…and this is a 
Oh, no. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have written another loopy op-ed. I'm reading it in complete bafflement: what is their argument? What are they trying to do? Because none of it makes sense. It's confusing, right from the beginning, in which they sneer at Richard Dawkins for publishing a new book about science.
This fall, evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins -- most recently famous for his public exhortation to atheism, "The God Delusion" -- returns to writing about science. Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will inform and regale us with the stunning "evidence for evolution," as the subtitle says. It will surely be an impressive display, as Dawkins excels at making the case for evolution. But it's also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?
Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.
Hmmm. It looks to be a very good book, and I can practically guarantee it will appear on the NY Times bestseller list in very short order (I think I can also guarantee that its sales will leave Unscientific America in the dust, which may be the prime motivator for this sniping). There will be people who have epiphanies when they read popular science, just as happened to me when I started reading about evolution in my youth, and as I'm sure other people will testify in the comments here, but I think most people write, not for epiphanies, but to inform. Do Mooney and Kirshenbaum seriously believe the new Dawkins book will accomplish absolutely nothing? What an attitude of futility.
That's a cute trick, though, parlaying a mention of a science book by Dawkins into a condemnation of his existence as a harbinger of total moral depravity. That's what the leaders of creationism do; I think we can give the rank-and-file a little more credit, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them, after hearing all the hysteria about Evil Old Man Dawkins from people like Ham and Hovind and Mooney, might actually read something by him and realize that he's a decent fellow after all, and he actually explains evolution clearly. It can't hurt.
But what do Mooney and Kirshenbaum want now? Is this a plea for Dawkins to stop writing books of any kind, to cancel the print run for The Greatest Show on Earth, or to convert to some conventional piety? This opening makes no sense, unless it's just that they don't like the fact that an openly atheist scientist writes without compromise.
It's not just Dawkins. They really don't like me at all.
The New Atheists win the battle easily on the Internet. Their most prominent blogger, the University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers, runs what is probably the Web's most popular science blog, Pharyngula, where he and his readers attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language. Or as Myers put it to fanatical Catholics at one point: "Don't confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god."
Man, I like what I say sometimes. Here's the full quote, which was a reply to the people complaining about me trashing a cracker.
What effort I put into it was not in response to the reality of your silly deity, but in response to the reality of your dangerous delusions. Those are real, all right, and they need to be belittled and weakened. But don't confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted, and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god.
Perhaps Mooney and Kirshenbaum would like to suggest some alternative language? It has to communicate (you know, that precious word) my actual intent and feelings and beliefs, though, not their imaginary precious deference to faith. Clarity is a good thing, I would think.
But then, these guys don't understand anything.
Long under fire from the religious right, the NCSE now must protect its other flank from the New Atheist wing of science. The atheist biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, for instance, has drawn much attention by assaulting the center's Faith Project, which seeks to spread awareness that between creationism on the one hand and the new atheism on the other lie many more moderate positions.
The NCSE is not under attack from us. I love the NCSE, and think it is a valuable institution; when I give science advocacy talks, I tell people to join the organization. That does not mean, however, that we therefore think that we cannot criticize the NCSE. Eugenie Scott isn't our Pope. We think that they've taken a wrong turn and are plainly speaking out in protest, while (at least in my case) still sending in our membership dues, and encouraging others to donate as well.
Our criticism is that promotion of "moderate positions". The NCSE should not be taking any position on religions at all. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have just berated Dawkins for being openly atheist, claiming that that means no creationist will ever listen to him. Do they think that if the NCSE endorses the Episcopalians and Methodists and Universalists, that that will somehow endear them to the fundamentalists?
Finally, M&K take the low road and dig up the corpse of Darwin and make him waggle his bony finger at us.
Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect -- the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?
It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, "Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."
Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then -- something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.
Oh, Jebus. What a crock.
Darwin is not our saint. We disagree with Darwin on many things; we can agree that he was a brilliant scientist and entirely admirable person without feeling that we must therefore emulate him in every particular, or obey his every dictum. I also don't think that Mooney and Kirshenbaum have earned the privilege of hiding behind Darwin's skirts.
