promised a response there and outlined some assertions that will be included (and hopefully supported) in said response. But there's no there there. At least you provided a thread already full of comic relief like the totally-not-old John Kwok name-dropping (note that I'm attributing the comment to the commenter who posted it, not to you).
Posted by: twilight | July 13, 2009 12:08 PM
But it *is* unequivocally a scientific question.
A universe with a God must be qualitatively different from a universe with no God. Otherwise, God is meaningless.
The job of religionists is to describe the difference between the two possible universes, so that the universe can be empirically tested.
Problem is, every assertion of a Godly universe is disproved by the evidence.
You don't even have to fall into the stupid trap of arguing from first principles - all you have to do is ask "show me proof of God. No God? OK, therefore there's no God."
This simple argument from empiricism proved to me that atheism is the only rational belief. Actually, strike that - ignosticism is the only true belief, since no statement about God even has any meaning.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 13, 2009 12:11 PM
Chris: your summary is nothing but assertions without any backup. Forgive us if we'll wait for the substantive details.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 13, 2009 12:19 PM
atheism is the only rational belief.
It isn't a belief; that's the entire point. It's a belief like bald is a hair color.
Expect this comment to be used on Intersection within a day.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 12:21 PM
In the comments section of the link provided by Mooney I have asked that he and Kirshenbaum explain how science and religion are compatible in anyway other than the fact we all accept that people can both be scientists and be religious.
They have not replied yet, but I have had replies from other commentators. One seems to be telling me that no one actually claims Mary was literally a virgin.
Posted by: Watchman | July 13, 2009 12:22 PM
Ken Miller reminded me in person that Kwok would drop his name three times before the cock crowed.
Speaking of cocks, where is McCarthy?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 12:25 PM
I suppose it is too much to hope he is horribly embarrassed by the fact he was caught lying about being banned from commenting at this blog.
Yeah, thought as much.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Actually, he was openly bragging about trolling that thread past 450 posts. Perhaps Chris & Sheryl promised him a cookie if he did.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 13, 2009 12:43 PM
One seems to be telling me that no one actually claims Mary was literally a virgin.
To me, it sounds more like "since you weren't there and neither was I, you can't call it an empirical claim".
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 1:09 PM
@ Matt Penfold,
You're doing "Bob"'s work over there. How you have the patience to try to engage anyone over there for so long and not get bitter, I will never understand.
@ Stu,
Yeah, that's how I read that one, too.
Posted by: Ma | July 13, 2009 1:20 PM
Don't think I am not bitter!
It would best if I never met McCarthy in the flesh. Were I to do so I would have trouble resisting the temptation to grab his head and bang it on the table, repeatedly, whilst shouting "What part of you are not banned at Pharyngula do you not understand ?"
Such fantasises stop me going mad.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | July 13, 2009 1:22 PM
-----One seems to be telling me that no one actually claims Mary was literally a virgin.
To me, it sounds more like "since you weren't there and neither was I, you can't call it an empirical claim".-----
Yes. Apparently Occam and Hume were never born in that guy's world.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 1:46 PM
@ Matt Penfold,
That's a great mental image. I can hear the slams between words. "What *thud* part *thud* of you *thud* are not *thud* banned *thud* at *thud* Pharyngula *thud* do *thud* you not *thud* understand *thud* ?" (Is it bad that I actually mimed slamming his head on a desk while saying it to figure out exactly where the thuds go?)
Posted by: Stu
|
July 13, 2009 1:52 PM
"What part of you are not banned at Pharyngula do you not understand ?"
He just can't let go:
"They weren’t there when I looked and I never went back to check because I didn’t care about it."
I think he's still trying to imply PZ sneakily put them back. And Kwok missed PZ's sarcasm completely and now says:
"PZ’s online stunt here wasn’t mere sarcasm. It was utter stupidity IMHO"
The delusion runs strong in these two. And it looks like they're getting too embarrassing for M&H every now and then; they're selectively snipping pieces of their posts now.
(Is it bad that I actually mimed slamming his head on a desk while saying it to figure out exactly where the thuds go?)
