…and this is a 
To return to Unscientific America again, I hardly touched on chapter 8, where they express their dismay at those uppity "New Atheists". I am not going to address his personal criticisms of me — there's no point, you obviously know I think he's completely wrong, and the uncharitable will simply claim my disagreement is the result of a personal animus — so instead I'm only going to address a couple of other general points that Mooney and Kirshenbaum get completely wrong. They plainly do not understand the atheist position, and make claims that demonstrate that either they didn't read any of the "New Atheist's" books, or perhaps the simple ideas in them are too far beyond their comprehension.
This is a basic one, from philosophy of science 101. There are several different ways to derive a naturalistic position. Mooney and Kirshenbaum sort of get it right, although I disagree with some of the details.
Modern science relies on the systematic collection of data through observation and experimentation, the development of theories to organize and explain this evidence, and the use of professional institutions and norms such as peer review to subject claims to scrutiny and ultimately (it is hoped) develop reliable knowledge. A core principle underlying this approach is something called "methodological naturalism," which stipulates that scientific hypotheses are tested and explained solely by reference to natural causes and events. Crucially, methodological naturalism is not the same thing as philosophical naturalism—the idea that all of existence consists of natural causes and laws, period. Methodological naturalism in no way rules out the possibility of entities or causes outside of nature; it simply stipulates that they will not be considered within the framework of scientific inquiry.
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."
One big problem: we don't. Oddly enough, this is one of the most common canards used by theistic critics, that we're demanding a kind of philosophical absolutism, yet Mooney is an atheist. The "New Atheist" approach is firmly grounded in methodological naturalism; it's an extremely pragmatic operational approach to epistemology that leads us to reject religious claims. None of us make an absolute declaration of the impossibility of the existence of a deity, either.
One strand of this view is simple empiricism. Science and reason give us antibiotics, microwave ovens, sanitation, lasers, and rocketships to the moon. What has religion done for us lately? We have become accustomed to objective measures of success, where we can explicitly see that a particular strategy for decision-making and the generation of knowledge has concrete results. I'm sorry, but faith seems to produce mainly wrong answers, and in comparison, it flops badly.
Now, now, I can hear the defenders of religion begin to grumble, there's more to life than merely material products like microwave ovens — there's contentment and contemplation and a sort of subjective psychology of ritual and community and all that sort of thing. Sure. Fine. Then stick to it, and stop pretending that religion ought to be a determinant of public policy, that it can inform us about the nature of our existence, or that it provides a good guide to public morality. Get it out of our schools and courthouses and workplaces and governments, take it to your homes and your churches, and use it appropriately as your personal consoling mind-game. And stop pretending that it is universal and necessary, because there are a thousand different religions that all claim the same properties with wildly different details, and there are millions of us with no religion at all who get along just fine without your hallowed quirks.
The other strand is reciprocity. We atheists and scientists have ideas that we are expected to explain and support with evidence, and we are accustomed to being jumped on with sadistic vigor if we fail to provide it. We merely apply the same methodological standards to religion. We do not insist a priori that gods cannot exist, we instead turn to all those people who insist that they do, and ask, "how do you know that?"
Would you believe that for all the fervor of their certainty, none of them have ever adequately answered the question?
There is no philosophical or metaphysical certainty on the part of us "New Atheists", and we have no problem admitting it. Dawkins wrote it down forthrightly in his book when he scores himself as a 6 on a 7-point scale of atheism: "6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'" It's genuinely remarkable how many people say they've read his book, and then walk away to claim that Dawkins says science "entirely precludes God's existence."
I agree entirely with Dawkins' sentiment. I also turn it around to use an agnostic sentiment on religious interlocuters: "I don't know for sure, and you don't either, so why are you being so high-handedly specific in your claims that god was a Jewish carpenter, or his prophet was a polygamist with a flying horse, or that Ragnarok is imminent? Give me a method for evaluating your claims, tell me what rational reason you have to believe that, show me the evidence!" And then they don't. I'm just supposed to have faith.
It doesn't even have to be some weirdly specific, quirky bit of historical fiction — even the vague claims fail on epistemological grounds. How often have you been told that "God is love"? How do they know? What does it even mean? It's just feel-good babble. If it makes you feel good to think it, go ahead…but please, let's not have this standard of unsubstantiated wishful thinking be regarded as a useful contribution to philosophy, or science, or morality, or poetry, or social cohesiveness, or much of anything other than a trivial activity, like the twiddling of your thumbs that you do in idle moments.
Now notice: Mooney and Kirshenbaum are busily carping at these ghastly "New Atheists" for imagined transgressions against reason and the appropriate application of science, but what do they have to say about Christians who believe that crackers turn into Jesus in their mouths, or that a magical ensoulment occurs at fertilization to turn a zygote into a fully human being, or that children should be kept in ignorance about sex, or that woman's role is as subservient breeder, or that using condoms to prevent disease is a violation of a divine dictate that the only purpose of sex is to have babies, or that people who love other people of the same sex deserve stoning, or at least to be unable to share insurance policies? Compared to the "New Atheist" insistence that remarkable claims about magic sky fairies ought to be regarded as patent nonsense, those can be rather destructive to society…and also negatively affect the acceptance of science. Rick Warren surely deserves as much condemnation as Richard Dawkins.
But no. The book is silent on the people who directly oppose science politically, culturally, in our classrooms, and on our radio and television. They aren't the problem, I guess. If only we could clear away the distracting Atheist Noise Machine, train a generation of science journalists to stop bashing religion (as if they do now), and presto, the populace will obligingly stop shaking their angry fists at science and will lie back and accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the climate is changing and we need to take political action, and oh my yes, gay people can have their civil rights, too.
Oh, wait, I'm over-generalizing. They do say something about those people who believe in talking snakes, angels, and the power of mystic mumblings.
The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists—and neither does the stature of science in our culture. We should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear, and a sense of humility based on the knowledge that although science can explain a great deal about the way our world functions, the question of God's existence lies outside its expertise.
Respect faith. Be humble. Pretend that all those beliefs are unquestionable.
Bull…oh, excuse me. Mooney gets rather pearl-clutchey when strong language is used. I shall restrain myself (and you commenters, too, please: I normally trust you all to cope with adult language without too much concern, but apparently a couple of authors with very delicate sensitivities will be reading this and counting your four-letter words).
Look, the only reason "the question of God's existence" is in any way outside the domain of science is because it is such an amorphous subject that the believers will always rapidly move its definition beyond testability when pressed. However, they also claim that these deities had major material effects on the world — and most also claim ongoing, direct participation by their favorite god on their personal universe. Those are not beyond the realm of science! If absolute knowledge of this superbeing's existence is out of our reach, we can at least easily push him/her/it/them back into a fairly tenuous connection with the world, to the point where they are irrelevant.
And if science can't say a thing about the existence of gods, sweet jebus, Mooney, be consistent and admit that the jabbering, sanctimonious priests can't either! Why we should respect their fairy-tales and complete lack of humility while you castigate godless science for relying on mere evidence is incomprehensible.
The essence of what Mooney and Kirshenbaum recommend in their book is that science must cut off its own balls, science must wear her corset cinched tight, science must not dissent from the masses, science must be obliging and polite, because that is the only way the public will accept it.
I rudely disagree.
There is nothing condescending about appreciating that almost every human being, even the most god-soaked, has a functional mind and that maybe they can actually learn about science and a scientific way of thinking that makes their myths untenable. There is nothing condescending about being uncompromising in our expectations and trusting that others can hear and think and express their own ideas. There is something deeply condescending about setting aside a big chunk of people's experience and telling people that they should not question it.
Science is a sublimely human activity and a central part of the best of Western culture…and of every culture on earth that aspires to be something more than a collection of dirt-grubbing subsistence breeders, propagating for the sake of propagating. It's what gives us the potential to reach beyond making do, that gives us the leisure and freedom to flower in the arts and explore the diversity of human experience. Even institutionalized religion itself is an incidental byproduct of the first clever dicks who thought to reroute the flow of a river to irrigate fields and led to centralization, urbanization, hierarchies of leadership, accounting, writing, and the whole avalanche of change that followed. It's important. Mooney and Kirshenbaum know this; it's what their whole book is about.
In order to be what it is, though, science must live. It's a process carried out by human beings, and it can't be gagged and enslaved and shackled to a narrow goal, one that doesn't rock the boat. Imagine they'd written a book that tried to tell artists that they shouldn't challenge the culture; we'd laugh ourselves sick and tell them that they were completely missing the point. Why do you think some of us are rolling our eyes at their absurd request that scientists should obliging accommodate themselves to a safe frame that every middle-class American would find cozy? They don't get it.
Somehow, they think that Carl Sagan's great magic trick was that he didn't make Americans feel uncomfortable. I think they're wrong. Sagan's great talent was that he showed a passion for science. People made fun of his talk of "billyuns and billyuns", but it was affectionate, because at the same time he was talking about these strange, abstract, cosmic phenomena, everyone could tell he was sincere — he loved this stuff.
Another example: Feynman. Watch the man, and what is the impression he makes? Absolute joy. He's laughing at the universe. People love his lectures because he's cocky and bold and doesn't hesitate to show you where you're wrong.
For a less openly abrasive case, how about E.O. Wilson? In his talks, he seems to be a soft-spoken gentleman who's willing to concede quite a bit of respect to everyone — but read his work, and there's a steely spine there, too, and if you get him talking about ants, you discover he's cheerfully obsessive.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum's prescription for improving the fate of science in this country is to train young scientists to be more media- and politics-savvy, to build a generation of cautious barometers of the public mood "capable of bridging the divides that have led to science's declining influence." And perhaps we could get more support for the arts if young artists were taught to favor bucolic photo-realism, if poetry was required to be in greeting card meter, and if all music was appropriate to elevators? We'd surely have a new renaissance if the NEA only funded art that a conservative senator would find inoffensive!
I recommend something different. Our next generation of great science communicators should be flesh-and-blood people with personalities, every one different and every one with different priorities, all singing out enthusiastically for everything from astronomy to zoology, and they should sometimes be angry and sometimes sorrowful and sometimes deliriously excited. They shouldn't hesitate to say what they think, even if it might make Joe the Plumber surly. If you want to improve American science and the perception of science by the public, teach science first and foremost, because what you'll find is that your discipline is then populated with people who are there because they love the ideas. And, by the way, let them know every step of the way that science is also a performing art, and that they have an obligation as a public intellectual to take their hard-earned learning and share it with the world.
Face the fact that some of us (but definitely not all of us) will be so smitten with this wonderful, powerful way of thinking that we're going to follow our bliss and laugh at the hidebound ritualists who expect us to respect their superstitions, and at the prissy wanna-be moralists who demand bloodless conformity. You will not generate new Sagans by insisting on deference. You will not change a culture with a declining appreciation of science by demanding that scientists respect the beliefs of people who despise science the most. Mooney and Kirshenbaum single out the increasingly vibrant atheist sub-culture as something that needs to be muffled, and that's symptomatic of the failure of their suggestions: what other ideas should be stifled lest they disturb American complacency? And shouldn't shaking up that complacency be exactly what scientists do?
Education
Comments
Posted by: Mathlover2
|
July 9, 2009 8:40 PM
Is it just me, or do i detect a change in the course of religion's criticism of atheism?
Posted by: Allin Cottrell | July 9, 2009 8:45 PM
PZ: Bravo! Bravissimo! A super-eloquent statement of what
most of your readers believe. Wish I'd said it, but I'm too
lazy (or otherwise absorbed).
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokeGay | July 9, 2009 8:47 PM
Passionately, movingly written. No one could have said it better. It's this kind of writing, this message, that stirs. Loud, unabashed joy at the wonder of the world the way it really is, mixed with righteous irritation at ideologies that try to cut it - and us - down to something smaller than we can be. Chris Mooney's prescription - and his style - is a saccharine-sweet song that dwells on two major chords, ending at 2 minutes, 40 seconds, to stay radio-friendly. Yours mixes major and minor keys at just the right places, and keeps going long enough to give to make the resolution truly satisyfing.
Posted by: Dave | July 9, 2009 8:52 PM
Science is a performance art.
Indeed.
Posted by: Tark | July 9, 2009 8:52 PM
That simple slaying was the best discourse yet.
You may have just sent me back to school, PZ.
I am not sure whether to thank you, curse you, toast you, or
... or...or go steal more crackers.
Please don't ever stop what you are doing.
Humble thanks is all I can offer at this time.
Tax Religion,
Tark
Posted by: Carl Buell | July 9, 2009 8:56 PM
That was magnificent. You made me proud that a few of my little drawings decorate your blog header.
Posted by: Sushi | July 9, 2009 8:57 PM
Wow, that was an amazingly worded piece. I'm going to try to get my less-scientific friends to read that, heh.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | July 9, 2009 8:59 PM
I can't comment on the merits of the Mooney/Kirshenbaum book, which I haven't read (I haven't received a review copy, but then again I haven't recommended that they get a review copy of my forthcoming book).
But this is a wonderful post PZ. It sets out how I see things, and does so with eloquence.
As a side note, I'm coming to hate this philosophical naturalism/methodological naturalism distinction. It causes a lot of confusion. I do understand why methodological naturalism gets used as one criterion for science in court trials, but the distinction is simplistic (no account of it ever seems to do justice to the range of positions on offer) and contrived: a lot of fast talking needs to be done to apply it to specific, as when Pennock assures us that if we were able to find regularities in the behaviour of ghosts they would, by his definition, become part of the natural world. Well quite, if you use the right definition of "natural", but as things stand we have good reason to think there simply are no ghosts. They are not ruled out a priori: the evidence is simply against their existence. The same applies to gods.
Outside of court cases, where some degree of approximation is necessary, we'd be better off abandoning this distinction and looking at the actual arguments, which the distinction covers badly.
Posted by: Greg Esres | July 9, 2009 9:00 PM
This is what I refer to as "bait and switch." Those extolling the virtues of religion will proclaim all sorts of material gains from adopting their beliefs, but when challenged on the factual accuracy of their claims, they retreat to a position of "this isn't about materialism."
Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 9:00 PM
Excellent.
Er,...
Yup. Needs more Sagan/Freire/Boals. :)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 9, 2009 9:02 PM
Well said, PZ (which rhymes where I come from).
One wonders if Mooney will place a link to any of the posts in this thread on his own page for his gaggle of thin-skinned pearl-clutchers to whine about.
Posted by: Sooth | July 9, 2009 9:03 PM
You are angry. Some religious authority figure must have had their dick way up your child ass.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2009 9:06 PM
I'm feeling the same way about methodological and philosophical materialism. In some cases it can be a useful distinction -- I even teach my freshman students about it -- but more and more it's feeling like a kind of stopgap mindsoother. Methodological materialism is presented as if it somehow delimits the scope of science to something that avoids intruding on personal beliefs...but all it limits us to is the entire frakkin' universe.
Also, I just realized that I've written two very long and wordy reviews of big chunks of Mooney/Kirshenbaum's book, but they haven't yet responded to my original criticisms. Maybe I should stop and give them a few months to catch up.
Posted by: theshortearedowl | July 9, 2009 9:06 PM
Freeeeebiiiird!!! (holds up lighter)
Posted by: James Rieman DVM | July 9, 2009 9:08 PM
Well said, PZ! I am a frequent lurker, and I read your blog at least daily. Keep it up PZ, we need your voice of reason in this wilderness of superstition.
Posted by: Brian English | July 9, 2009 9:09 PM
Brilliant PZ.
Sooth:
Some religious authority figure must have had their dick way up your child ass.
That's right. PZ hasn't presented any arguments to sustain his position, he's only presented emotional language. Therefore, speculation about what has brought him to this emotional outburst can only turn to him being sexually abused as a child by a religious authority.
Project much?
Posted by: jennydoestheblock | July 9, 2009 9:09 PM
Amen.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 9, 2009 9:09 PM
PZ up to bat. Here comes the pitch, Mooney throws, PZ hits. And it's outta here!
QFT
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2009 9:10 PM
Let it be said that the first (and so far, only) instance of profanity and obscene sexual imagery in this thread comes from a critic...and probably a Mooney fanboi. Should I censor it?
Nah. Not my style.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 9, 2009 9:11 PM
Hear, hear! PZ, that post got stronger with every paragraph. I was going to single out some of it, but there is so much that is inspiring as you honed in on the real issues.
Posted by: Grumpy | July 9, 2009 9:12 PM
A truly sublime post. Please write a book.
Posted by: donna | July 9, 2009 9:12 PM
I call you the Feynman of biology. Vravo!
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
July 9, 2009 9:14 PM
I would say that training scientists to be media savvy in the sense of encouraging audience-awareness and public speaking skills is a good idea. Then again, these things are good for teaching as well, especially the intro classes -- the ability to take into account that your audience's background might be Jurassic Park and a high-school biology course taken a decade ago, but they aren't stupid and they still might be interested, because, hey dinosaurs. (Or hey, animals. Or hey, Mars.)
Posted by: Rick020200 | July 9, 2009 9:14 PM
Well done, PZ. I really can't wait to see their response.
Sagan and Feynman were wonderful scientists who helped fuel my passion for science.
Posted by: Wonderist | July 9, 2009 9:16 PM
Bravo, PZ! An excellent, excellent post. I especially liked your comparison of science with art in the challenging of the status quo.
Posted by: Miranda Hale | July 9, 2009 9:17 PM
This is nothing short of brilliant! And very, very needed, too.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 9:21 PM
PZ @13:
Heh. Love that, and am gonna steal it for future use.
Posted by: Buzz Buzz | July 9, 2009 9:21 PM
Too damn right PZ. Well said.
Sometimes when one of these posts comes up in between poll crashes and such I have to stand in awe of how well you can turn a phrase when the subject is something you care about.
Posted by: Rick020200 | July 9, 2009 9:21 PM
The sad part of this comment is that, statistically speaking, there's a fair chance this is correct. However, that would not be a condemnation of PZ, but of pretty much everyone who ever claimed something "in the name of god".Posted by: blueshifter | July 9, 2009 9:22 PM
1. awesome. You're like a lion batting about a frightened hedgehog.
2. you're gonna get flack for that 'cut off the balls' bit. me, i've got a pair, so i know what you mean...
3. WRITE A BOOK ALREADY!!!
Posted by: TheSkrobot | July 9, 2009 9:23 PM
Someday someone is going to compile all these posts into a book. Maybe they will include the first few hundred comments and I'll be able to tell my grandchildren that I was there when PZ was changing the world.
Posted by: Dave Arthur | July 9, 2009 9:23 PM
Superb discourse - absolutely bang on! Passionate and human, and profoundly reasonable.
Posted by: Physicalist | July 9, 2009 9:26 PM
Wow! That's good stuff. Wish I could write like that.
Molly for PZ!!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2009 9:28 PM
No, no. In my case, the religious authorities in my childhood were all benevolent and quite nice. And the ones I hung out with most (my sunday school and choir instructors) were women.
They were Lutherans. They don't even slap your knuckles with a ruler.
Posted by: Sooth | July 9, 2009 9:28 PM
It's not your fault PZ. And you shouldn't take your anger out on all religious people because of one persons foul deed.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 9:28 PM
Respect must be earned. "Respect" that is mandated or forced is not respect, it's submission. Respect also does not run on auto-pilot according to directive or dogma. Sheesh.
Posted by: Teleprompter | July 9, 2009 9:28 PM
Excellent, PZ!
If commentators like Mooney truly feel that vocal atheists are going to pour kerosene on an already high stockpile of resentment of science...wouldn't it also be wise to inquire who is providing the rest of the fuel to fan the flames?
So Mooney wants you to step back and give passive assent to those who detest science?
I have one question for him: How's that workin' for ya?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 9, 2009 9:28 PM
I don't know; if Mooney is anything to go by, should PZ write a book he won't have the time to enforce the limp, sanctimonious and unequally applied posting rules he applies on his blog.
Heck, The Kw*k might sneak back in and bore us all to death...
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 9, 2009 9:29 PM
Well said PZ. As usual, I'm in awe at your way with words, and the discrete way you can address your thoughts.
These critics of atheism are fighting a losing battle, and they're oblivious to their shrill statements. They're so misguided and irrational that no amount of reasonable conjecture can ever dissuade their loosely formed thoughts. It's like giving a chimp silk pajamas and asking him not to shit all over it.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 9, 2009 9:31 PM
When P.J. speaks about"contentment and contemplation and a sort of subjective psychology of ritual and community and all that sort of thing" as the alternative to natural science, he conveniently documents his own scientism. As if theology, mysticism, and butterflies were what you were left with if you don't go in for a narrowly defined rationality. Phooey. There are lots of other important things that people do with their minds besides contemplate the trinity or their navel or do science, e.g. debate how they should live, write history, practice law, compose music, pursue philosophy--a world of cognitive activities that are neither science nor theology. Indeed, the sciences, important and admirable as they are, just aren't and can't be the basis of civilization by themselves.
So you assert that there are no gods. Well, d'uh! Unless you were born in the faith or have some sort of psychological hangup, it is hardly an accomplishment to draw an obvious conclusion which, in itself, doesn't tell you anything about what kind of a world we do live in and how we ought to live in. Obsessing about religion eventually gets to be counterproductive if only because it gives the enemy too much credit. It also leads to adolescent stunts like the business about the host, not to mention what is more risible if not more deplorable, an inability to recognize that fundamentalists and liberal protestants and catholics are very different breeds of cat with differing political tendencies. I don't hold with the notion that atheists should apologize or soft peddle their atheism, but you must be something wrong if in your stridency can't tell the difference between Ken Ham and Rudolf Bultmann.
Posted by: skeetar | July 9, 2009 9:31 PM
My body thetans did not appreciate this article.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 9:31 PM
M/K keep 'tightening'. I think they're cutting off the circulation to their brains.
Posted by: tsg | July 9, 2009 9:33 PM
Why? Why is faith a virtue? What makes faith deserving of any respect whatsoever? And why can these people never answer this question?
Please tell me they aren't trotting out this false dichotomy. Let's assume that they are right and that science can't explain everything, that doesn't automatically make religion useful. And why capital-g God and not Thor, Zeus, Pele, Lao-Tien-Yeh, Mider, etc., etc., ad infinitum?
Posted by: pmercer | July 9, 2009 9:34 PM
I click on your site often, and have never been disappointed. I enjoy your arguments and your sense of humor.
Posted by: Ray S. | July 9, 2009 9:34 PM
Posted by: Sooth | July 9, 2009 9:03 PM
Obviously it is the fault of the parent and the parent's anger is unjustified. There's no blame for the owner of the dick. At least that seems to be the standard procedure in such cases.
I'm always struck by the fact that even the most ardent theist will resort to methodological naturalism when investigating a burglary or some similar incident. They would never accept a magical or supernatural explanation when they were the victim of a crime.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 9, 2009 9:35 PM
I agree with Russell Blackford that the "Philosophical/Methodological Naturalism" thing is annoying. Personally I see the "philosophical naturalism" point as nothing but sophistry. It has no value except to set the scene for a grand lie to follow: that atheists are and have always been philosophical naturalists.
I don't believe in a sky-spook just as I don't believe in Sagan's dragon. Numerous generations have come and gone and there is no substantial evidence for the supernatural claims of any religion over the ages. Why believe there might be a sky-spook if we don't believe there is any chance that Sagan's dragon exists? Once can accept that position if they refuse to pass judgement on the subject due to their admitted ignorance of facts surrounding the original claims. My own position is that there is good reason to reject the claimed existence of specific sky spooks despite an ignorance of the original circumstances. Now I don't start out with the premise that everything must have a non-supernatural cause, but I see absolutely no evidence to the contrary so I believe that there are no supernatural beings - without supernatural beings it must then follow that there is in fact a natural cause for everything observed - or at least everything observed to date; I won't hold my breath in expectation of something different though.
In a purely philosophical frame I would say if there were supernatural beings, they certainly cannot be anything like most of the sky-spooks being touted by religions in existence today and certainly nothing like the judaeo-xian-muslim sky-spook which is the real issue of apologetics.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 9, 2009 9:37 PM
God? Odin's existence lies outside its expertise too. What about Odin?
I haven't read the book, but the quoted snippet sparked a question. Is their admonishment that we scientists who don't believe in gods aren't treating the religious with delicate-enough kid gloves, or is the admonishment that we're not treating the followers of the popular religions with delicate-enough kid gloves?
Do they specify? Because if not, then I would argue that the omission is rather telling.
Posted by: CW | July 9, 2009 9:37 PM
I'm afraid I must disagree with you. You say that "they don't get it" but, after much water under this particular bridge, it has become clear that they won't, they will not get it (even if they do).
Posted by: Teleprompter | July 9, 2009 9:38 PM
Jim Harrison,
"It also leads to adolescent stunts like the business about the host"
So you believe that it's much more mature to give someone a death threat because you saw them dispose of a wafer? PZ's "adolescent stunt" was a response to a much zanier situation - a student's life was in danger because of what he did with a cracker.
Yet you choose not to condemn the zealots who threaten someone's life, but only the zealot's that make someone intellectually uncomfortable. More proof that you have to kill someone to be a militant Christian or Muslim, but to be a militant atheist all you have to do is exist.
"but you must be something wrong if in your stridency can't tell the difference between Ken Ham and Rudolf Bultmann"
What is the difference - one of them takes their holy book seriously? There may be varying shades of ridiculousness, but that does not prevent the label from being applied to all varieties of ridiculousness which presently exist.
Posted by: Physicalist | July 9, 2009 9:40 PM
On topic at hand: In his dust-up with Coyne, Mooney made a big deal about the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism (which argument, it's now clear, comes from his book).
Several people (Rosenhouse, Coyne, several commenters, and most impressively, Blackford) challenged his claim that anti-accommodationists ran afoul of this distinction.
Mooney claimed to have an epiphany on the issue at one point and promised to tell us about it at some point. Did he ever get around to defending his critique?
(I'd be happy to hear that he retracted his complaints after being so patiently informed that they were without merit, but somehow I doubt that happened.)
Posted by: Phledge | July 9, 2009 9:40 PM
To paraphrase one Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, well-behaved atheists/scientists/humans rarely make history.
Breathtakingly spot on, as usual, Dr Myers.
Posted by: FlyingSorcerer | July 9, 2009 9:40 PM
So are Mooney and Kirshenbaum really atheists or just pretending?
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 9:41 PM
Excellent post PZ
I really wish someone would explain to me why beyond trying to win a court battle is there such animosity being fired at the atheists. We aren't the ones telling children that the world is 6000 years old, and if we went away it's not going to stop adults telling children that the world is 6000 years old. Is it really that the only thing preventing most theists from accepting an old universe / earth / evolution that Richard Dawkins is a big meanie?
You silence the atheists, you silence the most vocal critics of anti-science today. There are very few accomodationists really stepping up and taking on fundamentalist dogma, very few willing to tackle the root cause of this problem. We don't build the creation museums, nor do we pretend that intelligent design is science. We don't use the threat of hell to coerce childern into believing a literal 6 day creation.
Atheists are not the problem, it's liberal bullshit that we should be "tolerant" to those trying to undermine science while berating those who are promoting science "in the wrong way". Why is it that we have such a fragile mental image of believers; that they need to be coddled and kept safe from the dangers of differing opinion? All it does is show how much contempt these liberal thinkers have for others!