If so, we're bad together *snicker*
Posted by: Opus | July 13, 2009 2:13 PM
I think many of you are missing a significant point in the Mooney Unscientific America saga – it’s about competence in one’s chosen field. Let me put this in a sports analogy. Years ago I had the opportunity to work for a major league baseball team, in a capacity which allowed me to spend time in the dugout before and during games. One thing I learned quickly from listening to the players: when it came to position players the biggest difference, and often the sole difference, between those playing in MLB and those who couldn’t make it was often summarized in one phrase: “He can’t hit a big-league curve ball.”
There are thousands of men who had stellar careers in minor-league ball, who hit 300 or higher and fielded their position well, but who never made it big.
I think Mooney is like one of these guys: he did well in the minors but lacked the talent to make the transition to major league writing. If you look back, The Republican War on Science was much like feasting off of Rookie League pitching. There were thousands of examples of idiocy from the Bush/science interface and it didn’t take a lot of skill, analysis or experience to write a decent book about it. Storm World was a step up in difficulty: it took more skill and research to write successfully about the topic than it did to mine the near-infinite list of Bush crimes against rationality. Storm World was Mooney’s move to the AA/AAA level of writing.
Unscientific America is Mooney’s attempt to move into the big leagues of science writing. The topic requires a level and rigor of analysis he has not had to demonstrate before, and the results seem to demonstrate that he does not have the skills to carry out the task. Any author who says “we use that phrase although it is not attributed to Dawkins” is not ready for prime time. Epic Fail. End of case. Or, to continue the sports analogy: Back to Rochester.
Posted by: Lowell
|
July 13, 2009 3:20 PM
Part One of Mooney and Kirshbaum's reply to PZ is up:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/13/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-part-i/
They haven't yet addressed their misrepresentation of Dawkins as arguing that science "preclude[s] God's existence."
Wake me up when they get to that. It's gonna be some fancy footwork!
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 13, 2009 4:05 PM
I'd go further than that, even (well, as far as I can go having not read the ENTIRE book yet, although I am several chapters in) and compare him to someone whose level of play actually dipped once he got to the majors. TRWOS and other earlier works by Chris were generally pretty well researched--far more so than the current work. There are many assertions of facts without references or even half-assed statistics, (Ophelia Benson has noted several of the same ones that I found jarring) and if he's trying to reach the 'scientific community' with this work, he's got to know that unsupported claims are strenuously frowned upon in our circles. Hell, even if HE somehow doesn't know this, Sheril ought to.Posted by: sharky | July 13, 2009 4:26 PM
Given that:
1. the authors could have discussed Crackergate on their own time, and instead bring it up obsessively to try to rouse up controversy in a form they're directly financially compensated for. "GET THE BOOK" has been the constant refrain. And they just. Keep. Bringing crackergate up now in trying to further foment controversy, and:
2. The post itself is titled "PZ Myers Vs. Unscientific America" and uses sensational language to heighten the controversial bits. What is this, WWE? Who fired the first volley, again? So:
It really does look more and more like this is some sort of profit-driven bottled storm.
PZ, free suggestion: stop replying since it's just an empty repeat of the same things anyway. Finish your own review. Then take your copy, annotate it with your criticisms, sign it, and put it up on Ebay. If they're to profit, so can you.
Posted by: Roadtripper
|
July 13, 2009 4:47 PM
Sharky: "It really does look more and more like this is some sort of profit-driven bottled storm."
I noticed that over the weekend. Mooney & Kirshenbaum had to know what would happen in the blogosphere when they wrote their little 'hatchet job' on PZ. And they also had to know it wouldn't exactly hurt their book sales.
So the question is, did they do this in spite of the controversy it would create, or because of it?
I don't know the answer. But the whole situation puts their sudden relocation a few months back, from ScienceBlogs to Discover, in a whole new context. It just wouldn't do for them to still be around here when this came out, now would it?
Rt
Posted by: sharky | July 13, 2009 4:57 PM
I've seen comments that they're headed towards woo. Too early to say, although it does make sense that they vilify PZ to get on the good side of the people they're trying to accomodate, and therefore find a larger audience. They're also, as Ophelia observed, not clinging too hard to science... and in what was the last straw for me, certainly not doing much to discuss or debate to standards (and I say this as a fairly poor debater; it can take weeks to find the words I wanted.)
But Google their blog (which I will no longer be visiting, since hits count) and Pharyngula. Which appears first on the name list? Theirs is like... the third one down. PZ is the first hit for "Pharyngula."
I have no idea what half the author team thinks, since I've barely read a peep from her.