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 9:41 PM
Exactly! Let's elevate mediocrity to a virtue lest we offend someone with our excellence.Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | July 9, 2009 9:42 PM
I second, or third, the calls for you to write a book, PZ. Although it'll probably get me labeled as a dopey "fanboi" by the Mooney contingent. . .oh. .wait. . I don't care about that.*
You are an uncommonly gifted prose stylist. That gets overlooked constantly, since the topics you write about get so many up in high dudgeon. But you're not just clear and passionate, you can turn a phrase, and present an idea, in delicious ways. Richard Dawkins has that flair, so does Christoper Hitchens. Not in the same way, of course; you're all different writers.
* How many of you have noticed how often one gets accused being a blind sycophant when you praise the writing or ideas of someone like PZ Myers, or especially Richard Dawkins? It drives me nuts. It supposes your admiration is some dumb, non-thought-out tribalism. The accuser never stops to consider that it might have been the quality of writing and thought that drew you to become an admirer in the first place.
Posted by: Helena Handbag | July 9, 2009 9:43 PM
Most marvelous thing I've read this year, P.Z. If reading crap that advocates for progress via banality and accommodationism inspires you to such passionate eloquence, you should definitely review more crappy books.
And thank you for rescuing the work and legacy of Carl Sagan from these bobbleheads. Are they not old enough to remember how he was vilified by the christo-wackos? "The Demon Haunted World" was every bit as definitive in its insights about superstition as "The God Delusion," it just didn't have such a huge audience at such a weird time in history.
Now off to send this to my college-aged budding scientist. You've made my day, dear man.
Posted by: ScaryJerry | July 9, 2009 9:46 PM
Fantastic! I devoured every word. Hey! Where's your book??? Can I pre-order it yet? Put me down for 10 copies!
Posted by: Invigilator
|
July 9, 2009 9:48 PM
What do you mean there's no evidence of God? Haven't you linked to parts of the new documentary film "Mr Deity"? There is a God who is consistent with the world as we know it, and with man being made in his image.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 9, 2009 9:48 PM
Well said. This annoys me as well.
Posted by: yoyo | July 9, 2009 9:50 PM
so why do we have to respect the religious? What did they ever do for us? leaving aside the issue of WHICH religious you respect, as a female they can all go the the hell of their own choice.
Well done PZ
Posted by: SteveC | July 9, 2009 9:51 PM
Bravo, PZ, Bravo! Where's that animated gif of the standing ovation when you need it?
Posted by: Billi | July 9, 2009 9:51 PM
Mr. Myers, that was a pleasure to read. Thank you.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 9, 2009 9:53 PM
Jim Harrison, how do you read this
and say that
?
Posted by: Dave W. | July 9, 2009 9:53 PM
Lynna @ 54: Let's elevate mediocrity to a virtue lest we offend someone with our excellence.
Wasn't that the primary message of the McCain/Palin campaign against elitism in 2008?
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | July 9, 2009 9:55 PM
Thank you for a very interesting, well written and clear expose of your ideas and opinions. I always enjoy reading Pharyngula and this was no exception.
Your response shows exactly the sort of shonks Mooney and Kirshenbaum are for writing such rubbish. I wonder when they will have the guts to come here and try to defend what they wrote.
Posted by: genecutter | July 9, 2009 9:55 PM
Exceptional as usual, PZ. This one goes in my folder. I think it is time you consolidated your posts into a book. Seriously.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 9, 2009 9:56 PM
@FlyingSorcerer: I am not aware of Kirschenbaum claiming to be atheist. Mooney claims to be atheist and I have no reason not to believe him even though I disagree with many of his ideas and find his arguments confused and unconvincing.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 9, 2009 9:57 PM
It's the same kind of thinking that leads a (certain kind of) person to express the belief that, when you're critical of someone, it must be (at least in part) jealousy.
Projection, perhaps?
Posted by: Beth B. | July 9, 2009 9:58 PM
@FlyingSorcerer (52):
"So are Mooney and Kirshenbaum really atheists or just pretending?"
While Mooney has mentioned his atheism on many occasions, Kirshenbaum declines to state her religious worldview. We do not know if she is an atheist.
Posted by: Thomas Dougan
|
July 9, 2009 9:58 PM
Awesome. Perfect pitch and volume and content.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 9, 2009 9:59 PM
That was deliberate, right?
Right?
Posted by: lylebot | July 9, 2009 9:59 PM
I used to spout "God is love" nonsense. Funnily enough, the person that made me see what BS it is was a deeply religious Christian. She never tried to convert me, never damned me to hell, or anything like that. She just didn't have tolerance for my trying to pretend I wasn't really an atheist or that I respected religion more than I actually did.
Because of her, I actually think the Mooney et al. position is profoundly disrespectful of the religious. It's like they think the religious are so stupid that they won't notice they're being patronized.
Posted by: Carlie | July 9, 2009 10:01 PM
Breath of fresh, sane air. Thank you, PZ. I often have difficulty formulating exactly why some arguments are wrong, but you give me explanations I can use with others.
Posted by: tsg | July 9, 2009 10:02 PM
It's the same all over. When I hung out in usenet, any comment critical of a Microsoft product was rejected out of hand as "Microsoft bashing", even if the criticism was backed up with evidence a mountain high. I've also noticed it in poker: people tend to assume others play the same way they do (whether they realize it or not), and you can usually spot the people who bluff a lot by how often they call with weak hands.
When they're accusing you of dumb, non-thought-out tribalism, it's likely because their admiration (whether of Mooney or Microsoft) is.
Posted by: Wonderist | July 9, 2009 10:02 PM
I concur with other commenters: PZ, you must write a book. Please, please, please?
Just stick the word 'God' somewhere prominently in the title, and you're bound to get noticed by the popular press. Maybe: "God v. Science", as if it were a legal case of science defending itself against the accusations of the god-ists and their accommodationist lawyers. Or: "God is Useless", pointing out that 'theology' contributes nothing to understanding. Something like that, and I guarantee a best-seller.
You could do with some best-seller income couldn't you? Spend it on your trophy wife, go on a trip, or something.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 10:04 PM
Jim H. @40
Narrow, narrow, Jim. Putting the pegs in their holes, are you?
I'm a poet (published and all that, so there's objective proof of my claim to the category), and every poem I write depends on science. Even in flights of fantasy, I start with what's real. There's no better springboard for imagination.
Even some of our great religious poets, like Gerard Manley Hopkins, start with an observation, like autumn leaves falling, to bring to life their feelings of bliss. "... over golden grove unleaving..." We, the non-religious, know where Hopkins is coming from because he begins with his senses.
And Rumi? Same deal. Rumi pays attention to the sound of a twig breaking underfoot.
"Doing science" as Jim puts it, seems to me more like living while fully aware.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 9, 2009 10:05 PM
Well, in their defence, that's not exactly an unreasonable conclusion to reach; especially considering that's how most of the religious seem to treat themselves.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 9, 2009 10:09 PM
Excellent post.
This goes to the core of the problem IMO :
See, we can witness here almost everyday that religious people like ,say ,SF ,try to convince us how they just "know", that this is not something within the scope of science or evidence,its their subjective emotional need,or certainty, that god exists.
And that's what's holding mankind back, this deeply anchored need for feel-good woo is hardwired into the human brain.
What those people criticizing the "New Atheists" dont understand is IMO that just like you can't convince a 3-year old with rational arguments that they have to have that knee wound stitched up and can't just go home because it might hurt, you can't and won't convince or change a religious person trying to inflict their superstitions onto the public domain just by being humble,quiet and non-confrontational.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 10:10 PM
The "Philosophical/Methodological Naturalism" dichotomy is pathological.
Posted by: tsg | July 9, 2009 10:11 PM
Mooney reminds me of the "Friendly Atheist" who, from his first few posts[1], only started calling himself an atheist so he could call other atheists assholes.
[1] I will admit I haven't read anything recently if he is even still around, I was so turned off by it.
Posted by: Kobra | July 9, 2009 10:11 PM
I dunno, but that's one of my goals in life: To destroy the public's complacency every chance I get. Also on that list is to destroy a major religion and bankrupt OPEC via alternative energy.Posted by: John Harshman
|
July 9, 2009 10:12 PM
PZ,
Your post led me to an epiphany, which I will gladly share with you. And it's a surefire way to get some of that Templeton money, maybe even win the prize.
Here's how to reconcile science and religion: make theology into a science. And all you have to do to accomplish that is to teach theologians the scientific method, and get them to use it. Teach them how to come up with testable hypotheses about the nature of god and then test those hypotheses. I foresee a Society for the Study of God (SSG), and a journal, J. Theol. Sci. This development has been waiting for thousands of years; I don't know why nobody thought of it before. Theologians will be happy because their discipline will finally be on a firm empirical basis. The Templeton Foundation will be happy because we'll all finally be speaking the same language, which has to promote understanding, doesn't it?
OK, one possible glitch: maybe nobody will be able to think of a testable hypothesis they're willing to stick with -- you might get the same problem James Randi has with psychics, always the post hoc explanation. But isn't it worth a shot, especially if some of that foundation money is forthcoming? OK, another: you may be the wrong person to try it. But it seems to be a natural (methodologically, of course, not philosophically) step for an accomodationist. Maybe you could talk to Michael Ruse?
Posted by: hallucigenia | July 9, 2009 10:12 PM
Donna #22
I gotta love this for vomit-inducing sycophancy:
Right. The 'Feynman of biology': not Richard Lewontin, or Ed Wilson, or Ernst Mayr, or Theodosius Dobzhansky, or Stephen Jay Gould, or even crazy Jim Watson, but... PZ Myers. He writes a blog! Jesus, get some perspective, will you?
Posted by: Jack Mitcham | July 9, 2009 10:15 PM
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue of "New Atheists." I'm kind of like Neil deGrasse Tyson, where he was on a panel with Richard Dawkins (sorry, don't have a link).
I have no problem going after religious beliefs, but I believe there is a certain way to go about it that is more likely to win hearts and minds. Sometimes, a headlong frontal attack is a good way to entrench irrational beliefs in people.
You've got to remember, a lot of these people have been brainwashed literally since the day they were born. In some cases, there is a good 20 or 30 years of deprogramming that needs to be done, and I don't think saying "Your belief makes no sense. You're being irrational," et cetera, will get the job done.
A gentler "I understand why you may think that, however, have you considered..." may be more effective. I'm not saying you actually HAVE to understand why they think they way they do, but by having a disarming statement up front, you can lower their resistance.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | July 9, 2009 10:18 PM
@ Josh (not the Official SpokesGay), Wowbagger, OM, and tsg:
Thanks guys. Misery loves company. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who gets his knickers twisted over that crap. tsg also wins +10 Sash of Irony for the last sentence in comment 74:))
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 9, 2009 10:21 PM
[1] I will admit I haven't read anything recently if he is even still around, I was so turned off by it.
Lately, the site has been pretty chock-full of mindless drivel. Like the atheist dating advice that pops up every once in a while. I read it for the lulz.
Awesome post PZ!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 10:22 PM
Inchoate comma learning? :P
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 10:24 PM
Dave @64: Yes, elevation of mediocrity to a virtue is the essence of the slogans against "elitism." It's Palin's "Joe the Plumber" bit and more.
It's why Lawrence Welk shows are rerun on TV in my neck of the woods.
It's why Tuacahn (outdoor theater in Utah) includes in its goals the creation of art "that reflects all that is American and all that is wholesome." Sounds okay, but it's code for "massage the message until it's white bread."
It's a noose around the artist's neck.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | July 9, 2009 10:24 PM
Our next generation of great science communicators should be flesh-and-blood people with personalities,
Like Adam & Jamie and the build team on Mythbusters? I have learned more science from that show than I think I did in all of college. They show how much outright fun science is -- how fascinating a puzzle can be, how challenging it is to define a question properly so it can be tested.
Plus lots of explosions.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | July 9, 2009 10:27 PM
Blaming liberals? Wow. Do you read the tagline for this blog?
This post nails it. It ain't the atheists' problem that people don't pay attention.
We live in a culture that has generated enough revenue for a network that Big Brother is in its 12th season! They are going after the wrong target, are Chris and Sheril.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 10:27 PM
Really? Where? Sounds entertaining.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 9, 2009 10:29 PM
I like my food spicy; some like their food bland.
I like an adventure; some want their lives planned.
My love is a woman who takes her own stand
While others want someone whom they can command.
While some treat their love like a delicate flower—
Watched and protected, locked up in some tower—
My love, I am certain, has shown she has power,
Which grows every day, and in truth, every hour.
My love has a power, which must be respected;
She’s earned it, of course, she’s not falsely protected
To make up for promises long since neglected,
Like some I could name, though that’s not unexpected.
My love is amazing; my love never tires,
My love, like a goddess, compels and inspires,
A muse to the people—like Dawkins or Myers—
Who wear on their sleeves scientific desires.
Some long for the common; we put our reliance
In methods where evidence earns its defiance;
We’ll climb till we see even further than giants—
The woman I love is a beauty called Science.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/07/im-in-love.html
Posted by: Rick020200 | July 9, 2009 10:33 PM
Bloody brilliant, Mr. Cuttlefish.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 9, 2009 10:34 PM
Bovine Scat???
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 9, 2009 10:36 PM
Professor Myers:
A wonderful post. You've made ME want to go back to school and become a science teacher - if I didn't already know that the need for our kids to learn history is just as great! (Hmmm... maybe I can do both...)
Posted by: tsg | July 9, 2009 10:37 PM
Cuttlefish @92 FTW!
Hits the nail on the head eloquently. And it rhymes!
Posted by: Badger3k | July 9, 2009 10:37 PM
This is one reason why I listen to The Atheist Experience (from the Atheist Community of Austin). The common refrain is "what do you believe and why", with heavy emphasis on evidence, and a lot of "what do you mean" when it comes to definitions. They always have entertaining and thought-provoking shows, and even if Matt (and others) can be "abrasive."
When I talk to the kids, I try to get them to see the wonder of the natural world, from simple molecular motion to whales that don't breathe while diving and hunting. I've had some compliments, so hopefully I'll be successful in the long run. The good news, as I reported before, the kids don't have any problems with me being an atheist, even if I have to correct a few misconceptions. When pressured on the subject, I try to switch the questioning to other woo, such as aliens or chupacabras, and try to get in the "question the belief and look for evidence" part, and let them make the connections. Have to be circumspect in a public school, but I'd sure love to teach a comparative religions class.
Posted by: Kevin | July 9, 2009 10:37 PM
An eloquent and passionate piece that should be required reading for all religious education students. I am always amazed at the double standard of proof religious people need: they hold up ancient (in some cases not so ancient) texts as the only proof needed for their beliefs but hold us to a much higher standard. In discussions with theists, it is not enough to quote Dawkins, Hitchens or yourself, yet the ramblings of a 'prophet' who had limited knowledge of the universe is sufficient for them to maintain their beliefs.
Posted by: Caine | July 9, 2009 10:38 PM
*Applause* Science is a spark, which can light the world and people on fire. It should never be less.
Posted by: Janus | July 9, 2009 10:38 PM
Why does no one ever say what they mean by "natural" and "naturalism"?
Posted by: TerilynnS | July 9, 2009 10:41 PM
Thank you for such a wonderful read on a day when I had to hear people say how much they believed there was no hope for humanity, thereby giving themselves the excuse to be lazy jerks.
Without "needing" a deity in my life I am more hopeful now than I ever was before I sloughed the brainwashing. There is only one question I kept asking (it drove the nuns crazy)and I will keep asking it over and over and over of anyone who tells me I need a diety..."Why?"
I can be just a decent without one.
Thanks again Mr. Myers! Wonderful!
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 9, 2009 10:42 PM
Like the atheist dating advice that pops up every once in a while.
Really? Where? Sounds entertaining.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/07/09/ask-richard-the-odd-couple-at-odds/
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 10:43 PM
Read the sentence again. I qualified it with the word 'these'. I'm not blaming liberals, just the liberal way that we bend over backwards for the sake of tolerance towards others. Like critising Salman Rushdie because he had a fatwa placed on him. I'm very much a liberal, I'm just saying that this kind of thinking goes after the wrong target.Posted by: Buzz Buzz | July 9, 2009 10:44 PM
Lynna @ 54: "Let's elevate mediocrity to a virtue lest we offend someone with our excellence."
I hereby declare Kirshenbaum to be the Handicapper general.
Paging Mr. Vonnegut. Paging Mr. Vonnegut!
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 9, 2009 10:49 PM
PZ,
You write a lot of great posts, but this one is escape-velocity magnificent! The passion you commend in Sagan and Feynman is just as readily discerned in this post. So well said, and so truly aimed, it inspires as it instructs. Outstanding, and thank you!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
July 9, 2009 10:51 PM
PZ - Dammit! I've got to correct you.
There. Better.
Faith, noun:
BeliefCertitude without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]Correction mine.
Posted by: Patrick | July 9, 2009 10:51 PM
Hear hear!
Posted by: Charles Lanteigne | July 9, 2009 10:51 PM
Thanks, PZ. That was superb. Delightful. Exquisite.
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 9, 2009 10:51 PM
Well said, PZ. Consider me Pharyngulated ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 10:51 PM
A little late to the party, but an excellent rant/post by our esteemed host. May his books turn out as well written. And Cuttlefish doing his usual right-on bang-up job, which is a joy to read. *sounds of tentacles clapping*
Posted by: Lindsay | July 9, 2009 10:53 PM
I think what I find most offensive about the arguments put forward from the Mooney camp is this notion that there is *one* correct way that atheists should behave, *one* correct way that scientists should behave, and Cthulu forbid if you step off that path.
While I am big fan of PZ, Dawkins and the other loud-mouth new atheists, my own personal approach differs from theirs by nature of my own personality, just as their approaches differ from each other's. Tone, writing style, the whole nine yards. What we share in common is the refusal to compromise or sugarcoat our 'philosophical naturalism' (if that's what the kids are calling it these days).
To suggest that they have a line on the best or only way of being an atheist/scientist is asinine. When you work in a diverse world of personalities, some people will be swayed by Dawkins-like or Dennett-like arguments, and some will be turned off. It does not make Dawkins or Dennett (et al) wrong or bad. It means that, like most things in this world, one size does not fit all. That, crazily enough, there are different ways of being a bold New Atheist, and there is not one broad brush to paint us with.
In our student atheist group, we had a large component of Hitchens-like arguments and displays put up - 'God Hates Women' with Bible and Koran verses and the like - but I had a lot more fun with 'God Hates Shellfish' wherein we discussed the more ridiculous proscriptions of the various Big 3 deities.
Did I have more fun with it because I thought my Hitchens-like companions were jerks who were turning people away? Hell no! They drew people in like fireflies and I think made a lot of moderates really question what they were doing associating themselves with the angry, spittle-spewing defenders of the faith rather than the nonchalant and calm non-believers. No, I had more fun with it because I, as an individual, prefer to go about my business with silliness on my side - not wrong, not right, just a preference.
Atheists, New or otherwise, don't have to fit an evangelical model. Scientists don't either. You can leave those little boxes to the True Believers, thanks kindly.
Posted by: Charles Lanteigne | July 9, 2009 10:54 PM
Thanks, PZ. That was superb. Delightful. Exquisite.
Posted by: Lactate dehydrogenase | July 9, 2009 10:55 PM
Bravo PZ. That was one of your best posts ever.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 9, 2009 10:56 PM
Cuttlefish, that was truly awe-inspiring. Bravo!
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 9, 2009 10:58 PM
"... if poetry was required to be in greeting card meter..."
I, for one, am of the opinion science would receive much greater support from the general public if only all studies were framed from the perspective of citizens of Nantucket.
Posted by: Joe Hill | July 9, 2009 10:59 PM
As a first-time commenter, but regular lurker I have to say that Prof. Myers, you didn't just hit it out of the park with this piece...it's out past the parking lot and into the 'burbs.
Probably one of the best things I've read recently.
I concur with others here: You need to put your passion and eloquence into a book.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Posted by: Rick R | July 9, 2009 10:59 PM
Lynna, I believe you've written before about the weird ways of the Mormons. I was talking to a Mormon friend (now an ex-Mormon) during the christmas season a few years back. The church was having it's big annual musical pageant thing (don't know what it's called) where local kida were chosen to perform on stage. He was proud and happy that one of his grandkids was picked to be in the show.
"Wow", I said. "You must have a really talented grandchild there. Is she a good singer?"
"Oh, the kids don't actually sing. Heavens, no. The music and voices are all pre-recorded in SLC. The kids just act it out, and lip-synch to the recording."
And that, in a nutshell, is the epitome of the awfulness of what religion can do to the creativity (and self-esteem) of children.
Somehow, I think M and K would be sitting in the front row, clapping along with everybody else.
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 9, 2009 11:00 PM
Cuttlefish: BRILLIANT!
I pen verses now and then; the talent is appreciated.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 11:00 PM
Such dimity convictions (blatantly ripping off Emily Dickenson) to claim that God is Love and then go about doing everything possible to deny freckled human nature, or to put the onus of shame on whatever sensuality cannot be denied. I think they've given love a bad name.
Two more bits and pieces from E. Dickenson:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 9, 2009 11:02 PM
The accommodationists have this weird belief that it's science's fault that certain goddists reject science. Rick Warren famously said that if there's a conflict between science and the Bible, he'll go with the Bible. Scientists and/or atheists could treat Warren's bottom as if it were kissing sweet and he'd still be a creationist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 9, 2009 11:04 PM
Drunk, bald and obnoxious?
Posted by: Karzdan | July 9, 2009 11:04 PM
Huzzah!
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 9, 2009 11:05 PM
A Response to Jim Harrison:
I disagree. I understand that the debate is classically between the scientist in his lab versus the theologian in a church, that isn't where the conflict lies. It is not science as an institution versus religion as an institution which are at odds. This relates to the question of methodological v. philosophical naturalism also discussed.
The truth is the battle was fought centuries ago, and religion lost, relatively decisively, and we call it The Enlightenment. Most everyone became deists, and, as today, people started predicting that religion would slowly fade away. It won't, ever, because of the nature of things, but this isn't peer review versus inner truth. It is discovering truth, not science, on one side, and demanding comforting ignorance, not religion, on the other.
People debating "how we should live" are either engaging in sociology or navel gazing, trying to find truth by comparing data and considering alternatives, or attempting to derive transcendent truth from their emotional opinions alone. Writing history, as literary an endeavor as it may be, can only be judged in its success against the actual physical events it seeks to chronicle and place in context. Law and philosophy, yes, even music, might be considered quite impure sciences, but in that they advance not through any one person's arbitrary dictate but through presentation and discussion, they are sciences.
In the world of cognitive activities, there is rational thought, and irrational thought. For thousands of years, it was true that there was no reason to consider religion the latter. Hundreds of years ago already that changed, and has changed more and more and inexorably more. Religion is a psychological, not a cognitive, issue. Where it isn't simply plain ignorance.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 9, 2009 11:07 PM
Alex,
Get off your high horse. Your corrections @106 are totally unnecessary. PZ had it right.
Posted by: Russell | July 9, 2009 11:09 PM
Methodological naturalism relies on some operational distinction between what is natural and what is not. Somehow, someone practicing that methodology must have a way to say, "x, y, and z are natural entities, and so can be included in my theories, but u, v, and w are not, so must be exluded."
Pray tell, how is that done?
Is the chupacabra natural? Or not? What about Nessie?
Don't tell me there is no evidence for them. That's a mere empirical distinction. And might change, tomorrow. What I want to know is how to tell whether something is natural or not.
Posted by: windy | July 9, 2009 11:09 PM
It's like when Finns felt bad for always scoring low in the Eurovision song contest: nobody could understand Finnish music, so for years and years, we tried sending the most bland and generic song, so that it would appeal to everyone and not "embarrass" us. But it never worked. Then finally Finns said, screw it, let's send these guys.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 11:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Tf2lQvDz0
Posted by: Nyxator | July 9, 2009 11:10 PM
I rarely post solely to praise something you wrote for fear of sounding sycophantic, PZ.
This is an exception. Fuckin' right on.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 9, 2009 11:18 PM
Fuckin' awesome. Is that a Klingon on the keyboard?No wonder that Fox News douchebag thought Finns were a different species!
Posted by: Madame_Furie | July 9, 2009 11:18 PM
Speaking of accommodationists - A little help over here.
I found a link to a lovely little gem called "Why evolution should not be taught in state schools" - in two parts no less - via a link to a site about business productivity: "Simply Productive: Conversations on Productivity and Leadership" http://paulgardner.info/life/great-reading-for-you/#comment-971
It's the "productivity" blog I've started posting on. But the link in question led to here:
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/why-evolution-should-not-be-taught-in.html
It is the usual anti-science/accommodationist drivel (I didn't even read it all), but I've started the comments on the Productivity blog.
A little more about me: I'm a de-convert; in my last "incarnation" as a deist I was a Karen Armstrong fan, until I read "God Delusion." The accommodationists can go blow it out their arse because if I hadn't been directly challenged in my views by seeing Richard Dawkins in the media I would have happily continued in my magical thinking.
Thanks and keep on doing what you're doing. We need a couple of comments on both blogs above to spread the word.
Posted by: flame821 | July 9, 2009 11:21 PM
I think what I find most offensive about the arguments put forward from the Mooney camp is this notion that there is *one* correct way that atheists should behave, *one* correct way that scientists should behave, and Cthulu forbid if you step off that path.
The annoying part of this (to me at least) is that if they made this assumption with any other minority group (racial, sexual, cultural) the press would be jumping down their throats and rightfully so.
And as I've read the excerpts that PZ has posted I get this feeling in the back of my mind that Mooney and his friends aren't opposed or annoyed at us so much as they are afraid of us. My first question would be why? My second question would be, 'Don't they know any history?'
No one has EVER had power / equal rights / respect handed to them. It has always been won by fighting (whether that fight is physical or verbal depends on the situation) Civil disobedience a la MLK or Ghandi. Civil War. Revolutionary War.
Thankfully (Hopefully) we've come a long way from having to pick up a sword or gun in order to gain equal footing, however I (and my generation in general) don't care for the simpering 'oh please, let's just be nice and maybe we'll get some crumbs' line of thought. We don't watch Polo, we watch the X games. We don't play Pong we play GTA. Maybe the white gloves and tea parties worked for their generation, but not for mine.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
July 9, 2009 11:21 PM
Thank You PZ. Well done.
To Mooney and Kirshenbaum, I have 4 words for you:
Fail. Fail. Fail. Fail.
Expressing doubt is the honorable action. Presenting faith as a virtue is a perversion of what
knowledgereality demands. Coddling confused infants or misguided children shows the gentleness of human care. Coddling confused adults, misguided dignitaries, or public officials is either the act of a power-monger or an unclear thinker.Philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism simply converge in the place called Practical Reality. Learn it. Accept it. Or show how that's wrong. Grow up.
These people want to use their ooga-booga child-like magical thinking to rule the lives of everyone and make crucial decisions about how reality should be treated. It's a pity you two don't recognize the extreme danger in allowing them to speak without fervent challenge. A pity indeed. Because reality doesn't give a shit if we're deluded.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 9, 2009 11:23 PM
lylebot #72
Exactly. You don't show respect for someone by dumbing down your message because you think they can't handle it, as Mooney suggests. Far more respectful to tell them what you really think, no matter how confrontational, because you think they're smart enough to face the challenges and difficulties head on.
And I too think the methodological/philosophical naturalism distinction is disingenious, at least the way they're using it. It's okay to believe in supernatural causes as long as you pretend they don't exist while you're doing science? So what, science is no more than intellectual masturbation that has nothing to do with the real world? If someone believes supernatural causes have a place in the world but not in science, the obvious conclusion is that science is not describing the world. But I guess it's just that compartmentalization at work.
It's more like this: I reject supernatural causes because I don't know how to tell the difference between something unexplainable by natural causes and something that simply has not had it's natural explanation discovered yet. Therefore, saying something was caused supernaturally is just lazy because I have no way of knowing that.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 9, 2009 11:25 PM
Please let me add my congratulations on a very well written piece.
I wonder if Chris Looney will read it?
Or finally 'get it'?
Posted by: Raynfala | July 9, 2009 11:26 PM
This is me, holding my lighter above my head.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 11:26 PM
Rick @117: I live amongst 'em. As a matter of self-defense I've been forced to learn about the LDS Church, their history, their church-as-lifestyle, etc. I've been subjected to coffee-less mornings, eaten my share of jello as "salad," and have seen some truly weird takes on artistic expression, and on accomplishment in general.
I have truly intelligent, warm-hearted friends who still belong to the LDS cult, so I don't want to make blanket statements, but, on balance, the Church and its dogma tend to put a cap on accomplishment. They want you to succeed, but only within their parameters. And their emphasis on temple worthiness and on the afterlife is detrimental to the quality of this life.
The prerecorded shows you mentioned don't surprise me at all. Here are a few more details from which you can extrapolate a prevailing attitude:
I watched ballet students perform at an Earth Day celebration. The girls wore strange lumpy, butt-covering panty-like garments under their tutus. Not the magic endowment garments, but thick panties with rows and rows of ruffles sewn on so that the shape of the female bottom was completely obscured. Heaven forbid that a girl should have a butt and that someone should see its shape.
Boy Scouts: it's a big deal to become an Eagle Scout, and for that you need to hike 50 miles. It's the numbers that are important, not the quality of the experience. All good Mormon boys must make Eagle Scout, so some of them hike 50 miles along a highway.
Donny and Marie Osmond.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
July 9, 2009 11:27 PM
Nominal Egg @ #124
Toungue-in-cheek
I don't need you to manage my expression or language.
Cheers.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 9, 2009 11:27 PM
Russel @ 125:
"What I want to know is how to tell whether something is natural or not."
You are slightly misunderstanding the term 'entity' in this discussion. Cryptozoology is a blind ally; there are four forces in the universe (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity). Mass is equivalent to energy times the speed of light squared. Objects may be closer than they appear.
If chupacabra or the Loch Ness Monster were actual creatures, they would be natural, in that I have no doubt they would not eat pixie dust and crap lollipops. While it is true that technically one cannot distinguish what is natural from what is empirical (except epistemologically), that doesn't mean that rational thinkers are mistaking one for the other.
As for how to tell in general what is natural and what would be supernatural, the answer is: on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: rmp | July 9, 2009 11:29 PM
Madame_Furie, you sound similar to me. This blog and the God Delusion where what gave me the courage to say what I've felt for 40 years but was 'afraid' to. I'm not saying that the 'closet' we live in or that the discrimination we experience it of the same par as racism or sexism but it does exist.
Sometimes it seems that people like Cris Mooney want us to stay in the closet.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 11:29 PM
That was pretty memorable. Too bad this year's effort was f*cking abysmalPosted by: lose_the_woo
|
July 9, 2009 11:29 PM
Nominal Egg @ #124
But perhaps you could help manage my spelling. Apparently the spell check wasn't enough.
Toungue = Tongue
Cheers.
Posted by: Aero | July 9, 2009 11:30 PM
"It's genuinely remarkable how many people say they've read his book, and then walk away to claim that Dawkins says science "entirely precludes God's existence."" That seems to be what their own mind hears him say because they know that if they believe science, their own mind (because of the way they are) will deny to itself that God exist. That is their problem, not science's problem.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 9, 2009 11:31 PM
Madame_Furie #130:
Just like I said in another thread here yesterday: when I was making my slow, painful move away from being a magical thinking fool the accomodationists provided the stepping stones for me to cross the divide, but I never would have used them without being challenged by the confrontational atheists. Simply assuring a religious person that science is compatible with their religion doesn't make them wan't to learn more about science, it only assures them they're right about their religion.
And one more thing: if you're engaged in any kind of intellectual pursuit and you're not challenging beliefs, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: MattMc | July 9, 2009 11:33 PM
Fuck Yea
oops
Excellent post PZ.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 11:35 PM
Rick @117: oh, yes, one more telling moment from personal experience: Standing in line at the local movie theater and hearing a middle-aged couple proudly brag to another couple, "We've never seen an R-rated movie! And we never will!"
Does narrow artistic taste predict dogmatic attitudes? An ex-mormon named McCue (I think I have his name right?) took that subject on at
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon554.htm
Posted by: rmp | July 9, 2009 11:36 PM
Two things.
First, in #139 is said 'where' instead of 'were'. Not that it matters. My grammar sucks.
Second, my uncle is in poor health and may die soon. My sister said that she only recently realized that my uncle is an atheist and how sad that was. I then asked her why that made her sad because I was an atheist as well. I'm pretty sure you could have heard a pin drop as this just isn't the way we were raised. For what it's worth, I told her not to tell my mom. No need being stupid!
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 9, 2009 11:37 PM
Lynna, I'm not sure where you get that it's required for an eagle scout to walk 50 miles, but it's wrong. I'm an eagle scout (or was, I can't get figure out if one is still an eagle scout after realizing they are atheist) and I never had to walk 50 miles. Shit, I don't think I ever had to walk 10, although I did go backpacking often. There's many more things you can legitimately criticize the boy scouts (and Mormons) for.
Also, great post PZ.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 9, 2009 11:38 PM
Alex #137
If you're going to make a tongue in cheek statement you should make it obvious that you're being tongue in cheek. Your original post #106 did not make it obvious. Since you failed to observe this point, your comment was smacked down.
If you don't like your expression or language being managed, then you need to be more precise in your use of language.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 9, 2009 11:39 PM
Erm, the Aqueducts?
You must admit that religions have provided vastly improved job prospects for soldiers, and psychiatrists.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 9, 2009 11:41 PM
Sorry, Alex. That didn't come through at all. My apologies if I mis-read.And PZ doesn't need you managing his.I'll drink to that!Posted by: Unity | July 9, 2009 11:47 PM
People made fun of his talk of "billyuns and billyuns", but it was affectionate, because at the same time he was talking about these strange, abstract, cosmic phenomena, everyone could tell he was sincere — he loved this stuff.
You don't know the half, PZ.
I'm just one of at least a dozen British kids from a secondary school physics class who, more than 25 years ago ( and at the age of 14-15) could pull off a near perfect imitation of one of Carl's signature lines from Cosmos - "The ooniverse is a wundiful place".
Sagan's vocal mannerisms were part of his charm and his passion was infectious but, for that group of teenagers, what made Cosmos unmissable was his gift of leaving you with the feeling that the most wonderful thing about the universe was that we could figure it out and understand how it all works.
And I can still pull off that particular affectionate impersonation, even today.
Posted by: Rick R | July 9, 2009 11:50 PM
Lynna, the R-rated movie thing. Gak. That one just really says it all about that cult.
The idea that "Ordinary People" and "Basic Instinct" are equally bad and sinful and unclean.
That is truly brain dead.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 11:50 PM
Monkey Deathcar @147: Yep, I could well be wrong about the 50 miles for Eagle Scouts. I was repeating what I was I told by a Mormon mom. I didn't check it and I should have. Also, I may have misunderstood her. She might have said "50 miles total" or something like that. Anyway, the hiking along the highway part is correct.
Apologies for any error. I stand corrected.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | July 9, 2009 11:54 PM
Er, hate to barge in and comment on a commenter, but can I just put it out there that the next Molly vote that comes up I'm voting for Lynna?
Oh, yeah, and another great post, Perfesser Myers. You are on a serious roll, lately. Lots of good reading these days.
Posted by: cthellis | July 9, 2009 11:55 PM
Why do I have the feeling that Mooney's going to be all "You fool, you didn't look at Chapter 10! That is where we answer EVERYTHINGS!!! Did you even READ our book?!!" until you address it directly?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
July 9, 2009 11:56 PM
'Tis Himself,
I read you here commonly and accept your criticism. I post here in occasional "bursts" and am usually fairly sarcastic. That said, replacing testability with reality did not seem to me to be an overt dig at PZ. Perhaps in the future I'll choose to be more overt about my congenial intentions. Or perhaps not. I'm not sure I was off-base far enough too deserve a reprimand from a fellow thinker. But it's all good 'Tis. You have my respect.
Nominal Egg - it's all good. My post garnered the defensive reaction of 2 fellow thinkers. That alone deserves my consideration. I did not mean to cause such a fuss. I think this (PZ's response) was not only a well written piece, but a thoughtful challenge to those who think that treating forceful powerful religionists with kid-gloves is productive - or wise.
Posted by: Rick R | July 9, 2009 11:56 PM
Lynna @ #145- "Does narrow artistic taste predict dogmatic attitudes?"
Actually, I think it's probably the other way around.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
July 9, 2009 11:57 PM
Thanks for the pep talk PZ! I'm so riled up right now I feel like picking a fight with my fundy cousin!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 12:00 AM
Jason A #143
Accommodationism doesn't want the goddist to feel bad. "There, there, you can believe that Big JuJu created the world by squeezing out a massive turd, just remember that the turd is 4.7 billion years old."
Science is about reality. Let's look at the universe and determine what's there.
Religion is about stories and "ghosties and ghoulies and long legged beasties and things that go bump in the night." A major facet of religion is assuring people that however nasty life is, there'll be pie in the sky when you die. Religion, particularly the fundamentalist flavor, is anti-reality. The world is 6000 years old because a 17th Century bishop, making guesses from a 2500 year old book, determined that age. Don't confuse goddists with facts, their minds are made up.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 10, 2009 12:01 AM
Lynna, not a problem. Also, you could be correct that the troop her children belonged to required walking 50 miles or some nonsense. The rules aren't as rigid as you would suspect. Anyway, I know what you're trying to say about the organization. Luckily like most of those type of organizations I didn't find out about their craziness until I was 20 and they passed down the official word that "the gayz are bad," or some BS (it might have been a court case). I also didn't find out about the role Mormons played till around the same time.
What I'm saying is criticize them for that kind of anti-gay and anti-atheist stupidity, because it's way beyond the stupidity of trying to get kids to walk a bunch.
Sorry for the off topic posts. Carry on.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
July 10, 2009 12:03 AM
Again with the spelling, well this time, it could be considered grammar. #156
too = to
Apparently, I am in less-than-good-form this evening. Sigh.
I surrender. Damn Sminroff. Wait...what am I saying!!!
Posted by: Michael | July 10, 2009 12:09 AM
I'm impressed. Makes me want to do a better job teaching science and math at school.
I think what a lot of the politically-correct atheists are aiming for, but don't properly explain, was explained quite well in a 60 Minutes episode looking at the Ganges in India. A group is trying to get the 'mother river' cleaned up, and to stop people dumping sewage in it. However if they tried to tell people that the river is filthy, the people just covered their eyes at the insult to 'mother river' and ignored them. However if they took the same people to the river, discussed its spiritual importance, and then took them to see the sewers pouring filth into the river, then the people were all in support of getting things cleaned up.
Unfortunately I don't think the analogy will work for the religious - trying to show them the importance of science in their lives, and how their actions are hurting it. I really think we need a (an undercover) preacher who goes into a church and challenges the flocks faith. "How strong is your faith in the Lord? Are you a believer or a follower? Why do you believe in the Lord? Is it just because your parents and community have always told you that there is a god and you never questioned it? Then that is a shallow faith my friends, like believing in Santa Claus. You need to seek out the truth for yourself. You need to seek the Lord so that he is revealed to you. So go out there, question your beliefs, why do you believe, and seek out the real answers no matter how scary they might seem at first. In this the unbeliever is your friend. Ask the _______, the _____, and the atheist. Find out why they don't believe what you do, and you'll have part of the answer."
Sorry for the sermon, but it would be fun to see...
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 10, 2009 12:12 AM
Actually, Lynna is pretty close to correct about the hiking. To be an Eagle Scout, a kid has to earn at least 21 merit badges, one of which must be hiking or swimming or cycling. Part of the hiking requirements are:
5. Take five hikes, each on a different day, and each of at least ten continuous miles. Prepare a hike plan for each hike.*
6. Take a hike of 20 continuous miles in one day following a hike plan you have prepared.*
Found on http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/mb/mb061.asp
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Lynna | July 10, 2009 12:13 AM
Rick @152: Sometimes I need not just a summary, but the whole story to see how deeply religion can affect the personal lives of believers. Religious teachings can be like a tumor that's reaching its fingers into every part of the brain. Church-related lifestyle prescriptions seem so alien to me that I have to see or hear all the details to gain some understanding. This story really got to me:
He said he knew his talk on not seeing Chicago bothered some people and that was his intent. Those that were bothered would either respond with sincere repentance or anger. (Now I see the double-bind I was warned about!) He complimented my wife for unburdening her soul. He just wants to be sure that "wife" and I are progressing together.
It was clear that "wife" did not tell him that I was ticked and for that I am grateful. But then he went into the silent routine after asking me if there was anything that I would like to tell him. I tell you I was so uncomfortable. I felt like a deacon again. So I slipped and told him that I know "wife" confessed about liking the movie Chicago but that since I did not feel guilty, I saw no reason to see him.
He then told me that this is how Satan deceives us and that I should be grateful to have such a spiritually aware wife. He then chided me for not having the reversed role, that is, I should have been the one to see the evil and lead my family more effectively.
He then asked me if there were other issues that I did not feel guilty about. I could not believe that! I was so upset that I did not answer. He looked at me and said my name with deep sincerity. I answered, "No" but with a lot of emotion. Then he says, that my spirit is crying out for the truth and that I need to search my soul (what is the difference between my spirit and soul?) for the inequities in my life and resolve them with the proper priesthood authorities.
Dang it! I fell right into the trap! I thought this would go well and then go away. Now I am supposed to fast and pray about my life and schedule an appointment with him next month. I feel stuck. If I confess then I am guilty. If I don't then I am hiding something and I am guilty.
I got home and "wife" cheerily asked how it went. I did not snap at her, but she could tell I was upset. This morning she probed at breakfast but I still didn't talk.
Why the heck did I go to the meeting? I can't focus at work. I can't talk to my wife. I don't want to talk to the Bishop again, but if I don't, I will still be in trouble.
I thought the truth was my greatest ally. Seems like honesty just ...ah forget it.
Just venting. sorry for bothering you all
Posted by: Lynna | July 10, 2009 12:24 AM
Uh-oh, blockquote fail @164. Everything below "This story really got to me:" should have been within the blockquote.
Posted by: Criswell
|
July 10, 2009 12:24 AM
Shorter PZ: "So why do you care what other people think".
PZ's prose *is* very much Feynman like, despite one snippy disagreement from another commenter above who seems to conflate an excellent prose style with, I suppose, publication record and honours at the Nobel scale (Feynman had all of this - a rare ability and I sure don't have it).
Personally, I'd trade some of my own science publications to be able to write as well as PZ or Cuttlefish (among many other OM's and more regular commenters here).
"Praise" does not equal "sycophant"; it is offered when someone writes a spot-on article. This fits.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2009 12:25 AM
@Jack Mitchum #84
You've also got to remember that the brainwashing includes the idea that these are Things Not To Be QuestionedTM, and sometimes a blatant "How can you believe that nonsense?" can be a more effective way to start that questioning than "have you considered you might be wrong?" Mostly because in the second question the answer is "No, I know in my heart it is right." Or, the "It's what I believe" which, under accomodationist thinking, ends the argument then and there. A lot of these people have never really examined their beliefs, taking them for granted as being true. Forced to defend them against attack, many will look behind their castle walls and find painted sackcloth on timber frames where they thought there was stone.
The point is that there are times when being gentle is more effective than being brash, and times when the reverse is true. Sometimes you need a pat on the back, and others a kick in the ass. Wisdom comes in knowing which approach works the best under any given circumstances.
Mooney, on the other hand, is trying to tell us that the brash, kick in the ass approach never works. He's wrong.
Posted by: MAGonzalez | July 10, 2009 12:26 AM
AWESOME!!!!! I felt pumped up reading... similar as me when someone blasts me with some ridiculous religious Bullshit and I start going on and on and on...
When will they realize the world is ROUND and all over, millions and millions of people believe different things.
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BRING CERTAINTY IS SCIENTIFIC AND METHODICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES.
Its what brought us Penicillin, Vaccines and Chemotherapy.
Going into my field, Science is the reason we have dental implants and porcelain bridges to replace teeth instead of twisting seashells (there is evidence that was done in early civilizations) into our missing teeth sockets...
NOT RELIGION.
Posted by: Emilie | July 10, 2009 12:26 AM
I have never posted here and am only an infrequent lurker. I am a former scientist who today is completely focused on education. To be honest I am relatively new in developing my knowledge on this war between science & religion, which to date I cannot see as more than another example of monkeys flinging poop at each other. (Hmm...does that count as a 4-letter-word, PZ?) So yes, I am currently of the spineless, fence-sitting "can't we all just get along" camp, I suppose.
Why post now? Couldn't keep my mouth shut because this may be the best thing I've read here. Excellent piece--I hope it gets around to the masses. But (always a but) the brilliance for me came in the latter half. Good thing I kept reading. The comments on Sagan and on the next gen of science communicators had me out of my chair, applauding.
But you nearly lost me at the beginning, because it was the same ol' monkey flinging:
Would you believe that for all the fervor of their certainty, none of them have ever adequately answered the question?
Well of course not, sir, they are not answering the question using methodological naturalism, and thus the answer does not meet your requirements. Why should they care? They do not apply that formula.
Instead of monkeys flinging, perhaps it's more like birds of different species twittering at each other, both saying, "What gibberish!"
While I often disagree, I wholeheartedly appreciate your role in this debate, I respect your thoughts, and will read more often. But I think we do need to keep looking for someone to communicate science to the masses without the side dish of anger and throwing-up-of-hands while screaming "idiots!".
Posted by: Goldenmane | July 10, 2009 12:28 AM
Well said, PZ. But I'd like, if you don't mind, to take it a little further, or perhaps a little sideways.
Some here will be familiar with me. Now, I'm not a scientist, having only done half of a Bachelor degree (in physics) and that a decade and a half ago. I am, however, a fairly passionate advocate for science (and against religion).
Now, I work in a suburban pub. I am, for all intents and purposes, just a regular bloke, a simple member of society. I'm not a politician, I'm not (no longer) involved in media (I did some years' work in community television and related things). I am, however, reasonably well-informed when it comes to science on a broad level. I couldn't tell you the details of the latest research into cancer, or speak at length on the details of M-Theory, but I can give a broad overview on much of what science tells us and how. I spend much of my free time learning - while others are playing video games, I'm generally reading up on the latest discoveries, and I do this because it is so much *fun*.
Recently, I've become more actively involved in science advocacy in my community, specifically regarding the intrusion of dogma into legislation (although only on a small scale - I've been writing letters to the editor of my state newspaper). There's a thread about it over on the RD forums, if anyone's interested.
Now, here's my point: you don't have to be a scientist to be an advocate of reason and science. And it doesn't have to be on a huge scale. It can be done locally, and all it requires is being marginally well-educated and somewhat vocal. Hell, I explain sciencey things to my mates at the pub, and I'm perfectly happy to challenge claims made by the religious in such a situation. I see no reason other than fear for taking an accommodationist stance, and strongly reject the notion that faith is deserving of the respect it has for so long claimed.
Faith deserves respect, we are told, and we are told so by those who have faith and don't wish their authority to be challenged - and that authority rests entirely upon their own claims to have it. Kowtowing to this fanciful notion is simply dangerous.
Posted by: Abbie | July 10, 2009 12:28 AM
Science must cut off ITS balls.
Science must tighten HER corset.
INTERESTING.
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 10, 2009 12:30 AM
What's an OM?
Posted by: MAGonzalez | July 10, 2009 12:30 AM
AWESOME!!!!! I felt pumped up reading... similar as me when someone blasts me with some ridiculous religious Bullshit and I start going on and on and on...
When will they realize the world is ROUND and all over, millions and millions of people believe different things.
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BRING CERTAINTY IS SCIENTIFIC AND METHODICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES.
Its what brought us Penicillin, Vaccines and Chemotherapy.
Going into my field, Science is the reason we have dental implants and porcelain bridges to replace teeth instead of twisting seashells (there is evidence that was done in early civilizations) into our missing teeth sockets...
NOT RELIGION.
Posted by: MAGonzalez | July 10, 2009 12:30 AM
AWESOME!!!!! I felt pumped up reading... similar as me when someone blasts me with some ridiculous religious Bullshit and I start going on and on and on...
When will they realize the world is ROUND and all over, millions and millions of people believe different things.
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BRING CERTAINTY IS SCIENTIFIC AND METHODICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES.
Its what brought us Penicillin, Vaccines and Chemotherapy.
Going into my field, Science is the reason we have dental implants and porcelain bridges to replace teeth instead of twisting seashells (there is evidence that was done in early civilizations) into our missing teeth sockets...
NOT RELIGION.
Posted by: Grant N | July 10, 2009 12:30 AM
Yikes!! 40 new posts since I started reading. Probably 50 by the time this makes it in.
It's like try to board a bullet train between stations.
PZ, you just plain kick @$$. You make it look so...EZ,PZ.
Most of the superlatives have already been expressed, so
I'll just say it was one of the most enjoyable reads of late.
I kinda got the impression, that like a conscientious custodian who is enjoying his task, you were calmly whistling while you were 'mopping' the floor of their vacuous cranial cathedrals.
Book title suggestions/themes:
Oh My !Dog(ma), EZPZ, Pharyngula Zealots I've Known
Scuttlefish, I think your services are required at your Scientific Greeting Card Company. Outstanding in your 'Sea of Green'.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 10, 2009 12:30 AM
Nominal Egg,
So I guess it's a case of everyone is right (and wrong). I probably did the swimming one because I was a competitive swimmer from 7 - 17. I likely qualified for the swimming badge 30 times over. Maybe I did the hiking one also, having run cross country from 12 - 18. Anyway, it's not a big deal. It's a weird organization, but if it didn't have those other crazy bigoted rules, making someone hike a total of 50 miles over 5 different hikes wouldn't really bother me.
Posted by: Cyberguy | July 10, 2009 12:33 AM
*Gives standing ovation*
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2009 12:36 AM
@Monkey Deathcar #160
Not to butt in, but I read Lynna's post, not as a criticism of the Boy Scouts requiring kids to hike 50 miles, but as a criticism of the Mormon's approach of doing it along a highway. Technically, it follows the rules, but misses the spirit of the requirement.
Of course, I might be completely wrong.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 10, 2009 12:40 AM
A virtuoso performance, PZ. Thank you so much for this. It's unfortunate that Moony & Kirschenbaum will never, ever get past their tedious throat-clearing to offer any sort of substantive response, but their mewling concerns are all but swept away by the power of your words. Way to be, dear man.
Speaking of which...
Mr. Man, re: "OM", please see: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 10, 2009 12:42 AM
Thanks Jennifer. Dang it, I almost figured it out.
Posted by: Lotharloo | July 10, 2009 12:42 AM
That was a long awesome read. There are many things that I can quote but I'll go with this:
That is possibly one of the best lessons that I learned from my supervisor (who gives excellent presentations). I remember one day I showed him the slides I had prepared for a presentation and he complained that it is bland and boring with no climax. He suggested that I imagine that I am telling a story; I should build up the interest of the audience, engage them and then finally awe them with the interesting and the climatic part of the talk.
It all started to click at that point!
Posted by: Teleprompter | July 10, 2009 12:44 AM
Emilie @ 169,
"Well of course not, sir, they are not answering the question using methodological naturalism, and thus the answer does not meet your requirements. Why should they care? They do not apply that formula."
Did you not read the following paragraph of PZ's essay:
"Now, now, I can hear the defenders of religion begin to grumble, there's more to life than merely material products like microwave ovens — there's contentment and contemplation and a sort of subjective psychology of ritual and community and all that sort of thing. Sure. Fine. Then stick to it, and stop pretending that religion ought to be a determinant of public policy, that it can inform us about the nature of our existence, or that it provides a good guide to public morality. Get it out of our schools and courthouses and workplaces and governments, take it to your homes and your churches, and use it appropriately as your personal consoling mind-game. And stop pretending that it is universal and necessary, because there are a thousand different religions that all claim the same properties with wildly different details, and there are millions of us with no religion at all who get along just fine without your hallowed quirks."
The main point I derive from this that's relevant to your criticism is that PZ maintains that proponents of religion often DO apply the formula of claiming beneficial real-world results in practice, but also claim to believe in something that is extra-worldly at the same time. This is contradictory and confusing.
Posted by: Rick R | July 10, 2009 12:46 AM
"Not to butt in, but I read Lynna's post, not as a criticism of the Boy Scouts requiring kids to hike 50 miles, but as a criticism of the Mormon's approach of doing it along a highway. Technically, it follows the rules, but misses the spirit of the requirement."
This^^^
Coupled with the bizareness of making the MPAA a spiritual authority.
Posted by: Eric | July 10, 2009 12:48 AM
I am one of those young scientists who aspire to bring science to the masses. I have had the pleasure of meeting PZ and hosting him here in L.A. I work in embryonic stem cell biology and I recently took part in a short documentary regarding ES cells and the ethical quandaries therein.
I am also not afraid to engage the ethics and moral issues just because I am a scientist. I think it is high time we use our critical thinking, skepticism, and genuine passion for knowledge to engage in thoughtful ethical arguments as well.
Please check it out if you have time. I welcome any criticism.
http://vimeo.com/5432938
Password: stemcells
Thanks everyone!
Posted by: Lynna | July 10, 2009 12:53 AM
Religion as an all-consuming lifestyle dictator is slowly dying in Idaho and Utah. When my father first traveled here in the 1950s he had to pay more for a motel room than his Mormon companion. There was definitely an us-versus-them vibe.
If we could take A. C. Grayling's advice and put religious organizations on a par with trade unions and other self-selecting groups, the influence of Religion would diminish more quickly. And we could question the motives, decisions, and political aspirations of believers without being reminded to be humble and respectful.
Attitudes and habits -- they're hard to change because we're often not consciously aware of them. So sometimes we need to rudely disagree in order to be heard. Religious organizations depend on instilling habits of tithing, of compartmentalized thinking (or of even refusing to think), and of emotion unchecked by intellect.
It's that last habit that I think responds best to ridicule. You can't affect it with logic or reason, but a good joke can turn on the light. In a recent thread, PZ brought up a comparison of atheist comics to religious comics. Well, no comparison really -- the atheists won hands down. And the more rude, the better.
Rude comedy at its best turns the us-versus-them vibe into a weapon against tribalism. The comedy depends on contrast to work, and it appeals to emotion.
PZ, and a lot of commenters here, are most effective when combining rude with funny. I would add some good dirty words here, but we are currently in gentle mode for our sensitive accommodationists.
Posted by: mezzobuff | July 10, 2009 12:53 AM
A standing O from me, PZ! Beautifully written (as a classical musician I loved the music/art comparisons). Bravo and thank you. Really, thank you.