But they're certainly milking the controversy for all it's worth. (Although I suspect that's one of the many, many things I shouldn't say unless I BUY THIS BOOK.)
Posted by: Aquaria | July 13, 2009 5:04 PM
Hell there Looney, it's me, Aquaria, that blog commenter you hate so much that you snivel about naughty words I use and don't address any of the points I made, not to mention intentionally making it seem like PZ said it, not I, a la Michelle "Raving Lunatic Moron" Malkin. It took hours for you to admit your mistake, and even then, it was a nonpology, the sort of tap dance Bush made when trying to explain why going to Iraq was still a good idea.
You've become what you claimed to dislike.
Congratulations, you fucking wanker.
Looney, you can still fuck right off, you whiny-ass titty baby .
Posted by: Anonymous | July 13, 2009 5:37 PM
we're saying that a lot of theologians, philosophers, etc, would say that's a category error
So what? They -- and you, who agree with them -- are wrong.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 13, 2009 5:38 PM
I'll look forward to the inevitable column on The Huffington Post.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 13, 2009 5:52 PM
Actually McCarthy has written:
Which goes to show that in addition to be a lying scumbag he has no sense of shame.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 13, 2009 5:56 PM
Definitely.*
And Part I makes them sound like clueless twits.
*Although I do think it's more of a general lack of ability to defend his ideas on Mooney's part. Someone linked to a thread from last April the other day in which I had expressed my frustration with this behavior, even when he was sending people to sites from which he couldn't profit.
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/expelled_a_box_office_success.php#comment-845365
It's like he can only deal with addressing people who don't challenge anything he has to say. If people do, he points them to somewhere his voice is the only one or his audience received his message positively. He appears to be incapable of dealing with substantive criticism or questions. The next step is to claim persecution and run away.
Posted by: Carlie | July 13, 2009 6:02 PM
I wonder if it's not profit motives, or problems with criticism per seIt's , but just that he's incapable of explaining things in more than one way. He explained it one way in his book, and if you didn't get it the way he wanted you to then, well, there's nothing else left to say. It might not be sidestepping, or intellectual laziness, or pushing book sales, but simply that he's not able to do anything else.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 6:04 PM
I noticed that Mooney and Kirshenbaum have cited Janet Stemwedel's review of their book.
It was hardly a flattering review. Janet's conclusion was that Mooney and Kirshenbaum might (but only might) have a point to make, but that the book failed to make it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 6:15 PM
And just to update people. I am still waiting for someone to explain how science and an interventionist god are compatible.
So far the best effort has been because if you said otherwise you would upset your work colleagues. I use the word best very loosely.
Posted by: Jewbacca, minion of Eris | July 13, 2009 7:07 PM
Part One of Mooney and Kirshbaum's reply to PZ is up:
Jeebus, that's a whole barrel of dumb. Their account of Pluto's demotion to "dwarf planet" (I still see "planet" in that description) is all sorts of wrong, and they must know it. The linked excerpt from the book isn't much of an improvement, either. It's incredibly shallow, focused entirely on public reaction while at best glossing over actual scientific considerations. In the book, they give a half-hearted concession to the basic fact that including Pluto as a full planet would also mean including Eris*, and then go on to enthusiastically quote a stupid "no takebacks" line about keeping Pluto just because it was once called a planet (before anyone bothered to define "planet"), pretending that this hasn't happened before. (Ceres was considered a planet when it was first discovered, then demoted to asteroid when a whole metric buttload of similar objects were found in similar orbits -- much like Pluto and Kuiper belt objects, only with faster turnaround.) And, of course, the whole time they're pretending it's all about Pluto, not about having meaningful terminology in science. It's a semantic question, not a scientific one, they say. Well, to some extent it is, but the question isn't "is Pluto a planet," it's "what is a planet?" I guarantee you, if the IAU had gone with my preferred solution (don't differentiate dwarf planets from full planets), they would have written their chapter about how those out of touch astronomers were so mean making people have to learn all these new "planets" that everyone knows aren't really planets.
Though this has started to turn into a fisking, I'm going to stop here and completely avoid the entirely non-responsive 1, 3, and 4.
* Though they omit Ceres, Haumea, and Makemake, not to mention concerns w/r/t Charon, Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, Vesta... the list goes on. Hell, some haven't even been named yet.