Posted by: rmp | July 10, 2009 12:54 AM
Eric, I was young once but I forgot what is was like. Is it good?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 12:57 AM
Emilie #169
I was one of a group that spend several threads arguing with two people who not only insisted that the Noachian Flood occurred 4000 years ago but there is massive, irrefutable evidence for the flud. The third or fourth time one of them claimed that there were tsunamis massive enough to carve out the Grand Canyon while simultaneously the flud waters were so still as to allow a phenomenon known as "water lensing," the urge to scream "idiot" was very difficult to resist.
The argument about accommodationism is about style rather than substance. I'm sure that Mooney and Kirshenbaum accept evolution, a 4.7 billion year old Earth, a 13 billion year old universe, etc., etc., etc. What they want is a mild "perchance you might be wrong about the formation of the Grand Canyon" rather than "only an idiot would think it was created in just a few months." Because only an idiot would think that, especially when presented with contrary evidence (which was steadfastly ignored).
Sure, everyone likes to have their egos stroked and nobody likes harsh words thrown at them. But if somebody is shown time after time after time that their beliefs are (a) not supported by any evidence and (b) there's massive amounts of evidence pointing at a completely different idea, then that somebody is being willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is used by spoiled five year olds to get their way. Mature adults shouldn't be guilty of that failing. If the somebody doesn't like being shown the evidence and being told that willful ignorance is not a mark of maturity, then it's their problem, not the problem of the people doing the presentation.
If I make a claim and you show me that I'm wrong, I'll accept the correction. I may not be happy, but I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la I can't hear you." That's because I'm a mature adult. But there are a lot of goddists who are proud of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la I can't hear you." Am I supposed to respect their immaturity?
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 10, 2009 12:58 AM
Yes, this. Especially if it's happening in Utah, which offers some outstanding hiking opportunities.Posted by: Lotharloo | July 10, 2009 1:03 AM
If Mooney and Kirshenbaum are reading this, I have to say this is the main point!
The best example that I can think of is the religious explanation for consciousness. At the very least, the main sects of both Islam and Christianity consider an "immaterial soul" responsible for consciousness. But what does this claim mean? Is it consistent with the notion that the human consciousness could be explained by biology which is based on the known laws of physics? Of course not. What would be the point of "soul" then. The only other alternative is that this soul has an effect on human body which cannot be explained through laws of physics, which is "above science" as they put it. Fine but that means the laws of physics must be violated somewhere in the brain.
But consciousness is something that we feel all the time. So according to the religious claims, the laws of physics are being violated all the time, somewhere in the body of all the conscious human beings. That not only is a very big claim but also one in the realm of science. Why Mooney and Kirshenbaum demand us show to respect? Why they are being so modest? They should demand us to accept the notion of soul if enough evidence is produced in favor of it. From my understanding no one demands respect towards "aquatic ape hypothesis" or any other unproven hypothesis. Why settle for respect when we can go as far as acceptance? (by the way, I did not mean to say aquatic ape hypothesis is at the same category as existence of soul; I apologize if I offended anyone.)
Posted by: Slaughter | July 10, 2009 1:08 AM
"And shouldn't shaking up that complacency be exactly what scientists do?"
I thought that's what they always did. The good ones, anyway.
Posted by: Eric Dutton | July 10, 2009 1:10 AM
Following James Rieman DVM (at #15), I'm poking my head up as well. I, too, read your blog everyday and I wanted to say that this is a beautiful and persuasive piece. I was introduced to the acomodationist problem through this blog. You have persuaded me that religious superstition should not be merely rejected but should be fought wherever it advances. I would have stood with the acomodationists not long ago. So, I hoped you might appreciate hearing from one of the minds you've changed.
Posted by: Lynna | July 10, 2009 1:13 AM
tsg @178: Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say, that the Boy Scout experience had been downgraded. Hiking 50 miles (at once or in pieces) is a good thing, but doing it along a highway replaces a good experience with a mediocre/bad experience. The emphasis was only on checking off that item on the Bishop's list: "Yes, all the boys in my ward made Eagle Scout."
Personal anecdote: When I was working on my Utah Wilderness guidebook I came across the kinds of trashy messes you hate to see. The two worst of these were left by Boy Scouts. In the High Uinta Wilderness they even left a trail of snack and candy wrappers. We could track them by the mess. On the Kolob Terrace in Zion N.P. they did not dig proper latrines. Several times we saw boys and their leaders on wilderness trails without proper equipment (no rain gear, overloaded backpacks, etc.).
At first I was confused. What the heck? The Boy Scouts are supposed to be an organization that prides itself on teaching boys wilderness skills. Now I'm no longer surprised to see rotting canvas tents, boys with blisters, trash strewn all over the damned place, and everybody praying. No doubt there are exceptions thanks to good leaders, but overall the Boy Scouts in Utah need some kind of quality control.
Posted by: windy | July 10, 2009 1:13 AM
Not to butt in, but I read Lynna's post, not as a criticism of the Boy Scouts requiring kids to hike 50 miles, but as a criticism of the Mormon's approach of doing it along a highway. Technically, it follows the rules, but misses the spirit of the requirement.
Maybe it's intended to keep them off the Appalachian trail.
Posted by: Silver Fox | July 10, 2009 1:14 AM
This is a quote that was posted on the Christology thread.
"A couple of the sessions, though, are funded by the Templeton Foundation, which sounds much less fun."
There may still be some here who are not familiar with the work of the Templeton Foundation, what they do and what they promote.
If you live anywhere near the Mayo Auditorium, University of Minnesota, then on Wednesday July 22,2009 about 4:30 in the afternoon you can bring yourself up to speed. In the Templeton Foundation Press Release 2/12/09 they promote this Evening with Swami Veda Bharati. It is sponsored by the University of Minnesota, Center for Spirituality and Healing. There will be two sessions; the first, Yoga, Ethics, Spirituality and Healing. The second session is Tibetan Medicine, Ayurreda and Yoga in India.
This is going to be a seminal event since Swami Veda believe that "the ultimate aim of Yoga is the total transformation of humanity into beings of pure divine energy."
This might be a sellout so you are urged to make reservations early by calling 612-624-9459.
I would be inclined to suppose this is sponsored by the Templeton Foundation not only because it is advertised by them, but, I do know that several years ago, Mary Jo Kreitzer, Ph.D, Director, Center for Spiritualty and Healing had two lengthy phone calls and wrote a lengthy letter to Charles Harper,Ph.D, Executive Director of the Templeton Foundation promoting two programs the University had in development concerning "faith-health initiatives". She notes that across Minnesota health agencies are expanding services to meet the unique spiritual and religious needs of a diverse population.
She was seeking the Templeton Foundation's "partnership" in advancing this initiative.
She notes that the curriculum proposal had received extensive input from several seminaries, University of Minnesota faculty, clinicians and clergy.
She requested a meeting with the Foundation and invited them to visit the campus.
Remember to get those requests in early.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 10, 2009 1:17 AM
PZ, I am also in the PLEASE WRITE A BOOK category. Supposing any of my current job applications or resumes are accepted, I'd buy that on the day it came out!
I think I remember that one guy in that Baron Munchaussen movie having a war hero executed because his actions might make the average soldier feel uncomfortable or inadequate or something.
Of course, in the palpable anti-science atomsphere of that film, the pro-mediocrity anti-exellence guy was being portrayed as the science man, while only people who believed in a bunch of fantastical absurdity could possibly appreciate excellence in any field. While out here in reality-land, it's the other way around, isn't it? :) Though I'm sure, it being an eighties movie, that some kind of anti-Soviet angle might be subtly at work in there.
OT, but I find it amazing that these people can't simply appreciate the absurd and fantastical without believing in it hook-line-and-sinker. I can have fun watching creepy "true" ghost stories (more subtle than the admittedly untrue ones)and be sufficiently creeped out, and yet I don't believe in ghosts. I can get absolute chills and yet at no point do I believe in the supernatural. It's just a creepy story that appeals to and draws from that psychology we all have when we're alone in the dark and we hear an odd noise.
(Though I'm sure some would tell me that I actually believe in ghosts and I just don't want to admit to it! Whatever they need to do to insulate their beliefs, I guess.)
Moreover, I don't know about anyone else, but I feel far more wonder and awe and reverence towards the universe itself when I was in my college science classes or when I watch Nova or read some articles in Pharyngula or listen to Richard Dawkins or Neil DeGrass Tyson speak (man, that guy is infectious!), or just contemplate some of those aspects of the natural universe that we take for granted. Seriously, when I go out at night and look up and really think hard on a fully conscious level about how small Earth is and how far away those stars are and how much empty space is actually between me and those stars, or even the moon and try to get an image in my head of all of it......Or look at the movement of my hands and actually think hard about all those nerves and muscles and all that stuff I learned about in my Bio 101 class about how they work, and think about how that's happening right now...
Well, it's infinitely more awe-inspiring, humbling, and even life-affirming than any belief in magical things ever was for me.
Posted by: Miguel | July 10, 2009 1:17 AM
Fuck off! If someone says they have faith (fuck, I hate that word) in fairies, I piss myself laughing. Same goes for any kind of religiot. Respect? My arse!
Posted by: Gorogh | July 10, 2009 1:18 AM
Very well put, PZ. Thanks for giving me a good start in the day.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 10, 2009 1:25 AM
'Tis Himself #159:
What you're describing is what I see as the real problem with hostility to science. Virtually everyone nowadays understands that it's very important that your beliefs not contradict science - just see how they try to hijack science, ID as an example. And that's how they deal with it: they know their beliefs shouldn't be refuted by science, so when science does refute their beliefs they adopt a conspiracy theory by which ideologically driven scientists are hiding the truth about the True Science™ which actually confirms their religion. The problem is they know science is important but they don't know why, they just see it as another authority which it's important to listen to (insert psychobabble about herd instinct or whatever). So True Science™ should be science that conforms to their beliefs, when it should work the other way around.
What you're describing is that people simply don't like being challenged, they have an attitude that whatever they believe is legitimate just because they believe it, science-the-authority should conform rather than challenge. The accomodationist position enables this attitude, but it's totally antithetical to science-the-quest-for-knowledge. What we need is to move to a place where openly challenging beliefs is at least acceptable if not desired.
Posted by: Rick R | July 10, 2009 1:32 AM
196- "Seriously, when I go out at night and look up and really think hard on a fully conscious level about how small Earth is and how far away those stars are and how much empty space is actually between me and those stars, or even the moon and try to get an image in my head of all of it......"
The opening shot of the movie "Contact" illustrates this really well. Zemeckis has an annoying penchant for style over substance, but that pullback from earth, sailing faster and faster into space, hearing our transmissions moving backward in time, until there is only vastness and silence, really leaves the viewer gobsmacked. Perfect.
As a kid, my dad took me to see "2001", and I'll never forget the shot where we see the Discovery spaceship, tiny in the frame, as two small meteorites tumble past in the foreground. Where did they come from? How many countless eons ago did they begin their journey? Where are they headed?
I can't think of many moments that made me contemplate the vast loneliness of space like that did.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 10, 2009 1:35 AM
And also, I felt profoundly cheated in life when I took my two natural science gen-eds in college. In my Catholic school, science was mostly glossed over in favor of deep and intricate studies of how God's mind works and what little hokey-pokeys must be done to please Him and reap His favor. Public HS was the same, minus the Jesus. If I'd had a proper science education as a little girl, I might have been a science major. I thought biology was amazing until I took a chemistry class and thought I'd just about wet my pants! (In the good way, of course--science has since become something of an aphrodesiac for me. Natural science anyway, and not so much engineering. Sorry. ;D)
I am required to take a physics class for my second animation degree, as it relates directly to that art, and I am actually looking forward to it! As opposed to the dread and intimidation I felt before when my first college science class was nearing.
And that just goes to show what damage this accomodationist baloney can do. It was because my science education was either glossed over obligingly, shunted aside in favor of superstition, presented as arcane and beyond comprehension, or made boring and irrelevant for the purposes of being inoffensive that I couldn't give even half a care about science and was in fact a bit afraid of it until forced into it in college. Accomodationism does not help either science nor does it help rational thinking, but it plays right into the hands of the anti-science religious zealots who, as has been pointed out, are not mutually accomodating. Try to accomodate an uncompromising zealot and you lose every time.
And I have been a very good girl here, as requested, because my actual language when I normally discuss my stunted science education (and where accomodationists can stick it) is extremely spicy and colorful, because I am extremely infuriated about that. So you're welcome. :)
Posted by: Emilie | July 10, 2009 1:37 AM
'Tis Himself #188
I actually agree with you, though I come at it from a starkly different angle (as I am not an atheist). I am frustrated and confused by attempts to try to "prove" events "documented" by religious tomes using scientific methodology. All too conveniently, perhaps, I have always considered them metaphor.
I am inspired by Demonhype's words (#196) of his "awe and reverence" for the natural world and even for the ways of scientific discovery. In fact, that's what fuels me. But this awe and reverence does not diminish my faith and sense of spiritual connection with nature. I do not consider the latter "magic", but given my limited tools as an observer, I am unable to apply the scientific method...yeah yeah yeah, you've heard this one before I bet.
And then there's the argument that spiritualism is different from organized religion. Agreed. I am uncomfortable with the ways that mankind has manipulated spiritualism. But I am also uncomfortable with the ways I witnessed mankind manipulating and distorting data in order to get more grant money. I'm not willing to throw out either baby with either stinky bathwater.
Posted by: Lynna | July 10, 2009 1:42 AM
In what organizations, or in whom, do we vest authority? Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to be asking us to vest at least some authority in those that profess a belief in God. I'll show them respect as fellow mortals, but refuse to grant them the cloak of authority.
I think that's one of the points PZ made so well, that if science can't say anything about the existence of God, then neither can the priests. Okay, nobody knows. Nobody gets to wear the authority cloak for that particular subject.
I'm much more likely to grant some measure of authority to a self-declared expert that admits she/he doesn't know everything, or is unsure about some things. You scientists, you do get to say you Know something with a capital "K" -- you Know you're not infallible.
Posted by: abb3w | July 10, 2009 1:43 AM
The problem is the definition of the term "nature". From the standpoint of the New Atheists, if the entity is part of experience, or is a cause of experience, it is part of "nature" by very definition of "nature".
Which means to distinguish Philosophical Naturalism from the Methodological, the theologists need to give a rigorous definition for "nature" that allows for "supernatural" to be defined in turn.
Which they don't.
Posted by: Demonhype | July 10, 2009 1:43 AM
@200--I didn't see the opening shot of Contact, but I saw the ending. BTW, thanks, now I'll have to dig out my copy of 2001 and watch it again! :)
Really, there is really so much about the universe to discover, and so much to be in awe of regarding what we do know, that I can't understand someone who has to invent fairies to make it all meaningful.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 10, 2009 1:46 AM
Contact is on TNT right now :)
The opening sequence is one of the best in film, IMO.
Posted by: Rieux | July 10, 2009 1:50 AM
Taking off on a rather irrelevant tangent, for which I'll blame Rick R @ 200:
It is a nice opening sequence, and in a technical sense it's a well constructed film--but I get consistently annoyed at the degree to which perfectly nice and sensible atheists miss the fact that Zemeckis's movie (not Sagan's book!) is a friggin attack on its protagonist's unashamed atheism! The whole point of the flick, as illustrated in the climactic Congressional hearing scene, is to slime unabashed atheism as unthinking dogmatism. It's an accomodationist attack on New Atheism, dating from several years before Harris wrote The End of Faith and a silly magazine even coined the term "New Atheism."I say we stop praising Zemeckis's Contact because it's a brutal hatchet job on honest, hard-headed secular science.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 10, 2009 1:50 AM
abb3w #204
Yes, I've told people before that 'supernatural' is essentially a nonsense concept since nobody can tell you what it is, exactly. Same goes for souls, spirits, ghosts, etc. Instead of being about what's natural or supernatural, it's really about what is or isn't.
Posted by: malendras | July 10, 2009 1:54 AM
OK, I've very rarely commented on here before. I mostly stick to reading this blog. But this post, I have to say, is absolutely incredible. My thoughts on atheism and science - stated far more eloquently than I could ever hope to. I'm bookmarking this, re-reading this, and I'll probably quote this post multiple times in the next few weeks. Well done, PZ!
Posted by: bob | July 10, 2009 1:54 AM
Fantastic post, PZ. Bravo.
Slightly OT, but that seems okay at this point in the comments. Does anyone know Mooney/Kirshenbaum's opinion on the skeptical movement? I ask because I'd like to know where they draw the line on which faiths to respect. Things like astrology, alternative medicine, and Bigfoot are ultimately faith-based, since there's certainly no good evidence for them.
This point is also relevant to the on-topic religious issue (i.e., do they respect the faith of suicide cultists?), but I'm interested to see what they'd say if you remove religion from the equation. Also, I'd love for some True Believer apologist to call me a New Skeptic, especially if it's in disgust.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 1:54 AM
Wow. This is one of your best posts ever, PZ. Stirring, rational, coherent, uncompromising, yet.... basically polite. ;-)
Well done.
Posted by: Michael X | July 10, 2009 2:10 AM
Yeesh, I dropped by this thread of 200+ comments expecting to run into a flurry of trolls (or at least forthright accommodationists) and instead it's like a love-fest in here! Not that I can knock your post PZ.
Though I'm going to bet the bank that the infamous "Chapter 10" is going to get thrown at you again and again until you directly address it.
Oh yeah, and finish your book already...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 10, 2009 2:28 AM
Silver 'Kichijōten's is a light that never goes out' Fox wrote:
Yeah, it's amazing what
a certain kind of peoplethe ethically deficient who can spot a sucker will pretend to take seriously when it means increasing their income for so little expenditure. What better way to make a profit than charge for healing prayers and voodoo dances? Everybody wins!Well, except for the credulous idiot who's seriously ill but thinks their health has been improved by some chanting, of course. But that's unlikely to bother a piece of human excrement like you, is it SF?
Don't hold your breath, dumbass.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 10, 2009 2:47 AM
Seminal? Hardly. It takes a special kind of stupid to think such a transformation is even possible, let alone preferable.Posted by: Paul G. Brown | July 10, 2009 2:55 AM
Bravo!
I've read some of what M&K have written on this. In their one-cheer defense, they're political pragmatists. They are trying to co-opt, rather than exile, the religious. So I don't really take their flailings about the failings of The New Athiests too seriously. They'd do better imo, not to talk about them at all.
PZ nails 'em here.
Posted by: SteveN
|
July 10, 2009 3:03 AM
Late to the game, here, but I too feel compelled to congratulate PZ on his wonderfully written piece. His outlook on all this seems to perfectly match my own, which would make me an obnoxous militant atheist, I guess, although I think 'rational person' is more accurate.
This quote from Mooney and Kirshenbaum's book made me throw up in my mouth a little:
PZ, you SO need to write a book exposing and mocking the sheer intellectual dishonesty of such nonsense. It would sell well, I'm sure.
SteveN
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
July 10, 2009 3:13 AM
That was an enthralling and inspiring piece to read first thing in the morning! As so many others have already said - please write a book!
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | July 10, 2009 3:14 AM
Bravo!
I've read some of what M&K have written on this. In their one-cheer defense, they're political pragmatists. They are trying to co-opt, rather than exile, the religious. So I don't really take their flailings about the failings of The New Athiests too seriously. They'd do better imo, not to talk about them at all.
PZ nails 'em here.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 10, 2009 3:15 AM
Sorry, PZ, but I know that Zeus, Hera, Athena, Apollo, etc. are real. I've heard Militant Atheists in Churches deny their reality, but the MACs can't prove the Olympians don't exist.
Furthermore, I know that Zeus is love, but also has thunderbolts; Apollo is love, with a bow and arrows; Poseidon is love, with a trident; Aphrodite is love, with ... OK, you asked us to keep it clean. Militant Atheists in Churches can deny this all they want, but deep down they know it's true. As far as I can tell, the MACs are dogmatically aping some guy named Paul, who was on acid or peyote or something near Damascus when he had a bad trip and decided the True Gods are actually demons.
We know he's wrong, first because their prophets among the ancient Greeks say so, especially Homer; second, because everyone deep down knows the Olympians are real; after all, we are a "democracy," which comes from the Greeks, who got it from the Olympians; third, because the Greeks discovered atoms, which the Militant Atheists in Churches denied for centuries, until modern science proved the Olympians had told the truth to the Greeks.
The Greeks had proof that the Olympians were real. Just read Homer - he got his words straight from the gods. He tells us so. And I've been reading the "Argonautica" recently, in which Apollonios of Rhodes tells us how Jason and the Argonauts, on their historical quest for the Fleece, were granted a revelation from no less than Apollo himself on the island of Thynias. He didn't just manifest himself to the Argos crew, but his massive form shook the whole island, and great waves sloshed against the shore as he flew off, carrying the dawn with him. I can't help but compare that with the wimpy caricature of a god in a certain cult whose "god" can't do more than set a bush on fire or kill a fig tree with a curse. Apollo could ram his arrows up that god's ... sphincter muscle without breaking a sweat. Militant Atheists in Churches, of course, simply close their eyes and chant "Voodoo loves me, this I know" rather than admit the reality of Apollo and the other Olympians.
I admit to a certain agnosticism about other gods. But I recognize there is evidence that the Olympians are not alone. In the 33rd century B.A.M. (Before the Apollo Mission - see we still worship the Olympians in the names of our spaceships, no matter what MACs say), the Hittite Empress Pudahepa reports (primary source here) that she had a vision from no less than the goddess Ishtar: "at that time Ishtar my Lady appeared to my wife in a dream, saying: " 'Before your husband I shall march ... (Ishtar will watch over the royal family if) ... you too, make me, Ishtar, your patron goddess.' " Pudahepa was named for the goddess Hepat, but as a direct result of this divine revelation, she became an Isthar devotee.
I take this as proof that at least the Middle Eastern gods are real. I've heard Militant Atheists in Churches deny this, but how can anyone read these first-person accounts of the Olympians and other gods and not recognize that they are confronted directly with the sublime, the transcendant, the ineffable, the very spirit of love (and with Aphrodite, the very carnal, but I confess some prejudice in her favor, given her luscious lips, her ripe figure, her firm ... OK, I'll keep it family friendly.)
So, sorry, you're wrong, and Militant Atheists must be nice, in Churches or elsewhere, and not anger the followers of the True Gods or you will turn them against science (OK, that's a little improbable, as the Olympians gave us knowledge of atoms, a spherical Earth, the tides, navigational computers and other intellectual treasures). But still, we must respect the people who know the truths about the Olympians. If not, we'll soon see books chastising skeptics, such as "Un-Olympian America" and "The Anti-Zeus Delusion." Besides, it's blasphemy to deny the True Gods and outrage their followers, or soon will be ... at least in Ireland. Can't wait to see the Militant Atheists in Irish Churches frogmarched to jail for their blasphemies against the Olympians.
Posted by: amon | July 10, 2009 3:18 AM
exceptionally good, well written and a smack in the face for religious idiots
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 10, 2009 3:24 AM
So where did the term 'New Atheists' come from? And what distinguishes them from the 'Old Atheists'? Were the old ones cuddlier and quieter, or something?
Posted by: Grant N | July 10, 2009 3:36 AM
OT, but I've just been regressing through the J&M strips and this one just about made me fall off my chair...honest, I've only enjoyed one cocktail this morning.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/03/18/lift/
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 10, 2009 3:43 AM
"So where did the term 'New Atheists' come from? And what distinguishes them from the 'Old Atheists'? Were the old ones cuddlier and quieter, or something?"
Nobody knows what the old atheists were like, 'cause they were polite and kept that fact to themselves.
Posted by: blotsalot | July 10, 2009 3:55 AM
Fantastic!
PZ, you are my God.
oops, god.
oops,,,never mind. I just think you are one of the most articulate and eloquent voices of reason today. You deserve your place on the Mt. Rushmore of New Atheists for that one piece alone.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 10, 2009 3:57 AM
Well,I guess that's the core of their argument and of the current disagreement.
Going through it word by word,the first thing that occurred to me was,why do they say we have to "adopt" a stance of respect?? Isnt that what is happening right now, and what the New Atheists are being critisized for trying to change? Isnt religion being touched with silk gloves and people's woo beliefs of talking snakes and virgin princesses for foreskins treated as legitimate beliefs right now?
I call BS on this one,since thats what currently happening.
As to the question of the god experience being outside the realm of science, well, again, so was the "lightning" experience, or the "eat a rotten apple and you get funny in the head" experience, and "that apple falls down towards the earth everytime" experience, or the "the sun rises every morning" experience, and we have figured those out by now.
Ignoring their misrepresentation of Dawkins' position, that he didnt say that god is impossible, just very unlikely, there is nothing preventing science from making inroads and gaining knowledge of how and why the human brain generates, benefits from, and requires, the god delusion, for comfort and feeling warm and fuzzy.
Posted by: kev_s
|
July 10, 2009 3:58 AM
Re: yoyo | July 9, 2009 9:50 PM
As long as the law prevents them from torturing and burning non-believers, we don't. However 'respect' might be a good survival strategy in some countries.Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 10, 2009 4:00 AM
PZ
Add my voice to people calling for you to write a book. Several books.
Frankly your science writing is "open" - your writing voice is plain spoken and knowledgeable, neither so arcane that the layperson can't get it, nor dumbing things down so the layperson feels stupid reading it, and your social writing is passionate, clear and honest.
This post is good first book material, expand on it.
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2009 4:00 AM
M and K, so young, attractive, and educated, and so very disappointing in their spineless blathering.
Magnificent post, PZ. I suggest for your book, get Cuttlefish to compose verse to front each chapter.
Sooth, you mistake passion for anger. And even if PZ was angry, anger is just an emotion, like all the rest, love, envy, etc.--about which nothing to get your panties in a twist. All emotions have their uses. Without them, we would not get up from bed in the morn. In other words, noting one's anger is not enough evidence by itself in identifying that the person may have a problem, unless of course, you considered being human problematic.
Jim Harrison, I hope all the straw from the straw men you like to construct don't smother you or become a fire hazard. You could clean up your mind and live a safer life?
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2009 4:09 AM
And the joker that admonished another commenter for nicking PZ as the Feynman of Biology because PZ just writes a blog. Now, there is a bloke that really does not get it.
Blog writing is a very potent means of communication and disseminating ideas and encouraging discussion, thusly changing the zeitgeist. And that is the common ground that PZ shares with another passionate lover of science and rationality, Feynmann.
Posted by: CapeTownJunk | July 10, 2009 4:24 AM
Alex @ 161:
In Soviet Russia, Smirnoff blame *you* for mistake! :)
Posted by: Brain Hertz | July 10, 2009 4:30 AM
Fantastic! Thanks for that.
Oh, and this:
Well, you know, I'm thinking given the context, that the reference was to Feynmann's noted skills as a communicator of the subject, which it seems PZ is also rather good at. But that's just me.
Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | July 10, 2009 4:37 AM
Yeah, let's join the choir.
Great post PZ!
Far more interesting than the review of the book, I loved your passionate defense of Science.
It's time to get vocal.
Posted by: PapaHans | July 10, 2009 4:55 AM
Wow.......................Mr. Myers, no one could have put this any better. I am in awe. It's always a blessing when you see, or read, or talk to someone whose lights are on, and everybody is home. Bravo.
Posted by: me2 | July 10, 2009 5:21 AM
Brilliant, brilliant post PZ!!!!!
I'm getting so tired of being labelled a militant atheist or "new atheist" just because I say I'm an atheist or simply because I question someone's beliefs. The above quote says it all.
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 10, 2009 5:22 AM
Kudos, PZ. In its kind, this is almost the post to end all other posts. If people such as Mooney don't get it now, they never will.
Like other posters, I think the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism is a straw man argument. Philosophical naturalism is essentially the position that an entity ('God') that never interacts with anything in our universe does not exist. This is such a vague statement, that it is virtually meaningless. In this sense, the word 'God' is not only undefined, but it is impossible in principle to define it. Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, deals with entities that interact within our universe. In this sense, the Christian God is an entity that is clearly a potential object of scientific scrutiny, since those who believe in him claim that he interacted, and still interacts, with the physical world we live in. Therefore we are fully justified to ask: where is the evidence of this interaction?
Since there is no evidence, we will assume that the Christian God does not exist until some irrefutable piece of evidence convinces us otherwise.
Posted by: Rich | July 10, 2009 5:39 AM
Thanks.
Posted by: Peter Sim | July 10, 2009 5:53 AM
I'm astounded at how PZ can blog so prolifically at such an exceptionally high standard! I'm constantly educated, entertained and amazed at this awesome blog.
Posted by: Nick | July 10, 2009 5:53 AM
Thanks for an awesome bit of writing PZ - inspirational.
Posted by: Peter Sim | July 10, 2009 5:55 AM
I'm astounded at how PZ can blog so prolifically at such an exceptionally high standard! I'm constantly educated, entertained and amazed at this awesome blog.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 10, 2009 5:57 AM
PZ, you are as awesome as ever. Thank you for saying better some of the points I tried to make in the previous thread, where I was one of those commenters that got Looney's panties bunched up when I told him that a) Nobody cared what he thought, and b) to fuck off.
Oh--wait--was I not supposed to use such a word here, in case the Stockholm Syndrome set showed up?
Too fucking bad.
Looney can still fuck right off.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 10, 2009 6:02 AM
Another thing Looney tends to forget: Nobody has to respect anything or anyone. That's all a personal choice, and cannot be forced. He's as bad as the religionists trying to impose their morality on the rest of us, to dictate to anyone who or what anyone must respect.
Another reason why Looney can fuck right off.
Yes, I'll probably end most posts about Looney with that send off.
He'll get over it. :)
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 10, 2009 6:12 AM
I thought this post was very well done. I wonder if Mooney will ever actually respond, since so far he has failed to respond even to the first round of criticism. Oh well.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
July 10, 2009 6:14 AM
Thank you Dr. Myers for making easier to "laugh" at the universe!! I'm also feeling strong stirrings of kinship with my Finnish brethren!! Long live the spirit of Attila The Hun!
Mooney and Kirshenbaum, you both need to quit hogging the chamber pot and go back to wearing your diapers.
Posted by: Madeleine | July 10, 2009 6:21 AM
Madame_Furie calls the post she links to on my blog "the usual anti-science/accommodationist drivel" and then immediately concedes "I didn't even read it all" followed by "I've started the comments on the Productivity blog."
In other words she made up her mind before reading and understanding the argument and then she began commenting on it and posting links to it making assertions about its content.
Funny, I thought scientific method differed somewhat from this technique.
The link in question is not "anti-science" it is an argument based on acceptance of the claim that it is wrong to teach that a religious belief is true in a state owned school because it affronts the rights of atheist parents. Dr Flannagan, author of the post, simply calls for consistency in the application of this argument.
Perhaps Madame_Furie would like to revisit MandM and actually read it.
BTW if you want to start a discussion on someone's ideas, try leaving a comment on the blog the discussion it was actually written on instead of blogs that happen to link to it or blogs like this one that do not.
Posted by: Jack
|
July 10, 2009 6:24 AM
Righteous.
I love it when you really decide to go for it, PZ. And my god, religious apologists like Mooney and his mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing, gutless kind make my gorge rise. They're worse than the religious. It's bracing to see them shredded as comprehensively as this.
Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 6:49 AM
Bravo, PZ!
Inspired, and inspiring.
I see it as the coda to your series of posts on accomodationism; it is superlative.
Posted by: Daniel Pope | July 10, 2009 6:59 AM
"God is love" is my favourite religious slogan.
They literally mean, AIUI, "The creator of the universe is the human emotion of affection".
What delightfully insane gibberish!
Posted by: Deen | July 10, 2009 7:06 AM
This post has my nomination for "Blog post of the year" already.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 10, 2009 7:15 AM
At least the book served a useful purpose, it inspired PZ to write a memorable piece.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 10, 2009 7:24 AM
Excellent PZ - exceptional. For those of you who wonder how PZ can be so prolific and prolifically excellent I will share a secret: PZ is really Gandalf and can summon many Elves to do his bidding with only a strike of his staff. I know he'll deny he is .. but his students - those that are stoners and wise - know this and have revealed such to me. I'll pass it on to you but don't tell anyone else - especially his trophy wife who would like more g-d work done around the house.
As to this god-science thing my 2 cent bottom line is: there is no god in science - cannot be - no how no way. Once you inject god or gods (the supernatural) it ain't science anymore baby. Simple as that. No compatibility.
Anyone has a right to their god fantasies I guess .. and as #244 Madeleine alludes: in State settings those representing the State have to avoid preaching atheist non-belief for its own purpose as theists must do (avoid) for their belief. But a scientist - a teacher - a "public" figure like Collins - with honesty - has to be clear about this: there is no god(s) in science! It's an impossible mixture by definition. What is so hard to understand about that?!? And stating that fact is not the same as stating "there is no god(s) period!"
But privately (not representing State) any of us can preach - and preach against fantasies per se that others constantly try to impose on us. Why not? why would we not be able to defend our freedom and reason and rationality with all the power afforded to free people with free speech? Why hey use all forces and cleverness to try to enslave us in their delusions don't they?!? And if nuttiness is obvious and persists after all elegant and gentle ways of correcting - why would be not be able to say (in some form): "be careful - that guy is plain nuts and dangerous!"
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | July 10, 2009 7:25 AM
Microwave ovens? Any person who respects their food (and their bodies) wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole, let alone use one. It's just another piece of junk that overly domesticated people feel they need in their homes.
Posted by: ivo
|
July 10, 2009 7:26 AM
This message is so important to me. I'm thankful that there exist people such as PZ who are able and willing to say it out loud for all to hear.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 7:27 AM
me2 #234
Mooney, Kirshenbaum, Nisbett and the other accommodationists object to atheists making their presence known, let alone questioning goddists' beliefs. Apparently the mere existence of atheism is upsetting to goddists. The "new atheist" meme is just an expression of this objection. Back in the bad old days, atheists knew their place. With a few notable exceptions, like Bertrand Russell, atheists didn't make their presence known to the believing masses. Mooney et al feel that atheists should go back into the closet because, as we all know, making goddists comfortable is the prime motivation of the "old atheists" like Mooney and the Mob.
Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 7:32 AM
[OOT]
Pikemann Urge @251, your baseless disdain of a technological convenience is noted with amusement.
Posted by: F. Bacon | July 10, 2009 7:33 AM
I have had the religious ask me, "if you don't like public education and its institutions, why don't you set up your own?".
I might like to ask, why don't we? We have seen that public education has been infiltrated by religion as well as our scientific institutions, so someone among us who has the money and influence needs to create an alternative educative and scientific institution which does not rely on supernatural presupositions for its sustenance.
If, as we claim, such an institution would greatly benefit society, and since society does not wish to avail itself of such benefits by such an institution, let it be of, by and for atheists/secularists; derived from secular scientists/researchers, supported by secular donations and secular workers donating their expertise or time if need be, for secular students and research.
Let me present this proposition: Freethought University, with satellites throughout the land. Its educational campuses would educate every secular student at every level; primary, secondary and post-secondary. The benefit would be primarily invested in the secular community and so the secular community would no longer be beholden to the religulous (ridiculous religious) who hold back science and education at every turn.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 7:53 AM
Aw, PZ, tell us what you really think!
Hey, great piece. Woke me up better than my morning cuppa. Especially the consistency comments. Bullseye. And their deformed, debased grovelling before the sky faerie pontiffs. I almost wish you hadn't quoted that -- I've been slimed. I surely know I don't need to bother with this book.
Their advice is to submissively "assume the position" as you so nicely paraphrased. What a couple of idiots.
An injection of fresh, bracing, science is exactly what these believers need to kick their habit. What else could do it? Nothing. Check the convert's corner at RichardDawkins.net
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
Real (though not scientific) data ...
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz
|
July 10, 2009 7:58 AM
Joining the choir. I usually don't like the "me too" thingy but you're right on spot.
As a matter of fact, one thing that bother me most as an atheist is how so much people misrepresent what I am, think and feel. Although usually we cannot speak of an "atheist" point of view because atheism is just that, the lack of theism and faith in god(s) (not to mention the proverbial "flock of cats" thingy), you've really nailed it. The responses show it. It seems really one of the first time so much atheists agree on something.
What I hope is that not only the choir reads it and, finally, those who spend so much time battling some "new atheist" scarecrow or another will finally understand what we are, think and feel, stop hitting their different strawman and address the real thing. Well, hope is free.
Maybe you should write a book. Because you are expressing what I feel was missing in The God Delusion and similar.
Posted by: carole
|
July 10, 2009 8:06 AM
That was a joy to read PZ. Thank you.
I've bookmarked other pieces you have written, and I'd love to see them in book form. You probably don't need to write another word, you have enough stuff already.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 8:07 AM
If science is brought down the level of "Joe the plumber", we're all fucked, well and good. Every one of us, even the religious fruitcakes. Of course, they would probably like to go back to the ages before science. What with all those amusing executions, burnings at the stake, death by tooth decay or starvation, provincial stupor, rule by bullies. You know, the good old days when people were either too stupid or scared to question the authority of the priests.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2009 8:07 AM
I am writing a book -- it's what I'm spending my days doing this summer. I probably should have been working on the book instead of banging this out last evening, so don't make me feel any guiltier.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 8:10 AM
"I am writing a book -- it's what I'm spending my days doing this summer."
Whoo-hoo! I look forward to it with great anticipation! You've made my week!
Don't feel guilty about this post either: Superb.
Posted by: doug livesey | July 10, 2009 8:12 AM
Hell. Yes.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 8:19 AM
Himself @253
Exactly.
Atheism is older than religion ...
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 8:37 AM
See our President kow-towing the the raghead in Rome (oops, excuse me, Vatican City, LLC.)
Why does this person deserve even recognition, let alone an effing ambassador?!
Disgusting and degrading.
One of Obama's spokesmen even said this morning that [I paraphrase] given the pope's influence and his influence on Obama's thought (yikes!!), "this is more than just a state visit." Arrrgghh! Mr. Obama, this is not why I voted for you. I really thought all those religious noises were just window dressing for the foolish. Maybe this nonsense is too (Obama is a consummate politician). We can hope.
Posted by: CF | July 10, 2009 9:02 AM
First time posting, long time lurking. Great work PZ! Love the blog, but this one stands out as a work of art!
If its true you are writing a book, I think you should consider sprinkling Cuttlefish poetry in there somewhere...
Keep up the good fight!
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 10, 2009 9:07 AM
Mooney et al. (and a lot of secular/atheist philosophers) conflate the notions of naturalism and materialism; i.e. conflate epistemic method (how do we know) with ontology (what actually is).
If we interpret "natural" and "naturalism" as an epistemic method, then the quotation is obviously trivial; the quotation can be paraphrased as "Science is a specific way of know; only the results of this specific way of knowing counts as scientific knowledge." Well duh. In this sense, it's not enough to say that science is science; one must show that religion really is an alternative way of knowing. But of course it's not: religion just doesn't do any sort of epistemic job at all, in the same sense that a rentier is not doing any sort of a job, even though he's cashing checks.
The only way of interpreting this passage as non-trivial is to substitute naturalism-as-materialism in the second mention of naturalism (my substitutions in bold):
But of course that's nonsense: materialism isn't an underlying principle, not an a priori metaphysical commitment, it's a conclusion: Every time we try to explain something about the nonteleological particles and fields that constitute the "material universe", what's already there gives us a complete explanation. There's nothing about the methodology of science that says we cannot in principle find a non-material explanation; it's only that material explanations are the only sort we've actually found using scientific methodology.Posted by: Mosasaurus rex | July 10, 2009 9:13 AM
Hey PZ- what is the topic of the book you are writing? Evolution? Atheism? Both? A textbook?
And to join the chorus, thanks for the great post.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
July 10, 2009 9:16 AM
PZ, thank you for this great post.
It's inspiring :)
Good luck on the book.
May i suggest a title?
American education and the american Dark Ages.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 10, 2009 9:22 AM
I think a good choice for ambassador to the Vatican would be Christopher Hitchens. On a "take it or leave it" basis. No alternates.
One's an obnoxious drunken godless neocon. The other's an elderly Nazi virgin in a gaudy dress and a stupid hat. They fight crime!
It'd just be amusing to watch the Pope's head explode. Though it probably doesn't say much about my qualifications for the Presidency that I might make ambassadorial appointments based on whether or not the results would amuse me personally. :P
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 10, 2009 9:35 AM
phantomreader42, you have my vote.
Posted by: mike ferrell | July 10, 2009 9:37 AM
Terrific post. You have definitely nailed it. Thanks for the clarity and guts.
Posted by: Lynna | July 10, 2009 9:38 AM
@264: Interesting news coverage on NPR this morning quoted one Catholic dissing Obama as "apocalyptic." Stressing my irony meter so early in the morning!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 9:42 AM
And the anarchists!
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/philosophyatheism.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/cleyre/etf.html
Let's not forget that anarchists and others on the left fought hard against religious power, and suffered greatly for it.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
July 10, 2009 10:02 AM
Tis @ 253:
I completely agree with your post. The big difference between "New" and "old" atheists is that the New Atheists have come out of the closet and are making themselves heard. I'm straight, but I imagine it is similar to the experience of a GLBT person coming out. It was not easy in my case.
Adjectives such as shrill, loud, pushy, and far worse are routinely applied to any atheist who dares to speak out about the complete illogic of religion. We are considered ill mannered for pointing out that the phrase "I believe" does not merit equal standing with reality all can observe. Accepting the different way of knowing claptrap or NOMA or other can't we just all get along drivel is giving the godbots a forfeit win. Ignoring the fundamental issue is not going to make it all get better in the morning.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 10:10 AM
Science is definitely a performing art. We should never be shy in our communicating about science. I take particular pride that the most consistently positive feedback from my students is that I clearly convey enthusiasm for the subjects I teach and the underlying science (Social Psychology and Psychology Research and Statistical Methods).
Posted by: Carlie | July 10, 2009 10:10 AM
I probably should have been working on the book instead of banging this out last evening, so don't make me feel any guiltier.
All of my English teachers always said the best way to become a better writer is to do more writing, so all the blogging is just honing your skills.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2009 10:13 AM
I have had the religious ask me, "if you don't like public education and its institutions, why don't you set up your own?".
"We tried. You guys wouldn't leave the curriculum alone and kept trying to inject religion into it."
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 10:13 AM
Science is definitely a performing art. We should never be shy in our communicating about science. I take particular pride that the most consistently positive feedback from my students is that I clearly convey enthusiasm for the subjects I teach and the underlying science (Social Psychology and Psychology Research and Statistical Methods).
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 10, 2009 10:30 AM
"We should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear"
Well, yes. Let's respect people, let's not insult them outright. Sure.
But when we say to the Flat-Earthers and others "you're wrong", is that disrespect?
When we explain why they're wrong, and they take great care not to listen and not to understand, do we have the right to become a little less polite?
And I'll add my voice to the "write a book!" crowd. I have a very good argument for this, PZ. Many blog readers will buy your book, and you'll be rich. What about that?
Posted by: Madame_Furie | July 10, 2009 10:34 AM
@Madeleine and @Pharyngula readers
I'm just about to run out the door. Paryngula readers help me out, I don't have time to parse the article in its entirety, but I'm willing to bet my original assessment stands: The article is the usual accomodationist drivel full of the old tired canards along the lines of "Evolution is just a theory." http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/why-evolution-should-not-be-taught-in.html
The words are fancy (an numerous) but the argument is still fallacious:
and further:
(PC) The right way to answer questions of empirical fact--for example questions about the origin of life, the age of the earth, whether human beings have evolved from earlier forms of life--is by way of science, or scientific method.[12]
Plantinga notes that PC is not an empirical or scientific claim; it is rather a claim of philosophy or epistemology. Second, PC is a claim that contradicts the comprehensive beliefs of many parents. Hence, to justify teaching evolution as true, as opposed to just the best scientific hypothesis, educators would have to go beyond the mere scientific empirical evidence and teach substantive philosophical views that contradict the comprehensive views of parents.[13]
So in other words there are thousands of words in these two articles all dancing on the point of the "what is truth - really?" pin.
Bollocks. The whole thing is attacking a straw man.
As far as there is "truth" in science - as certain as we can be using the rational scientific method - we can be safe to state as fact that life on earth started from the process of evolution by natural selection. That's an inconvenient truth for some people because of their magical beliefs? Tough. Don't diminish my child's education because you can't handle "the truth."
I'm going on vacation now.
Posted by: Tim Drury | July 10, 2009 10:34 AM
Brilliantly stated. I'm bookmarking this post as a convincing and complete explanation for why we need outspoken and "in your face" atheists.
Regarding the statement that "science is also a performing art", I don't think this is accurate without some caveats (or context). As a software architect, I often hear that software development is "an art", but this is often used to excuse seat-of-the-pants development and not following processes and best-practices. In the same manner, science must be science first and foremost - not art. After the science is complete, then _presenting_ the science should be done like performing art to make it fun and interesting. Scientists don't take artistic license with research and facts, but they (like Sagan) can when presenting the research and facts.
-tim
Posted by: AAB | July 10, 2009 10:39 AM
PZ MYERS, WHY ARE YOU NOT WRITING BOOKS SO I CAN LINE THEM UP ON MY BOOKSHELF? PLEASE!! PLEASE!!
Posted by: Chris Mooney | July 10, 2009 10:41 AM
"The book is silent on the people who directly oppose science politically, culturally, in our classrooms, and on our radio and television."
Well, that was my first book. It was called The Republican War on Science. You liked it. I didn't think I needed to write it over again.
I suppose you think Robert Pennock, a hero of the Dover trial, is as foolish as you think we are about all this naturalism stuff? Because our arguments are all based upon his, and heavily cite them.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 10:58 AM
Hey, can it be that Kwok is really Mooney's alter ego? It might explain his prominence on the Intersection.
Posted by: Matti K. | July 10, 2009 11:00 AM
Mr. Mooney:
"I suppose you think Robert Pennock, a hero of the Dover trial, is as foolish as you think we are about all this naturalism stuff? Because our arguments are all based upon his, and heavily cite them."
Maybe Dr. Myers relies more on rational arguments, less on the words of authorities. Speaking of heroes sounds very juvenile, even naive, IMHO.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 11:00 AM
Hey, can it be that Kwok is really Mooney's alter ego? It might explain his prominence on the Intersection.
"You disagree with me? Then you must also disagree with my powerful friend!" It's Kwok to a T.
Posted by: bob | July 10, 2009 11:00 AM
Thanks for the whine and the appeal to authority, Chris. How's that detailed response to PZ's review coming?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 11:01 AM
We sad to say Chris, but a number of us would say your standards have slipped in the meantime.
Some of us still remember that disaster called framing you were so enthusiastic about.
Posted by: snex | July 10, 2009 11:05 AM
its always amusing how people will castigate dawkins et al for "not really understanding the theology they criticize," and then go on to accuse him of stating that science proves that god doesnt exist.
i even heard eugenie scott make this claim at The Amazing Meeting 4 (had you been there PZ you might have been there to challenge her on it =P), and it was rather disappointing.
Posted by: kermit | July 10, 2009 11:07 AM
JoshS "How many of you have noticed how often one gets accused being a blind sycophant when you praise the writing or ideas of someone like PZ Myers, or especially Richard Dawkins? It drives me nuts. It supposes your admiration is some dumb, non-thought-out tribalism. The accuser never stops to consider that it might have been the quality of writing and thought that drew you to become an admirer in the first place. "
Consider the possibility that some of them at least are deliberately using this misrepresentation to discourage their followers from understand that *some people at least think PZ or Dawkins or whoever have something worth reading.
Nothing more dangerous than having one's sycophants realize that other people have admirers who simply value their ideas, or the way the ideas are expressed.
Posted by: SteveN
|
July 10, 2009 11:12 AM
To Chris Mooney (#285): As you have read PZ's article, may I suggest that you also take the time to read the 200+ comments it initiated. This may give you an idea of just how wrong many of us think you are on this subject and how much we revile your dangerous accomodationist stance.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 10, 2009 11:18 AM
"I suppose you think Robert Pennock, a hero of the Dover trial, is as foolish as you think we are about all this naturalism stuff? Because our arguments are all based upon his, and heavily cite them."
If you really think that this can be considered an "argument" to a scientist... maybe you're not understanding this whole science thing. You're supposed to argue the issue, not trot out an authority figure to support you.
What PZ quite correctly pointed out is that methodological naturalism is sufficient to disprove the god of all but the most extreme liberal religious views, which we mostly don't care about anyways. Whatever Robert Pennock may have said about "this naturalism stuff" isn't going to change that.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2009 11:20 AM
Now come on. You expect people to actually read the whole chapter that is titled "Why God Almost Certainly Doesn't Exist" ? It is not like they will have read the chapter title on every page. Oh, actually yes, it is just like that.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2009 11:23 AM
I am not disputing the philosophical/methodological distinction at all. I am saying that Mooney and Kirshenbaum have miscategorized the "New Atheists" and are applying the distinction inappropriately and inaccurately.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 10, 2009 11:27 AM
Beautiful post, PZ - damn you! (You do all this in your spare time! Gnash gnash.)
Chris Mooney, about Pennock and naturalism and so on, see Russell Blackford's comment (# 8). The methodological naturalism/philosophical naturalism distinction is not as simple as you say.
Posted by: JoeT | July 10, 2009 11:39 AM
#283 The answer Chris is that although we may agree with Pennock on somethings, he can be wrong about other matters. So, for example, you started off one of your posts by quoting Pennock:
"Experimentation requires observation and control of the variables. We confirm causal laws by performing controlled experiments in which the hypothesized independent variable is made to vary while all other factors are held constant so that we can observe the effect on the dependent variable. But we have no control over supernatural entities or forces; hence these cannot be scientifically studied. (p. 292)"
So tell us Chris, how in cosmology, astronomy, geology and evolutionary biology are all the variables controlled and only the independent variable is allowed to vary? The problem, in a nutshell is that Pennock's definition of experimentation is too narrow and was purposefully constructed to exclude the supernatural. In turn, it excludes much of science as well.
Posted by: wildlifer | July 10, 2009 11:46 AM
I posted this on Real Climate. Mann has written a favorable review of the book without seeing the obvious conflict in the positions of the accommodationists. The post has yet to make it through moderation.
Mooney/Kirshenbaum Redux:
Posted by: Rorschach | July 10, 2009 11:51 AM
Argument from authority.Bit whiny.Bit desperate.
Mr Mooney,I dont know you,I dont know the background of your and PZ's disagreements,but it would seem to me that your arguments here are lacking any authority or conviction,and have been comfortably refuted by even the most casual commenters here.
Posted by: me2 | July 10, 2009 11:57 AM
Eidolon @ 274
I can relate. Since being upfront about being an atheist, I'd say most of my relationships with friends and family has been affected - although I wouldn't equate it with the experience of a GLBT person coming out. It's far worse for them.
However, now that I admit to being an atheist I am most certainly not going to be quiet and "behave" just so that someone and his sky fairy doesn't get offended. I don't see why I should feel the need to apologise for who I am or what I think. I used to try and take the accomodationist view; it doesn't work - believers see it as doubt or that you are pretending to be an atheist, as if it's a fashion statement.
I don't know of Chris Mooney or Sheril Kirshenbaum, but after reading through the comment section about the "Classic quote from PZ's blog" thread, and how it's been handled, I can only say that I am disgusted as their dishonesty.
Posted by: adobedragon | July 10, 2009 11:58 AM
Shorter Mad Mooney: Atheists should shut up.
The trouble is, atheists have behaved themselves and shut up for hundreds, if not thousands of years, when confronted with religious nonsense.
If the "dear" faith of the faithful is so tenuous that it can't withstand the criticisms (oh, excuse me, "condescending rhetoric") of a few vocal atheists , then it hardly merits respect.
Posted by: me2 | July 10, 2009 12:05 PM
"I can only say that I am disgusted as their dishonesty."
DOH !! I meant to say...
I can only say that I am disgusted AT their dishonesty.
Posted by: bsk | July 10, 2009 12:18 PM
I'm in that state of awe you get after watching a great film, not yet being able to compare it objectively to others because it's still so vivid in your memory - but this just might be my favourite Pharyngula post ever.
God damn, PZ, when are you going to write a book for us? I will order copies for everyone I know.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | July 10, 2009 12:26 PM
Been there, done that. Gotta get a T-shirt now.
Posted by: Me | July 10, 2009 12:33 PM
Not that I have read the Mooney book, but...
The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists—and neither does the stature of science in our culture. We should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear, and a sense of humility based on the knowledge that although science can explain a great deal about the way our world functions, the question of God's existence lies outside its expertise.
Wow... I bet some scientist said something similar when Copernican heliocentrism came about.
Posted by: DLC | July 10, 2009 12:36 PM
My idea of "accommodation" is to not call religious people deluded cowards. Instead I insist that they show me some objective, testable, replicable proof for their fantasy.
I guess I'll have to pile on with the rest of the bandwagon and say Well Done, PZ!
Posted by: Bryson Brown | July 10, 2009 12:38 PM
This is great stuff-- I continue to be irritated (and a bit bemused) by efforts, on the part of fellow atheists and pro-science writers, to get 'new' atheists (anti-theists) to shut up, while the same people refuse to even note the lunatic excesses of religion, let alone consider what might be gained by aggressively going after such excesses.
But I am more supportive of the methodological vs. metaphysical naturalism distinction. In fact, I think Pennock is (almost) right about ghosts. Belief in Jove the thunderer was not a purely supernatural position, because such belief included some of the obvious regularities displayed by lightning and thunder. Similarly, belief in ghosts could include some real regularities (and would have to, if it were to have some empirical standing). If it did, there would be a natural basis for study of 'ghost phenomena', but that basis would (like belief in Jove) be separate from the metaphysical interpretation of the phenomena as due to the actions of supernatural beings.
Methodological naturalism is grounded in and essential to the successful practice of science-- without it, we don't have adequate basis for constraining our interpretation of what we observe and coming up with new hypotheses (after all, if supernatural beings are messing with our results, all bets are pretty much off on what projections of those results to further tests would work). But with it, we've made fantastic progress in our ability to produce and predict all kinds of phenomena.
The implications for metaphysical naturalism are twofold: first, the success of methodological naturalism raises the question, what need do we have for non-naturalistic hypotheses? Here, I think the real question is about the descriptive/normative divide: but metaphysics is supposed to be descriptive, so it doesn't survive that shift in interpretation.
Second, having a successful way of investigating the world raises an obvious question about hypotheses that can't be investigated that way: How would we test them, if not by naturalistic means, and what evidence of reliability could be given, to justify such 'testing' methods? Some people (Plantinga) think that some such methods might just be reliable, without there being any way to persuade non-believers of this (and worse, naturalistic methods might just be unreliable, despite their success in achieving uncoerced agreement by appeal to regular, reliable methods of eliciting observation reports). But if we're free to adopt such purely circular justifications and reject any that achieve non-circular coherence and agreement based success, any damn system of belief is on the same footing, no matter how crazy.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 10, 2009 12:38 PM
I didn't know much about Mooney before this, but I have to say this whole episode hasn't left a good impression of him on me. First, he dismisses all the points PZ made in his first response the book by merely saying "not surprising, given that the book not only criticizes Myers but, indeed, identifies him as part of the problem." No response to substance whatsoever. Then, he takes some random quote by a commenter on this blog, misleadingly labels it "classic quote from PZ's blog", and again ignores all substance. Furthermore, he complains about the comments here while at the same time on his blog Kwok not only infests the comment sections, but used a misogynistic term there, despite the heavy filtering system (the comment has however eventually deleted). No doubt he would object if someone called Kwok's comment "Classic from Mooney('s blog)". Now, after being given two full responses he lamely gives some sort of argument from authority.
He has had the time to read the comments here and pick one that he thought reflected badly on Myers. He had the time to read this post and to post his argument from authority. Yet, somehow he has not found the time to argue about any of the points raised. And this is the guy scientists should be listening to about public relations ?!?!?
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 10, 2009 12:41 PM
what the "accommodationists" are really saying is that they are scared. That people who get passionate about things that they disagree with frighten them. History is littered with the victims of religion so they have a reason to be fearful. Has it ever worked this accommodation to people who so passionately disagree with you and that feel threatened by you?
Lets us face the facts and the ways of the "world" as they are. Unreason has and is threatening anyone who will not obey their authority.
It is too bad but unreasoning authority does not change objective reality in any way and pretending that does does not help in any way.
It is like asking Martin Luther King not to make the KKK upset just be nice the white people will come around and give you your rights, as if those rights are something that can be given. Truth does not require acceptance to be real it is real regardless and fools will still be fools.
keep the lamp burning there is still much darkness. Hold it high so all can see it!
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2009 12:44 PM
The "old" atheist, when asked "what church do you attend", would bow his head in feigned shame and say, "I'm not as religious as I probably ought to be" where the "new" atheist simply says, "I don't".
It's the fact that we're not ashamed of being atheists that really pisses the godists off.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 10, 2009 12:50 PM
tee-hee
from here:
Guess they really mean it!
Posted by: Jason | July 10, 2009 12:52 PM
This might be the best blog post I have ever read.
Posted by: Crapsquire | July 10, 2009 12:52 PM
PZ, you are the fifth horseman of the anti-apocalypse. Bravo!
Posted by: Big Frank | July 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Mooney's behavior so far has been a train wreck. He has come off as thoughtless, reactive, and pompous. This latest comment, along with his post on his website of a Genie Scott video ("see--she agrees with us") is nothing more than an argument from authority, which is no argument at all. I repeat the opinion: this guy obviously knows NOTHING about how to sell a viewpoint.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 1:01 PM
Sure, SC, anarchists were atheists. But that's what anarchists, certainly the 19th and early 20th Century ones, were supposed to be. The popular image (note that I'm referring to the popular image) of anarchists were bomb-throwing, free-loving, anti-authority, anti-religion, atheist wackos.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 10, 2009 1:02 PM
There's another thing...
"Science is a sublimely human activity and a central part of the best of Western culture…and of every culture on earth that aspires to be something more than a collection of dirt-grubbing subsistence breeders, propagating for the sake of propagating. It's what gives us the potential to reach beyond making do, that gives us the leisure and freedom to flower in the arts and explore the diversity of human experience. Even institutionalized religion itself is an incidental byproduct of the first clever dicks who thought to reroute the flow of a river to irrigate fields and led to centralization, urbanization, hierarchies of leadership, accounting, writing, and the whole avalanche of change that followed. It's important. Mooney and Kirshenbaum know this; it's what their whole book is about."
I'm not sure they do know this. That was one thing that struck me about the book, and one reason I hated reading it, and kept putting it aside because I needed fresh mental air. The love of knowledge and inquiry and finding out is not there. I only wish it were there. It's all horribly of the earth earthy; horribly limited and 'pragmatic' (in the dreariest sense) and calculating and minimalist. There is zero appeal to curiosity, to the joy of explanation and seeking explanation, to the joy of understanding. This despite their professed admiration for Carl Sagan! The mental world of the book is hideously small and stifling. I think that's the inevitable result of the whole idea behind 'let's tailor what we say so as not to offend anyone at all,' but it's also augmented by the lack of anything on the other side - any pause for a passage of the kind that PZ offered.
Maybe that explains why they don't seem to feel worried about witholding the joys of free thought from other people.
Posted by: Vortmax | July 10, 2009 1:02 PM
I hardly ever post here, but this is simply brilliant, a work of art in itself. A beautiful essay, PZ.
Posted by: antistokes | July 10, 2009 1:11 PM
YES, YES. MOTHERF**KING YES.
When I was a wee girl, I went to many schools (we moved a lot). Part of what helped me adapt to each environ were the drama courses I took. As a 3rd/4th grader, I was took the lead role in several plays...not because I had much talent! :) More, because I could memorize scripts very quickly, and was not afraid to "project my voice" in fount of a rather large audience.
I then got into science, though a chain of events that are OT. And in science, I found that having alllllll those acting lessons were frickin' useful!! "Project to the audience"! (If they can't bloody hear you, what's the point?? SPEAK LOUD!! Sorry, but I have attended many a talk wherein I have to move to the fount chair to simply hear the speaker!)
Also: "Tell a story"! --- Granted, a Story that links your figures together, BUT, you've got to have a narrative (preferably one that empathizes all the difficult work you have done!).
Thanks Dr. Meyers, for this wonderful post! I will purchase your book, in the name of promoting "teh numbers".
Posted by: Silver Fox | July 10, 2009 1:16 PM
"We do not insist a priori that gods cannot exist, we instead turn to all those people who insist that they do, and ask, "how do you know that?" - PZ
Theist "know it" in a way that you as an atheist can never know it. It is a different form of knowledge borne of faith. It is epistemic knowledge not ontological. Ontological knowledge borne of science and empirical observation of the natural world is the ONLY kind of knowledge an atheist has - by his own choice. This is why I have said before, "the atheist lives in half a world." To the thiest his epistemic knowledge borne of faith is real knowledge. It's not revelation, delusion, etc. To the atheist, this claim to knowledge by the theist is "made up bullshit". Every theist knows the atheists' position on that but consider that problem an atheist's problem and not his.
If atheists want to reduce the knowledge borne by faith to the level of scientific knowledge, then the burden of proof for proving the existence of God rests with them. Theists don't think that can be done but wish the atheists all the luck in the world.
Regarding accommodation, I have noted this before:
Accommodationists profess to want to take the adversarial “edge” out of the debate; they want this because they don’t see the nature of the ideological dialogue. The debate is not between two parties who don’t quite understand each other and can perhaps negotiate and compromise to a mutually agreeable position. In fact, the debate can’t even be framed in terms of “live and let live”. Neither side wants the other to live.
The New Atheists, in particular, see religion of any kind as a delusional abomination. They see parents who raise children in a religious environment as child abusers who should be prosecuted and either jailed or have their children taken away from them. They see these parents as depriving children of the use of their rational faculties by condemning them to a life of believing in mythical creatures and magical thinking. They deplore this intergenerational mind control.
Religious people believe in a God and the operant word there is believe. They believe on faith which they accept as a free gift of their creator and through faith and belief experience an epistemological transformation of their lives. They have subjective knowledge which sustains them in their religious and spiritual lives. This transformation is absent from the atheistic mind because they have rejected the gift of faith or ignored it.
Theistic people believe they are composed of a dualistic nature; their material bodies and their spiritual soul. They believe that material substances decompose and spiritual substances live on. Atheists are naturalist; what there is in the natural world is all there is. They exist only as material substance which will decompose when they die and that is the end of them. So, reason is important to them because that is what they use to develop a “realistic” appreciation of majestic glories of this world. This is what parents deprive children of when they acculturate them to “fairies in the sky”, angels and demons, heaven and hell.
Accommodation? I don’t think so and that is how it should be.
There is a not one self respecting atheist who would want to accommodate a delusional, child abusing parent who is hell bent on condemning children to a delusional mediocre life; there is not one self respecting theist who would want to accomodate a minority scourge of worthless putrescent rabble who are attempting to appropriate science as their exclusive domain to promote their main agenda, atheism.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 10, 2009 1:17 PM
Madeliene@244:
In response to your comment, I went to read the article in question.
(http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/why-evolution-should-not-be-taught-in.html)
I got as far as the fourth paragraph:
I'll have to agree with Madam_Furie, and will also likewise decline to apologize for not wasting more of my time with this twaddle. Public schools do not exist because all the parents got together to save money. Public schools exist because society has an interest in properly educated citizens, regardless of how ignorant their parents may wish to keep them. Evolution should be taught as true because it is true. Granted, it is true in the scientific sense, meaning it is the best theory to explain all the currently known facts, and is subject to revision as more facts and better theories arise. Nevertheless that makes it far more true than any 'alternative explanation'.
Are you insane?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 1:22 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about here, 'Tis. "Supposed to be"? WTF? And this wasn't their "popular" image - certainly not after the turn of the century - in countries like Spain (and to a lesser extent Italy, Argentina,...) where anarchism became a broad movement.* It is also the case that leftists of all stripes (anarchists, Communists, republicans) - running the gamut from the atheistic to the simple opponents of church power - have been persecuted for being anti-religious - imprisoned, children kidnapped,...
But what your post has to do with my point - that it was not just philosophers like Russell who were outspoken atheists in the past and we should appreciate the struggles of other, less widely-appreciated, individuals and groups in the history of atheist thought and activism (read the pieces I linked to above and see if you don't recognize the same arguments being made today; moreover, they contributed a layer of social analysis that appears to be missing elsewhere), I can't imagine.
*And I'll note that this wasn't the image of Kropotkin, who produced scientific works from an atheist perspective concerning the evolution of morality.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 10, 2009 1:24 PM
Brave Sir Mooney ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Mooney turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Mooney!
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 10, 2009 1:28 PM
Silver Fox sez: Atheists live in half a world.
Wolfhound sez: Theists think with half a brain.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 10, 2009 1:30 PM
Silver "proselytizer" Fox. Take your fallacious tripe elsewhere unless you are ready to show physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You have nothing cogent to offer to this blog.
Posted by: robinsrule | July 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Stated as a truism, but I've never heard a good reason why its true. Why can't science investigate healings, bleeding statues, omens in the sky, transubstantiation, the alleged good fortune of believers, or any other god-effect? If a god causes changes in the universe (as the religious claim,) then it can be studied scientifically, end of story.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 10, 2009 1:33 PM
Ah, here we go:
"However, we’re setting a deadline for responding to PZ and plan to post sometime on Monday."
I'm starting to see why their book is only 132(?) pages.
Posted by: dahduh | July 10, 2009 1:34 PM
Bravo, a brilliant encore to the first half of the review! I liked Mooney's first book but he seems to have gotten lost now.
Re this 'naturalism' shtick, methadological or philosophical: I don't know why we even bother with this tedious piece of academic theology. What the hell is 'natural' anyway? Science is the business of discovering objective truths and using them to build economical models with predictive power. Point. If it happens that the best models involve irascible woodland sprites under every rock, then so be it. But as it happens, they don't.
Posted by: uppity cracka | July 10, 2009 1:36 PM
seriously, dude, write a freakin' book. you're getting incredibly good at articulating an argument that i stumble over all the time. you will make a LOT of money, set up your family, and...most importantly...elevate the debate a few notches.
do it.
now.
because i said so.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 10, 2009 1:40 PM
PZ is on sabbatical this year to write his book. Patience!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 1:47 PM
As he mentioned in the past and @ #260 on this very thread.
OK. I'm calm.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | July 10, 2009 1:47 PM
You know, Silver Fox prattles endlessly about how theists "know" things through faith, but he never seems to bother to tackle the issue of how different theists "know" mutually contradictory things through "faith."
You can't just assert that you know the "real" god through faith, and other faith-based people who disagree with you about specifics aren't seeing this god as clearly as you are.
It's just more crap borne of bald assertions. SF claims he "knows" things, but he can't possibly demonstrate that what he "knows" is accurate rather than a deception. Forget about convincing atheists, how about convincing other theists who disagree about what this "god" of his actually is or what it actually does?
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 10, 2009 1:49 PM
No, no, no, Nerd. Silver Fox believes, er, um, KNOWS the stupid shit he holds dear is true. The burden of proof falls on those who DON'T believe in stupid shit to prove that the stupid shit is NOT true. Yeah, I know, he's got it ass-backwards but that's part of what makes him so precious. :)
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 1:53 PM
Carlie @276
"best way to become a better writer is to do more writing"
Like all things worth doing: Practice improves performance.
Posted by: Paul W. | July 10, 2009 1:59 PM
Chris Mooney,
For what it's worth, I'm somebody who's talked to Pennock about some of this stuff, both in his office and IIRC over dinner at my house. I respect and like him, and I agree with him about most things.
(BTW, I've also studied framing with Lakoff at Berkeley, and even done a little bit of framing work with him at his house.)
And I have to say this: like most Pharyngulites, I'm not impressed with your argument from authority. Nor am impressed with your straw men.
(In that, I don't think I'm anything special around here. Maybe just a little harder for you to unfairly dismiss as just a PZ fanboy or poo-flinging screechy monkey.)
Puhleeze, oh puhleeze address PZ's substantive points for once, and defend your position with actual arguments.
When are you going to seriously address Overton window arguments, rather than just repeating tired assertions that go the other way? When are you going to admit that your critics at least have a point that isn't just obstinate, arrogant assholery? When are you going to try to convince us that your arguments ultimately win out over countervailing arguments?
When are you going to stop playing the martyr card, misrepresenting people's reasons for disagreement?
When are you going to stop with the dismissive insinuations about their motives and address the freaking arguments?
When are you going to stop cherry-picking disagreements to address, to make your opponents look stupid or mean?
You'd get a whole lot more respect if you addressed the best and best-stated arguments against your position, rather than focusing on the worst ones, or getting worked into a tizzy about how they're worded.
That's how you actually win an argument in intellectually respectable circles. If you're not interested in that, don't be surprised if people just get tired of you and flip you off without bothering to lay out why, in detail, for the zillionth time.
At this point, it's pretty obvious that you are willfully slanting things, and evading substantive disagreements and criticisms to the point of dishonesty. Either that, or you're nowhere near as smart as I once thought you were, and are way, way over your head. Neither option is pretty.
And then you get all upset when people flip you a little shit? To most of us, a little profanity is not nearly as offensive as what seems like sheer weaselry. You waste our time and energy leading us around the same tired circles for months---years?---on end. That's excruciatingly annoying, and it's EXTREMELY BAD MANNERS. (At least among people who care more about content than about form.)
Just stop (a) consistently dumbing down the conversation and (b) insulting your opponents and (c) whining when people return the favor, and (d) insulting them again by misrepresenting it as sheer bad manners on their part.
You, Chris, have a real abundance of nerve.
By the way, Pennock is a Quaker, and at least nominally a Christian.
Evidently, you don't buy your own argument from the authority of Rob Pennock about matters of religion. Why should PZ?
If Pennock makes a good and relevant argument, by all means repeat clearly it here, or at the very least state the point clearly and give a citation so that somebody can go look up the argument and quote it.
Failing a valid argument, should we accept (your version of) Rob's position on varieties of naturalism, or should we perhaps agree with the majority of philosophers of science, whose positions are closer to P.Z.'s?
Even as arguments from authority go, yours is really bad.
And your poor-excuse-for-an-argument against P.Z. is even worse. The "of course he'd say that" ploy works better for PZ's position than for yours---of course Pennock would say something very convenient about naturalism for a Quaker whose views are not shared by the majority of philosophers of science. And of course you'd side with Pennock and attack P.Z., because P.Z. has disagreed with you and you've taken it so very personally.
It's really impressive that you attack P.Z. and then dismiss his rebuttal because because he's under attack.
What's that supposed to be, a preemptive first strike?
I'm truly apalled by the kinds of arguments you habitually make these days---and the kinds you don't.
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 10, 2009 2:01 PM
what the "accommodationists" are really saying is that they are scared. That people who get passionate about things that they disagree with frighten them. History is littered with the victims of religion so they have a reason to be fearful. Has it ever worked this accommodation to people who so passionately disagree with you and that feel threatened by you?
Lets us face the facts and the ways of the "world" as they are. Unreason has and is threatening anyone who will not obey their authority.
It is too bad but unreasoning authority does not change objective reality in any way and pretending that does does not help in any way.
It is like asking Martin Luther King not to make the KKK upset just be nice the white people will come around and give you your rights, as if those rights are something that can be given. Truth does not require acceptance to be real it is real regardless and fools will still be fools.
keep the lamp burning there is still much darkness. Hold it high so all can see it!
Posted by: Rick R | July 10, 2009 2:01 PM
"best way to become a better writer is to do more writing"
Certainly this is true, but I'd add "the best way to become a better writer is to read. A lot."
Not my original thought, just something I've heard many times from successful authors...
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 10, 2009 2:06 PM
@Madame_Furie:
Plantinga has a half a point, but only a half. There's no guarantee that any particular epistemic system, including science, actually yields truth. But this position presumes that truth is strictly or strongly independent of knowledge. (Weak independence -- that there are or might be true statements we don't know as true -- is not controversial.) Strong independence says that we are not philosophically entitled to make any statements about truth on the basis of knowledge. But that means we're not philosophically entitled to make any statements about the truth... period, full stop. Plantinga's view (though I doubt he would admit it) entails that truth is absolutely unknowable and there is nothing but personal opinion.
The bottom line is, if we're not entitled to label the the outcome of our epistemic methodology as some sort of truth, we're not entitled to label anything as truth, and the term becomes vacuous. Why even have schools, then? People are certainly capable of forming opinions without any sort of formal instruction whatsoever.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 10, 2009 2:07 PM
Bravo PZ! Even a fire breather like me needs a good pep talk now and then. Thanks, this is one of your best.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 2:09 PM
Mr. Mooney,
I see you've shown up here, briefly.
Please account for this plea for capitulation:
I asssume this is a correct quote from your book.
The American people gain nothing if the scientific community were to perform the craven abdication of its duty that you propose. You are forgetting that only the discoveries of science have driven away the ghosts of our primitive past and allowed people to be free of superstitious nonsense (and to have free speech and other important freedoms as well.)
Hey, we'd consider being respectfully silent towards religion when it becomes respectfully silent about the areas outside its expertise: Governance, the nature of reality, human rights, morality, scientific research, education, medicine, etc. Their only expertise is in describing imaginary beings.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 10, 2009 2:11 PM
In that, I don't think I'm anything special around here. Maybe just a little harder for you to unfairly dismiss as just a PZ fanboy or poo-flinging screechy monkey.
Hey! I resent that. I'm an ape, damn you!
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 2:19 PM
Feynmaniac,
I was originally lef to Sb - and ultimately here! :) - by a link Mooney gave I think on Amazon. I was reading his blog here at the time of the Expelled! brouhaha, and was tremendously disappointed. Many, many people - Shirakawasuna, Screechy Monkey (I believe), and numerous others - took the time to write long, well-argued, substantive comments, and he did exactly the same little tap-dance he's doing now, as Paul W. has so eloquently described. It's exasperating.
Posted by: Quine | July 10, 2009 2:25 PM
Great job PZ, best I have read here. Now that you have warmed up with your blog, how about starting to send in work to wide audience publishers (e.g. Ny Times) so your words can reach beyond the blogosphere?
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 10, 2009 2:32 PM
Silver Fox @318:
You are not responding to the question you yourself quote. Saying your form of "knowledge" is somehow "different" does not tell us how you know it. Furthermore, you're not using the word "know" (and its derivatives) in the same sense that scientists use them; you should make the distinction clear. Knowledge that some people cannot have is -- in the scientific sense -- no knowledge at all. And keep in mind that some the "knowledge" that each individual theist has is knowledge that no other theist can have, since I've never seen two theists have identical agreement on each and every point of their theology.
"Epistemology" means "relating to knowledge". Ontology means "relating to existence." If you're going to engage in philosophical discussion, you might want to become familiar with the actual meaning of basic philosophical terms.
Q: How many legs does a lamb have, if you call a tail a leg
A: Four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
It's a free country, and you're perfectly entitled to walk around believing anything you please, however ridiculous we atheists might find your beliefs. And indeed we do find your beliefs ridiculous.
That's not a problem. Either religion is meaningless or the theory is contradicted by the evidence.
Not true. You don't understand us, but we understand you quite well. There is no "mutually agreeable" position except for religious people to keep their religious beliefs private and entirely out of the government and polite society and inside their homes, churches, and insane asylums. (Perhaps the last two are redundant?)
A lie. No modern atheist is calling for religious people to die. But thanks for admitting at least that you want us to die. Pistols at dawn?
OK, you got that one right.
Who's said that? Dawkins certainly didn't say that. I seem to recall that you religious people say you attach some moral value to not lying. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
OK, that's a fair cop.
In what way are religious people transformed, other than into superstitious idiots?
Yada yada yada. Your beliefs and $1.95 will get you a latte at Starbucks. People believe all sorts of ridiculous things, including shape-shifting lizard people controlling our government. PZ didn't ask what you believe, he asked how do you know.
Pistols at dawn it is!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 10, 2009 2:32 PM
Silver Fox there are many of us here that were christians at one time. We know what you know about gawd and faith. It's all bullshit. Go away, there are no converts for you on this blog. Next Survivor I'm voting you outta here.
Posted by: Michael X | July 10, 2009 2:33 PM
Chris,
I was going to add to the dog pile here, but PZ already pointed out that no one disputes the philosophical/methodological distinction, it's simply your use of it that is faulty in regards to atheists. After that Paul W. @333 beat me to everything else. Though I'd like to repeat one part as it is my never ending question for those on your side of the argument, and you in particular.
We are all patiently waiting for some evidence Chris.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
July 10, 2009 2:34 PM
SF:
The US government recognizes some 700 different religions. Seems more than likely, they differ on the "truths" they all know as a result of faith. How do you resolve this?
Native Americans knew the Spider Woman watched and sometimes interacted with the People. The Egyptians knew there would be a weighing of the heart. Christians know that Jebus died and came back as a zombie after three days. Romans knew that ...well, you get the point. All of these were/are deeply held bits of knowledge. The fact that people believe something does not make it correct.
So - how do you know your world view is accurate, since it is completely subjective? I think the Native Americans have/had a much better set of things they know/knew. What if they are right and you're just fucked up?
Posted by: RHM | July 10, 2009 2:34 PM
I could not take the time to read through the comments before saying:
"Brilliant!"
Many, many thanks for sharing this, PZ!
Posted by: Watchman | July 10, 2009 2:38 PM
Paul W.
Very well said.
MIght I suggest you cross-post this comment over on The Intersection?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 2:38 PM
Sorry, SC, obviously you missed my comment that the popular image of anarchists was that they were atheists. I didn't say it was the true image. I know as well as you that pre-World War I anarchists ran the gamut from Prince Petr Kropotkin and Francisco Ferrer to Alexander Berkman to Luigi Galleani and Johann Most. While Kropotkin, William Godwin and the other philosophical anarchists were and are much more influential to anarchism, the popular image was Leon Czolgosz and Propaganda of the Deed.
Posted by: Carlie | July 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Of course, it's not just writing more that helps improve the quality of one's writing, but writing with feedback. What better way to do that than with a blog that has readers who will mercilessly dissect every sentence? :)
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Silverfox @318
Please explain, in detail, how this statement varies in any way from:
1. Just because they feel it
or:
2. Just because
We all know how unreliable human feelings are regarding the nature of reality.
Just because you "feel" something proves nothing beyond that you are alive and able to relate you inner experience. It most certainly doesn't place the burden of proof regarding the (non)existence of any gods onto the atheist/naturalist. I've met people who feel the little people are trying to kill them. Does that mean I am obligated to prove there are no homicidal leprechauns running around? Hello?
Also: Many religous people feel specific things about their imagination of their god(s) and these are mutually contradictory. Why should we accept that your feelings of magic indicate something about reality (and all the others don't)?
Are you going to rely on the nonsense about how many people have believed in your flavor of boogeyman for a long time, paid a lot of money for buildings in his honor, died for their belief somehow shows his existence? Most simply: Just because a million (billion?) men say something doesn't make it true. As we all know well: Our (species') delusions have been repeatedly and progressively dispelled by real knowledge (which did not come from feelings!)
Mr. Fox: I really, really, really feel that if you give me your life savings, I can make you fabulously wealthy. Really: I know it "by other means" than study of investments. I've spent time alone and thought very deeply about it. Really. All you need is faith. Please contact me, I'll tell you the address to which to send the check. I anxiously await your reply.
Posted by: Blaine | July 10, 2009 2:42 PM
So by the sounds of it, it would seem Mooney and Kirshenbaum think the REAL problems facing science are A) we're not being accommodating enough to the religious and B) not enough scientists have business marketing degrees on top of their MDs and PhDs. Well, personally, that sounds ridiculous.
First off, Mooney of all people should know the accommodationist, wishy washy "lets all hold hands" crap wont do anything but give the religious fundamentalists more room to peddle their garbage. I mean... come on, these are some of the same people who believe, despite the MOUNDS of evidence to the contrary, that the earth is 6000 years old, man walked with dinosaurs, dinosaur fossels were planted by a trickster diety for the sole purpose of creating mass confusion amongst its own followers and a flood that reached thousands of feet above the highest peek on the planet was caused by an invisible, all powerful surveillance camera. How can those type of people be reasoned with? Would Mooney simply have us tell them, "Oh, it's okay... even though the evidence is clearly not in your court, I respect your completely unfounded, faith based assertions" and just keep it moving? Well I for one find that utterly naive. Fundamentalists are much like hardcore paranoid conspiracy theorists... it doesn't matter how you *frame* your mounds of evidence that refutes their uneducated, unfounded theory or whether or not you treat their opinions with more dignity than they deserve.... they don't care. Evidence isn't part of their forte, if it were, we wouldn't be having the discussion we are now. And much of the people it would seem Mooney and Kirshenbaum advocate we allow more leeway for are the same people who denounce pretty much everything they claim they stand for and will never budge from their position regardless of how glossed up and mushy the rhetoric employed to describe that evidence is. But of course, lets just blame those damned atheists. If only we didn't have people voiciferously challenging religion in public forums so many more people would be open to, and literate of, science..... What atrocious sentiment. Please excuse me while I go take a shot of whiskey to wash away the foul taste the lack of logic that kind of thinking requires. Either Mooney and Kirshenbaum are just trying to cash in on the new wave of religious apologetics being pimped out to placate the fundies or they have truly gone off the deep end.
Posted by: Palo | July 10, 2009 2:53 PM
PZ, I love you man.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 10, 2009 3:03 PM
Mr. Mooney:
The Argument from Authority??? You've got to be kidding! I'm blushing for you. Please do come back when you can address PZ's points directly. Sheesh! And you want to be taken seriously around here?!
Posted by: Carlie | July 10, 2009 3:06 PM
It's so sad. I adored Mooney's first book, and lurked on his blog for ages (back then I was not so outspoken). Then after he took up with Nesbit, things kept getting more and more weird. I finally gave up during Expelled!gate when I left what was a perfectly calm, no bad words comment that I respected him a lot, but that he might want to think about this from a different angle and address certain definite concerns people were raising about one of his blog posts, and my comment got deleted. That's when I realized he really had become insulated in some weird little echo chamber where he's right and everyone else is wrong and he doesn't have to give any reasons. Very sad.
Posted by: robinsrule | July 10, 2009 3:08 PM
Silver Fox:
I thought this knowledge you possess was supposed to fill you with kindness, compassion and understanding (god is love, right?) However it appears to have had the opposite effect.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 3:15 PM
Huh? They overwhelmingly were atheists.* And many anarchist thinkers wrote and spoke publicly about atheism, and atheism and anticlericalism were important parts of anarchist (but not only anarchist) culture. That was my point.
Assuming you mean terrorists rather than atheists, you have simply asserted this. To defend this claim, you would need to define what you mean by "popular," discuss variations across countries, and specify a time period, then make your case. I know a lot about this history, and I can tell you that the story is far more complicated than you've presented it in many places, especially after the mid-1890s. That is the image that has been preserved in a number of contexts, but it doesn't accurately reflect the situation in several countries in the 20th century. Unfortunately, that history is unknown to many.
I know that. I'm still at a complete loss as to how this, even if it were true, would relate to my point that many anarchists, including many anarchist writers, were outspoken atheists and atheist activists. Can you please explain?
Kropotkin was a scientist and intellectual, but he was very much a militant who spent many years in prison. (He suppported Propaganda of the Deed briefly during the 19th century, but the meaning of this term was complex and people's responses to various individual tactics were changing). Francesc Ferrer was an educator tried for terrorist plots and ultimately executed after a 1909 insurrection (there was a large popular campaign spanning several countries to try to prevent his execution; thousands marched in France, for example). Again, even if what you claim were entirely true, it would have nothing to do with what I posted. It's like saying the contributions of PZ, for instance, are historically unimportant because of the current popular image of atheists.
*And I should point out that not all anarchists have been atheists. Tolstoy is often pointed to as a Christian anarchist.
Posted by: Tlazolteotl | July 10, 2009 3:20 PM
Just to pile on: that was an awesome statement, PZ, and describes so well why I wanted to become a scientist from the time I was knee-high.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 3:21 PM
BTW, Kropotkin dropped the title early on, for obvious reasons.
:)
Posted by: Jeanette
|
July 10, 2009 3:27 PM
I heard a lecture by Eugenie Scott a while back where she claimed the same thing: that "New Atheists" such as Dawkins are conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism. I'm not a scientist, but I can kind of see her point: that science can't definitively disprove the existence of a god (or gods, unicorns, etc., I would say). But on the other hand, why is it that science can't do that? Because science doesn't deal with imaginary things, right? Doesn't it deal with things that are testable, in other words demonstrably real?
Yeah, that book'll be a hit.
Posted by: snex | July 10, 2009 3:38 PM
one has to wonder why, if eugenie scott and the like all think that religion is just "a different way of knowing," that they dont employ it themselves. do they wish to remain ignorant? why is eugenie scott a philosophical naturalist, if in fact it is not a valid position?
or does she think that theism and philosophical naturalism are equally likely positions, and that whichever one you pick is simply a matter of personal preference? if so, shouldnt pascal's wager be persuasive?
Posted by: Tulse | July 10, 2009 3:45 PM
This claim really pisses me off, because you know that the theists would not be making it if their god was still acting all Old Testament, with the worldwide floods and rain of toads and killing of firstborn and parting of seas and burning of bushes and smiting of cities and raising of dead. It is only because their god has become inexplicably shy once humanity developed rationalism that they say his existence can't be proved. The claim is nothing but a dodge.
And we would know this claim is true...how?
Once one argues for foundational epistemic problems, they really do bite one in the ass.
Posted by: Watchman | July 10, 2009 3:45 PM
Carlie @ #354
That's quite a story. I'm shocked. Or, I would have been, at the time. I was a big Mooney fan back in The Republican War days, too. Storm World was a good one, too.
Well, all relationships have ups and downs. We're all in this for the long haul. Many of us may be cheering Mooney for his next book a few years down the road. You never know.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 10, 2009 3:47 PM
SteveN @ #291:
The only reason Chris Mooney would deign to read the comments here is to cherry-pick a post with naughty words and falsely attribute it to PZ. He's a lying sack of shit, as he demonstrated on the last thread he vomited on.
Posted by: Heidi | July 10, 2009 3:48 PM
Hey, thanks for reviewing this book. If I had accidentally purchased and read it myself, it would have adversely affected my blood pressure. And my TMJ from clenching my jaws.
Posted by: Michael X | July 10, 2009 3:50 PM
Jeanette,
What you've just stated is the very point under contention. PZ in his post stated that in order to be a "New Atheist" (whatever that means) one does not require philosophical naturalism. And in Dawkins' own book he rates himself as a 6 on a scale to 7 about how atheistic he is, thereby ruling out any contention that he holds a philosophical naturalism POV.
Eugenie Scott is simply making the same blunder that Mooney is making now.
Posted by: Blaine | July 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Tulse,
Of course the problem is, even with this more newfound, relatively "shy" god theists trot out, they still have no problem claiming this god effects millions of peoples lives every day in very tangable, and verifiable, ways. So it really isn't so much that they claim their god is more shy, more that their god is evidently only running at half its full strength. Of course, that's just silly... quite like having a race car you only drive at half its top speed. What's the point?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 4:10 PM
Sorry, SC, but you're not getting my point and, I suspect, doing so purposely. I'll try one more time.
In the fifty or so years prior to World War I anarchism was a fringe socio-political movement. However, rather like libertarianism today, it was a vocal movement. Most people, particularly in the US, knew little or nothing about actual anarchist philosophies and ideologies. What they did know was anarchists assassinated Tsar Alexander II on the third try, and assassinated French President Sadi Carnot, Spanish Prime Minister Antonio Cánovas, Empress Elizabeth of Austria, King Umberto of Italy, US President William McKinley, Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, Spanish Prime Minister José Canalejas, and King George I of Greece.
So what most people knew about anarchists was they killed people, particularly politically important people. As a result, the POPULAR view (i.e., the impression held by the POPULACE) was of a bomb-throwing, knife-welding assassin. Free love and atheism were part of the same parcel.
I agree with you that most anarchists were atheists. My point is that wasn't what anarchists were primarily known as being. The popular view was wholly negative. Even if they weren't atheists, they would have been suspected of atheism. That was part of the negative image of anarchists.
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 10, 2009 4:36 PM
Silver Fox,
What if the Romans had done a better job at suppressing Christianity, instead of the half-baked and grossly exaggerated attempts that have become the stuff of legend? What if they had managed to eradicate Christianity, instead of being unwise enough to adopt it? What nonsense would all those Bible-thumping, Christ-worshipping people like you then have to offer instead of the drivel that you habitually spout here? Would you say, with the utter conviction of the deluded, that your faith informs you that the Pantheon is real? That there are in fact hundreds of gods? By Jove, I think you would.
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2009 4:39 PM
I come close to being a "7" on Dawkin's 7-point atheism scale. Please critique my logic:
1. Anything that exists or occurs is part of nature (that is, is natural) by DEFINITION (and is thus within the scope of scientific investigation).
2. The "supernatural" is that which is "beyond" nature.
3. Therefore the "supernatural" is that which doesn't exist or occur.
4. Therefore God does not exist or is not "supernatural".
5. Therefore there is no god that a theist would recognize or accept as "God".
The only way I see that God can possibly exist is if we redefine "supernatural" to mean something like "really powerful" or "awesome". But then we'd need to have a chat about the whole lack-of-evidence thing.
Chris
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 4:43 PM
This is ridiculous.
Look, 'Tis, I am an expert on this general subject. What you're saying is not factually correct for many times and places during this period. If you'd like to send an email to Bill Dauphin or PZ or someone who can forward it to me, I'll be happy to send you some information.
First, I don't know why you've now decided to focus on the US, but most people know little or nothing about most political philosophies and ideologies. Nevertheless, among the working class even here in the US, many people did come into contact with anarchist ideas (see, for example, Salerno's Red November, Black November or Paul Avrich's Anarchist Portraits).
That's what you've been led to believe was all "they" knew, but that is an overly-simplified, unhistorical assertion.
And I'm telling you you're totally wrong about many places, and not entirely correct about the US.
"Known as being"? So? What? I linked to two pamphlets and a talk given to the Boston Secular Society to give people a taste of some earlier anarchist writers and to point out that many well-known anarchists were outspoken and often eloquent atheists. They and other movements of the left are a part of the history of atheism that shouldn't be ignored just because you have a limited understanding of anarchist history.
Posted by: Katkinkate | July 10, 2009 4:52 PM
Posted by: Kel, OM @ 53 "Excellent post PZ ... Atheists are not the problem, it's liberal bullshit that we should be "tolerant" to those trying to undermine science while berating those who are promoting science "in the wrong way". Why is it that we have such a fragile mental image of believers; that they need to be coddled and kept safe from the dangers of differing opinion? All it does is show how much contempt these liberal thinkers have for others!"
I wonder if it is like the attitude that feminists were/are presented with when they speak up. "Of course dear, you're as good as any man. But you misrepresent your case if you get too loud and shrill. ... You have to be gentle with the male ego. ... Being loud isn't feminine, ... Boys don't like girls that are too independent. ..." I've always felt these were gentle attempts to say "Shut up woman and sit down!" They (the christians) are still the dominant view, when you lump them all together generally. Socially they are more powerful and standing up to the powerful is often seen as disrespectful and frowned upon by a large sector of the population. The loudness of the atheists' 'protests' are seen as the problem because they are threatening the status quo and many people don't like change, even within the group that would most benefit.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 10, 2009 5:09 PM
Not to butt in here... no, okay, so I am butting in. But I do question this from 'Tis:
What is the definition of "the populace"? Amongst working people - particularly those who were unionized or trying to form unions - anarchists were leaders, organizers, and spokespeople. As far as the "popular" view of anarchists, one must consider the role of the establishment press in trying to paint anarchists as violent, un-American revolutionaries, particularly during the period of the 1880s-1920s, when the entrenched powers in the U.S. were fearful of economic radicalism (as they saw it) as well as demographic changes wrought by immigration.
Certainly, in the much of the rest of the Western world - particularly Europe and South America - during the same period, anarchist-inspired ideas were able to inspire millions of working men and women to demonstrate in the streets in an effort to improve their own lot, and the majority of the violence that occurred was committed against, not by, them.
I just wanted to make the point that we can't take as gospel what "most people believed" as put forward by the popular press, which for most of the period I have discussed above was anything but popular in the sense of whose interests that press served.
Now, back to reading...
Posted by: Zaheer | July 10, 2009 5:18 PM
Brilliantly written, PZ. I often succumb to tl;dr, even occasionally occasionally on Pharyngula, but was captivated by every word of this. When are you going to write a book!? Don't let Dawkins have all the fun.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 5:30 PM
You're the one defining God as supernatural, while defining supernatural as not existing. Why not just skip a step and define God as not existing?
You're assuming that God cannot be natural. Why can't he? He could be a natural, deceptive God that fakes evidence. Parsimony suggests otherwise, but it's still a flaw in your absolute proof. As to religious types being able to accept a deliberately deceptive/dishonest god, Yahweh is such on several occasions in the Bible.
Posted by: Sean | July 10, 2009 5:39 PM
PZ, thank you!
You've just written my new .sig
-Sean
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 10, 2009 5:46 PM
I read PZ's post this morning before work. Been thinking about it while I mixed concrete patch and repaired some porch steps and mounted a stair railing and trimmed in a bathroom vanity, among other things on my plate today.
I want to read the whole post again, but not right now. Tomorrow. And I'm going to copy it and send it to some people I love who just might benefit from the reading.
The piece is clear and concise, like a well honed edge. It evidences a deep passion. It shows a broad understanding of the way biology and chemistry and physics underlay the notion that all life is related at a deeply fundamental level. The capacity of the human mind to comprehend the interrelationships of diverse phenomena and to posit new relations and principles is as mysterious as it is wonderful. But it works repeatedly and reliably.
It's been said by others more qualified than I that self-awareness and intelligence is the universe slowly becoming aware of itself.
Wheels within wheels, fleas with smaller fleas to bit 'em, astounding detail at all levels. And we get to find out by doing science. How cool is that?
I think that all people have the basic skills to practice science; we all observe, we all remember, we all compare and make decisions. The basic methodology is widely in place, it's just that so many people appear to be using a hammer to drive a screw. They have missed an important fact and by failing to rotate the screw fail to accomplish the goal of securing this piece to that one. Science, by understanding such subtleties, manages to join things together elegantly, without gaping seams and awkward fasteners. It is a true craft and Professor Myers is a craftsman.
Thanks, PZ. Very nice work. Very nice.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | July 10, 2009 5:50 PM
PZ, this post made me want to cheer! Magnificent.
Cuttlefish @ 92 - Even by your lofty standards that was brilliant.
Mooney and Kirshenbaum - I'm looking forward to the substantive response you've promised. I'll refrain from further comment until then.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Great post! I especially enjoyed the part about Mooney's pear clutching. I could easily envision it.
Ahhh, art and science, they can mix unlike religion and science. (Or scientific vinegar and holy water.)
Posted by: Qwerty | July 10, 2009 6:01 PM
That should have been "pearl clutching."
Ahhhh!!!
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2009 6:03 PM
@Paul #374.
I come from a fundamentalist childhood and, believe me, I'm not the only one defining God as supernatural.
My point is that if God falls within the natural universe then he/she/it falls within the purview of science, which means that all those uncomfortable and "rude" questions can be asked (like "where's the evidence?).
If God doesn't fall within the natural universe than he/she/it is non-existent to all those who aren't interested in playing semantic games.
By the way, I don't assume my "proof" to be "absolute" (please don't put words in my mouth), which is why I say I "come close to being a '7'". I concede that there might be some other possibility that I haven't considered - but no one has presented anything plausible so far...
Posted by: Everbleed | July 10, 2009 6:10 PM
It's very simple.
People who define themselves as religious are more stupid than people who do not define themselves as religious.
Notice, I don't say they are "stupid", I say they are "more stupid".
After all, we are all stupid for even arguing with the "faithful" in the first place...
Because we know in advance they are more stupid than we.
I like religion because it quickly identifies more stupid people and makes it easier for me to navigate life and avoid the idiots as much as possible.
Now the more stupid of us will say I am arrogant. Maybe, but I know an idiot when I see, hear or smell one. Sure there may be "nice" idiots, even pleasant to have around (until you want intelligent conversation), but they are in fact more stupid. And wasting our time trying to enlighten them is just that. Instead we should put all our efforts on the kids. While their young minds still have a chance.
Great essay PZ. As usual. Where do you find the time?
Posted by: wildlifer | July 10, 2009 6:12 PM
@379 Glad you cleared that up, I was beginning to wonder if Mooney has a fruit fetish.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 10, 2009 6:19 PM
For those of you anticipating a response from Silver Fox, don't hold your breath. He's a spineless coward, an intellectually dishonest scumbag incapable of anything short of drive-by assertion-tossing and running away again.
He's been taken to task for every claim he made in post #318, on dozens of occasions by a succession of posters, and had his ass kicked every time. Now he just flees in terror, crapping himself in fear, every time anyone asks him to substantiate his claims with evidence or argument.
So don't ask for substantive responses. Just mock him for the odious pissant he is.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 6:26 PM
I do as well. Would they agree with your definition of supernatural? I do not think they would, so bringing up whether they would apply the label to God does not really change my critique. They still have as a holy book the same Bible that has instances of Yahweh deliberately spreading mistruths and doing other deceptive acts. They also have no trouble making the argument that God (or Satan) buried fossils to deceive us (or test our faith, depending on how you look at it). So either way, they may disagree with your definition of supernatural or they may "recognize or accept" a trickster deity which seems to go against your #5.
A fine question. I was simply pointing out that your proof is playing fast and loose with definitions, which is an easy way to let someone prove anything.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Your comment reminded me of plenty of "proofs" I've seen before that claim to disprove god (or prove God, or myriad other things), and they generally frame themselves as absolute. It was rude of me to project that onto your comment.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 10, 2009 6:40 PM
SF,
That's true in the same sense that a mental patient "knows" that he's Napoleon in a way sane people can never know it.
I don't see a difference.
Replace God, with the Greek pantheon of gods, fairies, reincarnation, etc. and you'll see how stupid that sounds.
Lie.
No (sane) atheist is saying they want to see theists die. Many would like to see theism die, but only on a voluntary basis. The "“live and let live" is not mutually exclusive from having a debate on issues or fighting to keep the government secular. Most agree that people are free to hold their own beliefs, no matter how dumb they may be. Your whole paranoid rant about atheists is without merit.
Posted by: Silver Fox | July 10, 2009 6:41 PM
Barefoot at 342
"Epistemology" means "relating to knowledge". Ontology means "relating to existence." If you're going to engage in philosophical discussion, you might want to become familiar with the actual meaning of basic philosophical terms.
No! epistemology does not mean "relating to knowledge". It means exactly what the Greek intended it to mean; episteme, (phonetically pronounced ep-piss-tem-me) refers to knowing, HOW one comes to know something; logos means a study or discourse on a particular subject; ergo, epistemology is a study on HOW one comes to know something, and, of course, ontology follows the same Greek structure. Ontos relates to being and logos to a study. So, ontology is a study on the way something exists. I think I took that course near the early '60s. It came before metaphysics (beyond the physical), philosophical anthropology (the philosophy of human nature), Ethics, and the history of medieval philosophy (from Augustine to Scotus).
I give you this tiring litany because you seem to suggest that I speak of that about which I do not know. The only revelation your post gave me was that, like so many of the fellows, you have not kept up with your philosophy. Either that or you never had it to begin with. Or, maybe you need a better dictionary. But, in any case you really need to come up to speed. Many of the chaps are into analytic or continental these days. Try Wittgenstein but if your brain is really up to a workout, try Frage. If you're not up to speed on language this is going to be tough going for you. To any reasonably intelligent individual it's not all that daunting.
Just remember that epistemology refers to how something is known and ontology refers to how something exists. That's why I said that for an atheist there is only ontological knowledge of the natural world. But that's only half the world. Epistemology opens one to a way of knowing that transcends the naturalistic, materialistic ontological experience. It is a real knowing that is not delusional or imaginary.
Now let me assure you again that I am fully aware that to an atheist all of what I have said is "made up bullshit". I understand that fully and I sympathize with you.
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2009 6:44 PM
A pleasure to read PZ. Well done.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 6:46 PM
Wow, I never knew Silver Fox was a student in the 60s (although perhaps the name should have given it away). The way he structures his arguments and runs from people actually trying to cut through the crap to get him to defend his assertions, I put him at best as a recent college graduate who just hasn't learned better. Well, now I know I don't have to bother reading his posts anymore. There's no point.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 10, 2009 6:51 PM
oh wow. how did that saying go... "better to remain silent and be thought an idiot, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Turns out SF is not ignorant about what words mean. He's just too plain fucking stupid to use them properly in context. Epistemic knowledge would be the knowledge about how we know things... not magical gut-feelings, as you propose.
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2009 6:55 PM
Give it up dumbass (I address Silver Fox, who else?).
Every single time you try to put forward a presentation of yourself intended to seem smart or educated, you acheive the opposite. We've seen enough of your illiterate screeds by now to know this: you are a stupid person. Facilis-class stupid. A complete waste of glucose. Just. Quit. It.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2009 7:03 PM
Silver Fox, you are a tiresome and pompous old fart. I've just been accused by the sweet folk over at Mooney's blog of censorship...you really are tempting me to go for it and get rid of you at last.
Go away. I'm tired and I've got a lot of work ahead of me, and I am tempted to begin by doing a little house cleaning. You first.
Posted by: Rick R | July 10, 2009 7:06 PM
"I've just been accused by the sweet folk over at Mooney's blog of censorship"
I smell Kwok.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 10, 2009 7:09 PM
Silver 'Where's Horus when you need him?' Fox wrote:
For nth time, Silver Fox, when you make a claim like this you have to back it up, either with evidence or argument that can support that claim. You can provide neither; it is therefore intellectually dishonest of you to continue making such a claim.
Feel free to prove me wrong and explain how - in a precise, verifiable sense - a person can differentiate, objectively, a delusion from this 'real knowing'.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 10, 2009 7:15 PM
Every time Silver Fox attempts to explain his views, all I read is a sophisticated-sounding but ultimately erroneous justification for "I know because it's what I FEEL to be true."
Over and over again.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 10, 2009 7:18 PM
Feel free to prove me wrong and explain how - in a precise, verifiable sense - a person can differentiate, objectively, a delusion from this 'real knowing'.
Ah, that's easy. Peyote.
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2009 7:20 PM
Hell, you go over there, you'll smell like Kwok, there's such a pervading stench...
But no, I was following along yesterday, and some witless wonder was going on about how easy it is to be banned from here, adducing as evidence the many and arbitrary rules posted (stupidity, insipidity, boring), not reflecting on the fact that over the years here, and out of a serious volume of trollery, there are, what, on the order of fifteen dungeon denizens. And every single one of 'em deserved it, in spades.
They were also crowing about Pharyngula Survivor, and how that proved PZ was a censorious bully with a sycophantic cheering section, just wanting to ban people, when anybody with a pair of eyes and a web connection should be able to perceive that the crowd here actually wants opposition and substantive debate, like it's our fault that 'the other side' seems to be terminally lacking in qualities that are conducive to such.
Posted by: Ray S. | July 10, 2009 7:27 PM
SF would have us believe we are restricted to half a world simply because we see no evidence for anything not of the natural universe. His use of 'half' is like the probability of him being a space alien from Alpha Centauri. Since he either is or is not, the odds are fifty-fifty right?
Yea, I thought not. The made up fantasy he adds on to the natural world is in no way equal to the possibilities of the universe. It's more like adding zero to infinity and thinking you've doubled its value.
The real problem is that the made up fantasy world is different for every individual claiming one. The only way I know of determining what might be part of the reality I inhabit is through science and evidence. Every theist, whether claiming their god is love or whether it just saved one person from a plane crash appears to me to have the same claims as the farmer claiming he was abducted and given a ride on a flying saucer. This is really the fundamental problem for Mooney and the Accomodationists (bad band name there). They demand we respect non-atheist's beliefs without thinking about how to distinguish among them. Do we accord respect only to the major religions or do we include the fringe ones? Do we respect the Nessie believers, the bigfoot believers, the UFO crowd and such others? Perhaps they are confusing respecting the right to believe with respecting the belief.
Posted by: Rick R | July 10, 2009 7:28 PM
The fact that Silver Fox is still posting here TODAY (when he's been stinking up the joint with his drivel for as long as I've been visiting Pharyngula) proves PZ isn't in any way "Ban-happy".
He's shown himself to be much much more tolerant of the deluded than I would have been in most cases. (The exceptions are the bald-faced trolls who show up to vomit racist/homophobic/sexist garbage all over the threads. In those rare cases, PZ has plonked the idiots ASAP, with my gratitude).
Posted by: Spinoza | July 10, 2009 7:33 PM
Speak for yourself, please, PZ. The claim you make here is that atheists only take a skeptical position with regard to any given theist's claims.
That's not always true. There are lots of ways of providing solid a priori proofs against the existence of many concepts of "God".
Any argument that ends in a reductio ad absurdum of a particular conception of "God" is an a priori argument against the existence of that conception.
Many formulations of the Problem of Evil do exactly that.
This is why many academic atheists are frustrated with you guys (well, mostly Dawkins and Hitchens, but never mind that). Some of the frustration is due to misunderstanding or an ignorance of what "the New Atheists" are saying, but when you make claims like the above, it starts looking like some of the criticisms leveled by fellow atheists are justified.
If you personally don't construct a priori arguments against the existence of God(s), fine, but speaking in second person about it as if all atheists are merely skeptics is just plain false, and seems to show an amateurish understanding of how philosophers argue about these things (and yet you managed to litter this page with many concepts taken from the philosophical lexicon).
I'm with you in most other cases, but not this one. Sorry.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 10, 2009 7:35 PM
It's funny that they are arguing about the censorship here over at The Intersection. I have tried to post three comments over there. One of them was rejected and the other two are still being held in moderation. None of them used profanity and were quite respectful. One being held in moderation is basically a rewording of 307. At the point I don't think I could ever take Mooney seriously.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | July 10, 2009 7:40 PM
America is sitting at a table, choking on religious superstition. It once looked like a tasty morsel, but now it is a lethal threat.
Accomodationists are holding America's hand and saying "That shade of blue really works for you." They know that choking is actually bad but don't want to cause offence by pointing out that their choice of food combined with insufficient chewing is now conspiring to kill them.
Atheists are the ones trying to administer the Heimlich. Maybe some ribs get broken in the process, but the victim is better off not being blue anymore.
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2009 7:50 PM
@Paul #384.
You're at least partially right that this is a matter of how one defines things, but I think that it's my definition of "natural" that more contentious (to the religious, anyway). My definition doesn't leave room for anything else, rendering "supernatural" as nonsensical. And that's probably a reflection of my philosophical stance when you get to the heart of the matter.
But my philosophical stance stems from the observation that there are piles of phenomena that were (or are) considered to be "supernatural" which turn out to have very natural explanations. In fact I know of no phenomenon that has ever been demonstrated as anything other than natural - if it can be demonstrated to exist at all - although there may be phenomena which are yet unexplained.
But being unexplained doesn't equate to unexplainable, of course, and that certainly not to supernatural.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir and I suspect that I haven't come up with some amazing new insight. But it's how I've pieced things together.
By the way I don't really get the relevance of the deceptive, despicable Yahweh. Conspiracy theories about fake evidence don't count as substitutes for real evidence of planted evidence (as all the "I was framed" convicts could attest to).
Also, I know that fundamentalists can do all sort of mental gymnastics to evade a sensible definition of natural and supernatural. My mother still drives me crazy with her studied lack of perception (about many things).
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 10, 2009 7:54 PM
that's your entire schtick on here, you claim knowledge that you cannot know - nor do you provide evidence to demonstrate that you do know. Quite simply, even if you think you know you don't and waving your arms furiously claiming that you do only serves to show how idiotic you are.Show evidence that your path to knowledge is valid (step away from the assertion) or realise that you'll never convince anyone here.
Posted by: XD | July 10, 2009 7:54 PM
The recent behaviour by Mooney shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who saw his response to Expelled.
Mooney was the only pro-science person to call the movie a success. That post received 93 comments, almost all explaining how -- using every metric possible -- Mooney was wrong. The only people people who agreed with Mooney were the creationists at Uncommon Descent, who were, of course, delighted for the PR coup.
The commenters were expecting Mooney to address the points made, but what did he do? He picked out one comment from a drive-by troll who called him a creationist, and made a post about that instead. Then suddenly he was "too busy" to respond to anyone else. He never admitted he was wrong, which I'm sure everyone who read the threads in question concluded.
Indeed, he tried to use the argument from authority too; his film-making pal, Randy Olson, backed him, without being able to explain why (I think randy was just hoping to drum up some funding for movie of his own).
So, Mooney has again demonstrated that he makes flawed arguments and completely lacks integrity. He is more interested in style rather than substance, and will never acknowledge his mistakes. What a fool.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 10, 2009 8:21 PM
Hee. Thanks for the link. I had forgotten about the angry comment I left on that thread (@ #53). Sadly, I could be saying exactly the same thing today.
Posted by: Eidolon
|
July 10, 2009 8:21 PM
Silver...
Gosh, way back up thread, @345, I asked a simple question regarding your certainty about your beliefs. In short, how do you know that your version of subjective reality is the correct one? Others in ages past knew truths through faith just as you do, yet the truths are very different. How come that is?
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 8:27 PM
@Chris
We're agreeing with each other, I simply no longer expect any internal consistency from people who believe in the Bible and thus tend to take issue with that God they can believe in. I was also taking you at face value asking for critiques to your logic, and pointing out how you're defining things to be the biggest complaint I could find.
For what it's worth, I'm somewhere between 6 and 7 as well. But I don't foster the illusion that there is an argument to disprove God, I just stand by parsimony.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2009 8:29 PM
Erm, with *what* God, not with that.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 10, 2009 8:38 PM
Which is just rubbish, plain and simple. Fawning, forelock tugging, obsequious bilge.
Exactly what does religion provide that theism-free philosophy doesn't? Every question religion claims to 'answer' is sophistry slopped over a tottering framework of unsupported assertions and/or presuppositions.
If the existence of gods (note they only mention the one - doesn't sound very tolerant or culturally open-minded to me) is outside the 'expertise' of science (don't start me on how stupid that wording is), it's outside the expertise of everything and everyone, and should not be taken any more seriously than fairies, homeopathy and alien abduction.
Posted by: hallucigenia | July 10, 2009 8:57 PM
Everbleed @ #381:
That's a nice trick: you've automatically defined anyone who disagrees with you as 'stupid.' How, by the way, do you define intelligence? IQ? Personal accomplishments? Oh... wait, I see--you don't actually need a definition, because you can "see, hear, or smell" stupidity. That, I guess, makes you the ultimate arbiter of intelligence.
Did it ever occur to you that you feel the way you do because you are the stupid one? Your comment adds great weight to that conclusion.
BTW I'm not a theist or anything so don't start in on me for defending religion--see, I just have my own stupid detector which is based on simple logical rules, and you set it off. By your definition, every person who ever lived who believed in god would have to be 'more stupid' than you. Don't you think that's just a teensy bit arrogant? Or perhaps when you're not posting on blogs are you winning multiple Nobel prizes?
Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 9:29 PM
PZ warns the Argentine Vulpecular godbot.
Will it show some cunning and lay low, or will it do a Rooke?
I'll play the odds and bet 3 groats on the former.
--
Paul W. @333 FTW.
Posted by: Isabel | July 10, 2009 9:52 PM
"The essence of what Mooney and Kirshenbaum recommend in their book is that science must cut off its own balls, science must wear her corset cinched tight, science must not dissent from the masses, science must be obliging and polite, because that is the only way the public will accept it."
Cut off its balls and wear "her" corset?? So science is a manly? And it is threatened with emasculation?
And Chris Mooney, who as we all know is a male, gets "pearl clutchy...." when bad language is used. You mean like an old lady?
Sounds like "female" is being used as a pejorative here.
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | July 10, 2009 10:05 PM
Mooney et al. sadly prove my thesis that sometimes an atheist is just someone with one fewer stupid idea than a theist.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2009 10:06 PM
Last I looked, "her" was a feminine pronoun, "it" was neuter, males aren't typically constricted by corsets, and Chris Mooney was a guy. It's rather clear that that confusing mixture of gender references is not trying to restrict good or bad to one sex.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 10:10 PM
Isabel,
I think you're spot on. People get denigrated with gendered epithets constantly on this blog--even by PZ. To be fair, I don't think the vast majority of posters intend to be sexist, but that's not really the point, is it. I think that's what happens when 90+% of the crowd is composed of male geeks (I don't mean anything negative by that).
It sometimes makes this blog seem like a sleepover party for adolescent boys, though.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 10:19 PM
That's pretty disingenuous, PZ. Having balls is pretty constitutive of maleness. The phrase 'cut off [one's] balls' is clearly a reference to emasculation/feminizing, which in that context implies weakness. Similarly 'to clutch one's pearls like an old lady' implies that the clutcher (a man in this instance) is weak because he's acting like a woman. One could even argue that such comparisons are implicitly homophobic.
Why not just own up to some (unintentionally, I presume) poorly-considered language and move on? You may not think it's a big deal, but it's the little things, as much as the big ones, that allow racism, sexism, and homophobia to persist.
Posted by: MattMc | July 10, 2009 10:21 PM
Way to miss the point entirely. Bravo.
Here let me try:
It sounds like "adolescent boys" is being used as apejorative here.
Cool...
Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 10:28 PM
[meta]
Pogo:
I fear you are mistaken; many many commenters here are female, and certainly a far greater proportion than 10%.
If you look at qualitative metrics, such as Sastra, SC, Patricia or Jadehawk (and many others!) are way above the norm (in terms of insight, acumen and relevance) of this blog's commenters, which itself is herein similarly distant from the general populace's baseline.
Please, do not indulge in sexism whilst putatively decrying it; it's unbecoming and hypocritical.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 10, 2009 10:28 PM
Hahahahahaha !
*Gets some popcorn,puts legs up*
Paging Louis !! :-))
I think that's exactly the point,that you think it's not the point and doesnt matter if there is intent or not ! You perceive things as sexist ,just as religionists perceive things as intolerant, rude, or insensitive, and are always ready to "interpret"what I say and tell me what my comments "really" mean.
It's quite hypocritical.
Was a nice thread until the hijack.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 10:42 PM
Ummmm
no.
There are many more female commenters here than you realize. Many of those gender-neutral handles you see belong to women.
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 10:43 PM
Does it really offend you so much for someone to note that certain phrases might be unintentionally sexist? It was Isabel's point--I was simply supporting her. But the angry/hostile replies really just prove that point, I think.
John Morales: Uh uh. Neither one of us knows the exact gender breakdown on this blog, so we're both just guessing. I can see how my estimate might be wrong, but it's ludicrous to call it sexist.
MattMc: You're entirely correct - I withdraw the comment about 'adolescent boys.' See, that didn't hurt too much!
Again, what's the fucking harm in trying to avoid language that might perpetuate offensive stereotypes?
Posted by: Ray S. | July 10, 2009 10:45 PM
Sounds to me like some of these posters are almost as sensitive as the theists Mooney wants to protect.I'll take Chips on His/Her/Its Shoulder for $1000, Alex
Did I piss somebody off because I didn't include the plural?
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 10:53 PM
Ray:
Right: women who complain about sexism have 'chips on their shoulders.' Wow, that's like paleo-sexism.
What would that 'chip' be, exactly? Is it getting paid less than men for doing the same work? Is it being orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of abuse and sexual violence? Is being underrepresented by several orders of magnitude in politics, corporate leadership, etc? Is it being told by people like Larry Summers that they can't do math or science?
You're right - women should just STFU and quit whining.
Posted by: mezzobuff | July 10, 2009 10:53 PM
Woman-lurker here: I think calling the word choice in that section as sexist or homophobic is a bit of a stretch... especially in the way he built his point.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 10, 2009 10:58 PM
Get ready,the strawman army is ante portas.
Posted by: jennydoestheblock | July 10, 2009 11:11 PM
Barf, Isabel strikes again.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 10, 2009 11:18 PM
O_o
while I agree that usage of certain words and phrases is inherently sexist, regardless of intent, I think claiming "pearlclutching" and the mixed metaphors of balls and corsets as sexist is right up there with complaints about apple-halves in advertising: completely OTT. are sports metaphors sexist, too?
Posted by: Wes | July 10, 2009 11:21 PM
I don't see how his metaphors were sexist. He clearly compared science both to a male and to a female. How could that possibly be interpreted as saying that only males can do science?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2009 11:47 PM
Wes:
Wes, you're right as far as it goes - but that's not the complaint. The complaint is that the metaphors draw from the masculine=strong, feminine|emasculated=weak symbol set.
I'm female, taller than average, athletic, and fairly strong - for a woman. I have no trouble admitting the obvious fact that most men are physically stronger than I am. Does that make me sexist? No, it makes me realistic. Does this admission somehow imply a second, tacit admission that I am constitutionally "weaker" in some other essential way? Of course not.
I've been reading this blog long enough to know that PZ, whose brilliant and precocious daughter is well-known in these parts, is no sexist. The passage in question doesn't trouble me a bit.
The pearl-clutching image is hilarious. I love it. Sexist? Nah. Ageist, perhaps. Pearl-clutching suggests bluehairs. Classist, definitely; only those who can afford pearls have the opportunity to clutch them.
PZ Myers is an ageist, classist bastard!
Posted by: Pogo | July 10, 2009 11:50 PM
Ugh - and then I'm really going to let this go and go to bed.
I didn't initially react to the gendered nature of those comments myself. Then I read Isabel's post and thought about it some more. Note that I never directly accused PZ of being sexist--all I said was that those terms were clearly gendered, which they are. I raised the possibility that they contain implicit sexism.
Now, the question is, should gendered terms be avoided just because they're gendered? I think so, if the meaning or implication of those terms is negative precisely because of the gender implied.
The fact that PZ mixed his metaphors doesn't change this fact. Why is science 'having its balls cut off' bad? Well, you might say 'because it would suck to have your balls cut off.' Agreed. But why 'balls' in this instance, and not 'hands' or 'ears' or 'spleen'? Because--and I don't think this is going out on a limb at all--castration/emasculation implies 'unmanning.' The question Isabel raised is 'why does PZ think having science 'unmanned' would be a bad thing?' I think that's a fair question.
Ditto the 'pearl-clutching' comment. Why does this imply weakness or faint-heartedness? Because it's something old ladies are supposed to do. Ok, that one might be a little less objectionable, but why not be more mindful about the language we use?
I don't think I'm erecting a straw man here. I absolutely agree that science should be strong and robust--I just don't think we should use language that could be reasonably construed as implicitly sexist.
I do think some of the responses--like the 'chip on the shoulder' one--are more than implicitly sexist, and I think that kind of thing is ugly.
Posted by: Isabel | July 10, 2009 11:54 PM
"Woman-lurker here: I think calling the word choice in that section as sexist or homophobic is a bit of a stretch... especially in the way he built his point."
What does that have to do with it? Are you really comfortable being the butt of the joke? Or the butt of the metaphor, I should say. Perhaps you've internalized the sexism.
"I don't see how his metaphors were sexist. He clearly compared science both to a male and to a female."
And which represented the good way for science to be, and which represented the unfortunate version of science that we would be stuck with if the pearl-clutching Mooney had his way?
Does anyone seriously think the metaphors would work in the opposite direction?
PZ, you are an educator. I hope you don't use metaphors like these when communicating with your students.
Get with the times, people.:)
jennydoestheblock, go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Isabel | July 11, 2009 12:01 AM
"Because it's something old ladies are supposed to do. Ok, that one might be a little less objectionable, but why not be more mindful about the language we use?"
Again, try and reverse the metaphor. A young woman is acting like an old man. Does that immediately make you think weak and prudish?
And um, "Jenny does the block"? WTF?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 11, 2009 12:03 AM
Wait..what?
Lee Marvin wore a corset in Cat Ballou, very manly.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 11, 2009 12:04 AM
uh... are you illiterate?
bad: ball-less man, woman in a corset
good: man with balls, woman without a corset
those are sexed, not sexist, metaphors. get over yourself. you probably have problems with the word "history", too.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 11, 2009 12:05 AM
Patricia, OM
Amen Sister. SF has been at the top of my list since our l-word crowd got thinned. Pilty is a distant second.Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 12:05 AM
Pogo,
Your estimate is wrong, but it was not my salient point, it was an aside.
I try again: Are you seriously contending that, were I to write: "It sometimes makes this blog seem like a sleepover party for adolescent girls", you would not consider that sexist?
Because I think it would be so, and that you'd pick up on it.
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 12:10 AM
Pogo:
"Get with the times" :)
Posted by: Ray S. | July 11, 2009 12:10 AM
Pogo:
Wrong. I never said anyone should STFU. The overly sensitive are the ones I'm bitching about. Whether they are women complaining about innocuous phrases, seeing pervasive misogyny or theists who are offended that atheists even exist, much less vocalize an opinion. Yes, I'm talking about the crowd that would like to rename 'history' to 'herstoy'. For the record, I'm on your side in each of the issues you raised.
Oh shit, I just realized I said 'bitching'. Someone might take that as some sort of gender slam. Maybe I should go buy some pearls to clutch.
Do you connect any of this with the general topic of this whole thread? Maybe if this really feels like an adolescent boys sleepover to you Mooney's blog would be more to your taste.
Posted by: Pogo | July 11, 2009 12:15 AM
Uh, John, you might note that I did 'pick up on' and apologize for that comment way back in #421 (I replied to MattMc who pointed it out before you). Why don't you read a little more closely before making pissy comments.
Posted by: Isabel | July 11, 2009 12:17 AM
"Last I looked, "her" was a feminine pronoun, "it" was neuter, males aren't typically constricted by corsets, and Chris Mooney was a guy. It's rather clear that that confusing mixture of gender references is not trying to restrict good or bad to one sex."
Sorry, can't let this go without a response.
" "it" was neuter, "
well. "it" had balls. I think it's pretty clear which sex "it" was.
"males aren't typically constricted by corsets"
yet females are - interesting difference!
And I think the correct verb is "were"
And corsets had to be used. I guess there aren't any metaphors for the way males are constricted.
"and Chris Mooney was a guy."
As I pointed out.
And you think when he is being a silly prude, he is acting like a woman (males don't typically wear pearls.)
"It's rather clear that that confusing mixture of gender references is not trying to restrict good or bad to one sex."
Actually, in both metaphors, it is 'rather clear' that male is good, ideal and female is bad, degenerate.
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 11, 2009 12:22 AM
Silverfox;
In what way is your response distinguishable from "we're deluded and so are impervious to your logic and reasoning"?
Posted by: Isabel | July 11, 2009 12:24 AM
PZ - here's a challenge. Re-write those two metaphors with the sexes reversed. And make it work. Should be easy right? There's no difference, they're interchangeable!
Betcha can't do it!
*Gets some popcorn,puts legs up*
Posted by: Pogo | July 11, 2009 12:25 AM
Ray, if you really think
then we're not on the same side at all. Why do you denigrate women who perceive "pervasive misogyny" in our society as "oversensitive"? Do you deny that sexism and misogyny exist, or just that women have a right to be upset about it? Do you also think that African-Americans who see pervasive racism in our society are being "oversensitive"? Do you really think objecting to sexism is comparable to complaining about atheism?
Your comments have been the only ones that I think are really, genuinely sexist. Or at the very least, clueless.
By the way, the whole 'history/herstory' thing is, like, so 1990. So I'm not sure what 'crowd' you're talking about--unless you just mean 'pushy broads.'
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 12:29 AM
Pogo @439, I didn't miss it; I responded you what you wrote specifically to me.
So, you withdrew it because it was pejorative, but nonetheless it was ludicrous to claim it was sexist?
The only way you're not being disingenous is if you failed to see what it was that I called sexist; it was the same as that which MattMc did.
Posted by: Pogo | July 11, 2009 12:30 AM
And Ray, the point is why do you get do decide which phrases are 'innocuous'? As a man, I'm not surprised that you don't find them offensive. What I find offensive is that you don't care whether women do.
Again, down in the south we used to hear all the time from white people (and still do) how the 'colored folks' are just too sensitive. How is what you're doing any better?
Posted by: cyan
|
July 11, 2009 12:36 AM
"... science must nuke its own 'nads ..."
works for both
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 11, 2009 12:36 AM
Nerd @435 - Amen. I have had it with Silver Fool. He is as believable as Balam's Ass.
The day PZ jails him is the day I start sepiadarium austrinum socks for PZ's solstice box. Of course PZ is so booty rich right now he may not need socks! ;)
Old Pilty is my favorite troll, because he at least knows his dumbass catholic history, well, most of the time. I do nip him now and then. *smirk*
Posted by: jennydoestheblock | July 11, 2009 12:39 AM
Isabel:
"Actually, in both metaphors, it is 'rather clear' that male is good, ideal and female is bad, degenerate."
I do not think so. 'Having balls' is a metaphor for courage that can apply to both sexes now. And it did not imply that the castrated version of science is feminine, it implied that it was weak. The next sentence which dealt with the feminine metaphor wasn't a continuation of the first, but a separate one alluding to not the weakness of Mooney's version of science, but to its constriction. And that metaphor wasn't denigrating females, it was denigrating the ingrained misogynism that had historically constrained and metaphorically castrated females, who left to their own devices are quite capable of symbolizing the courageous, unfettered version of science that PZ so eloquantly advocated.
Posted by: thalarctos | July 11, 2009 12:41 AM
Me, either. PZ's got a good track record for smacking down misogyny on his blog; I think this is a false positive.
--thalarctos, homogamete
(psst, Kseniya, been meaning to mention this--actually, it's ice floe, but that's just a detail. In the big picture, I do appreciate the supply of seal pups you've been leaving out lately.)
Posted by: Pogo | July 11, 2009 12:45 AM
John, your comment #418 wasn't very clear. All you did was quote my line about the sleepover--you didn't comment directly on its hypocrisy. So when I responded to you I didn't realize that's why you used the term.
On further reflection, however, I retract my withdrawal. I was not being disingenuous because what I said was not sexist. Sexism, like racism, only applies to groups that are being oppressed. In this society, there is no such thing as racism against white people (read Barbara Fields' wonderful essay "Race: What's in a Name") and there's no such thing as sexism against men. If I had used the opposite formulation you suggested, then I would have been guilty of sexism. But I didn't. So what's your point?
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 12:45 AM
Isabel, I consider you're indulging in much ado about nothing.
The very basis for the idioms (not metaphors!) is linguistic, itself determined by socio-cultural history.
Much like Holbach does in regards to religiousness, I think you're finding false positives in regards to sexism.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 12:47 AM
And why, Isabel, do you automatically assume that only old ladies can wear pearls*? Hmmm... both sexist and ageist, congratulations.
Just for that you can give us a nice long post explaining the difference between 'imply' and 'infer'. - DJ
___________
*Clearly you're not familiar with the Australian Olympic swimmer Ian Thorpe - he was employed to encourage men to wear pearls again. They were hoping to make pearl-wearing as fashionable for men as it was in the 16th century.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 11, 2009 12:47 AM
oh yeah, because you wouldn't have screamed bloody murder if PZ had written about hysterectomies instead *rolleyes*
get this through your head: sexed != sexist
Posted by: Ray S. | July 11, 2009 12:52 AM
Pogo:
Do you think misogyny is pervasive, systemic and institutionalized? Or are there at least a few places where gender equality have a beachhead?
Do you think racism is pervasive, or are there some quarters where people are not judged by the color of their skin and have opportunities their recent ancestors only dreamed about?
Do you think some people will judge me for my atheism, rendering me unelectable to public office, and by some politicians count, not even a citizen?
My take on the whole segment of PZ's in question was one of mixed metaphor, so if I am not as sensitive to genderspeak as you and Isabel, then call me clueless. Oh wait, you already have.
Yes you appear to me in this exchange as someone with a chip on your shoulder (how is that sexist?), viewing every utterance as a pronouncement on your worth, largely based on your genitalia. Yet I've not once suggested you shut up. I have re-read both my own and your posts to try to find the source of you indignation, but it eludes me. So I'm giving up. Still clueless. but I'll offer you one. Not every phrase posted on a blog can be thought out and re-thought to eliminates every possible perception of a slight. Some things you just have to let go, as I am doing now.
Posted by: thalarctos | July 11, 2009 12:53 AM
@John Morales: jinx!
Posted by: Kseniya | July 11, 2009 12:54 AM
Floe? I knew that. *cough*
Seriously, it did cross my mind, but I dismissed it as a memory glitch. You know how I fooled myself? By thinking it couldn't be "floe" because, you know, then it would be a weird spelling like "sloe", as in gin fizz, and I'd somehow conflated "sloe" into "floe", so it couldn't be right. Silly, huh?
(Note to self: when it doubt, check dictionary.)
Дуже дякую!
Posted by: Pogo | July 11, 2009 12:55 AM
Jenny:
Says who? And even if some women are ok with the metaphor (I certainly don't claim to speak for all women) isn't it telling that women have had to adopt what was originally and unquestionably a metaphor that equated prowess with male anatomy? Can you give me one singe example of where the reverse has occurred?
I think you're rationalizing. Whether or not PZ intended it (and I strongly suspect he did not) he invoked emasculation as a metaphor for weakness. My main point all along has been simple: couldn't you find a metaphor that doesn't invoke a sexist stereotype? Could somebody explain why that's such a ridiculous request on a liberal, supposedly 'enlightened' blog?
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 12:55 AM
Pogo does exemplary shovelwork:
Just... wow!
Posted by: Kseniya | July 11, 2009 1:02 AM
Pogo is right, and there's nothing sexist in the perception that, all things being equal, children of divorced couples are always better off in the custody of their mother rather than their father. After all, men are the power-holders in this society. Right?
Posted by: thalarctos | July 11, 2009 1:02 AM
Oh, *hell* no! I do that kind of talking-myself-out-of-the correct-answer all the time.
Not to be Captain Bringdown or anything, but it only happens more as you get older...
那里, 那里!
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 1:09 AM
metaphor.
idiom.
--
thalarctos @455, only just beat you to it!
Pharyngula is like that... :)
Posted by: Kseniya | July 11, 2009 1:11 AM
Good grief. Is that Chinese?
那里, 那里! = "There, there!" ?
LOL
Posted by: thalarctos | July 11, 2009 1:14 AM
Ah, I think I see the communications problem. You're equating emasculated men with women, and then attributing that connotation to PZ's intent.
I don't see it that way--to me, it seems as though PZ meant the images of an emasculated man and a woman in a corset as constrained potential in a parallel way.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 1:17 AM
Weird how, on a thread all about criticising the idea that a group of people (the religious) have the right to be mollycoddled and protected from ideas they consider 'hurtful', we end up having a discussion (if 'I know you are but what am I? Can be considered so) on protecting and mollycoddling half the population from idioms considered (by a few) 'hurtful'. - :( DJ
Posted by: mezzobuff | July 11, 2009 1:18 AM
"What does that have to do with it? Are you really comfortable being the butt of the joke? Or the butt of the metaphor, I should say. Perhaps you've internalized the sexism." - Isabelle @431
Hi Isabelle,
I think how he integrated gender specific examples of Science being castrated (male) and unfairly confined or corseted (female) is very telling and I thought using both genders was an inclusive device, actually.
Castrating a male does not to make him a "female" (and therefore "weaker") but supposedly more docile. Again, it doesn't make him a woman.
Corsets are often seen as a symbol of women's enslavement: maybe too strong a word, but I hope you know what I mean.
I simply do not read his text as "science must cut of its own balls which makes it weaker, thus a woman, and now she tightens up her corset..." It just doesn't read that way to me. I saw it more as a list that uses gendered and un-gendered illustrations very effectively. When I read the passage again:
"The essence of what Mooney and Kirshenbaum recommend in their book is that science must cut off its own balls, science must wear her corset cinched tight, science must not dissent from the masses, science must be obliging and polite, because that is the only way the public will accept it."
I noticed that he repeats "science" before each illustration which makes each one an almost stand alone statement or a declaration. Sorry, I see a list, not a 'one thing leads to another' type of sentence...
Ultimately I am agreeing with Jadehawk: these are sexed symbols, not sexist.
The pearl thing... sorry, I just can't get too worked up about it.
Maybe I have internalized the sexism: it's certainly possible. But you may also want to ask yourself if you are seeing sexism where it really isn't there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 11, 2009 1:20 AM
Pogo #457
Yes, I can. I'm sure others can as well. Probably even you might be able to do it, given a good tailwind and a shove in the right direction.
Because you and Isabel are threadjacking. Your complaints have been answered and you continue to whine. If you want grovelling you're not going to get it.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 11, 2009 1:21 AM
How about this?
"The essence of what Mooney and Kirshenbaum recommend in their book is that science must remain barefoot and pregnant and stay in the kitchen, rather than ride a winged horse and brandish a flaming sword as any self-respecting metaphorical valkyrie would."
Is that too lurid?
Posted by: jennydoestheblock | July 11, 2009 1:22 AM
@457-Pogo.
Castrated males behave more docile and less aggressive than the testicled. From livestock to humans, this is fact. In competitive situations that reward assertiveness, the castrated male would be less effectual, or weaker. His idiom reflects this and there is no inherent implication that an emasculated man, or a female, is weaker in the constitutional sense. I suggest getting over it.
Posted by: thalarctos | July 11, 2009 1:27 AM
I *cough*Babelfish*cough* may have spelled it wrong; my last formal study was 20+ years ago, and my books are packed away. But I remember my Chinese TA explaining that "where, where?" was an idiomatic way of saying "you're welcome", as in "where is there something? I didn't do anything worth mentioning/thanking for.".
Or else I conflated that explanation with something else--I do that too!
Anyway, I know "спасибо", but neither "Дуже дякую" nor "you're welcome" either по-русский или по-украински, so I just changed to something else.
Posted by: mezzobuff | July 11, 2009 1:29 AM
Kseniya, you just made my night!
Posted by: DingoJack | July 11, 2009 1:51 AM
Way back at #440 Iasbel posted:
I'd like to apologise to all those inter or trans-sexed people reading, and those struggling with BIID*.
Isabel isn't being delibrately hurtful, it's simply ignorance that leads to the conclusion that sex is an absolutely binary condition. - With sincere apologies, DJ
____________
*not to mention castrati (since they don't have 'balls' any more, I guess they are no longer male, so they must be female, eh Isabel?),
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 11, 2009 1:55 AM
Chris @369:
Your argument fails by counter-example(s), vis:
* The Sun
* Emperor Hirohito
* Prince Phillip
etc...
These are all (or have been) considered by a sizable number of devotees to be REAL gods to them, and yet provably exist.
The problem with your logic is that you artificially restrict the definition of a god.
Try again. :)
Posted by: Isabel | July 11, 2009 1:55 AM
"The very basis for the idioms (not metaphors!) is linguistic, itself determined by socio-cultural history."
John,
Okay, point taken. And thanks for the correction, as far as the pearl-clutching example goes anyway. Although, according to the dictionary that came with my Mac's operating system, metaphor = a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract
(eg pearl-clutching=old lady=prudishness) ?
But in any case I think the balls/corset example would fully qualify as a metaphor, or at least an analogy:)
And I still think that it's sexist language - you've practically admitted it is.
I'm not usually a hard-liner about this stuff. For example, I am not a fan of 'progressive', 'feminist' versions of nursery rhymes or fairy tales. For the very reasons you've stated. As far as I'm concerned, tradition rules there.
But as a female facing an uphill climb in science it feels icky to hear these gender-driven analogies/metaphors/idioms representing science in its positive, vigorous state vs its weak degenerate state.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 11, 2009 2:05 AM
"Where, where".... cool, I get it. "It is nothing." Most cultures have "you're welcome" idioms that communicate that basic idea of minimizing the favor done... Не стоит благодарности!
dyakuyu (thank you) duzhe d