Darwin was a bourgeois Victorian gentleman, living in the 19th century, with fairly conservative social sensibilities. In case they hadn't yet noticed, we are now living in the 21st century. Our culture is, I hope, a little bit more flexible on matters of religion than his was, and we aim to push a bit more.
Also in case they hadn't noticed, what Darwin is advocating is the gradual illumination of minds with science by, for instance, publishing books about science for the lay public. Books that, for example, might lay out the evidence for evolution. Books with titles like The Greatest Show on Earth. Books that M&K belittle.
Seriously, try comparing the opening of their essay with its high-minded conclusion. Have we just determined that a 12 paragraph span is far enough that M&K will lose their train of thought and contradict themselves?
Finally, I can quote Charles Darwin, too. I prefer this line, in which he argues how best to defend his theory of evolution. It also applies to any idea anyone might think worthy.
Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed.
I choose to conscientiously express my convictions. I will laugh at those who think the best way to advance my ideas is by being more mealy-mouthed and by pandering to superstition.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: rickflick | August 11, 2009 12:09 PM
Curiously, I was having fantasies they would confess to their stupid - like Nixon with Frost. Maybe I allow a residuum of optimism to coat the walls of my brain. I need a few weeks in Europe. Sigh.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 11, 2009 12:10 PM
Will WWDD (what would Darwin do?) merchandise outsell M&K's book?
Posted by: FormerComposer | August 11, 2009 12:10 PM
I've noticed that the "New Atheists" has become a new moniker for attacking us (or, at least, simplistically categorizing us.) Seems to me that we're the same, old atheists. But now, the fact that we're the "Unquiet Atheists" is what is causing all the brouhaha.
Not just silent or quiet; but actively non-quiet.
Posted by: Andy Groves | August 11, 2009 12:12 PM
The NCSE is not under attack from us.
I had a nice chat with Genie Scott at the recent SDB meeting in San Francisco, and I can confirm that the NCSE is not losing sleep over criticism from PZ or Jerry Coyne. They have far more important things to worry about.
Join the NCSE, bitches.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 11, 2009 12:12 PM
By the way: so it's ok for Francis Collins to have an overtly Evangelical Website, but it's not OK for Dawkins to be overtly atheist?
Posted by: Penguin_Factory | August 11, 2009 12:14 PM
These two started out trying to make some sort of point, but now it seems as though they just have a vendetta against you and Dawkins.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 11, 2009 12:15 PM
I've found that most anti-evolutionists are almost as unlikely to read Miller's and Collins' books. The IDiots attack these "accommodationists" perhaps even more than they do Dawkins etc., because the heretic is hated more than the apostate by most religionists.
I will note, however, that when you do see religionists debating evolution among themselves, they are very partial to theistic evolutionists, for the reasons given by M&K. That isn't what they said, though, they wrote as if anti-evolutionists in general will listen to non-atheists supporting good science, a patently untrue implication.
Regardless, no one is targeting the typically hopeless anti-evolution bigots, from Miller to Dawkins. For the unsure, the variety of pro-science works coming from both theists and atheists get across the idea that evolution is about science, not about either theism or atheism (regardless of the fact that science as a whole militates against religion).
Do M&K really think that the message that evolutionary theory is about science will properly get across if atheist books are stifled?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: ERV | August 11, 2009 12:15 PM
For the 500th time in 3 years, Chris Mooney: How many times have you been to Oklahoma to talk about global warming?
None?
None times?
You are in NO position to be telling other people how to sneak behind the Iron Curtain of ignorance.
Piss. Off. You. POSEUR.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 12:16 PM
So, if everybody knows you're out as an atheist, like Richard Dawkins, you shouldn't write best-selling books about science? Let that be a lesson to you, PZ, you'd better just forget about that book contract right now and tend to your zebrafish, if you know what's good for you.
Posted by: Dunc | August 11, 2009 12:17 PM
So come on then - what will reach them? Eh? Cat got your tongue?
There are none so blind as those that will not see. And there is nothing that will reach them.
Posted by: sharky | August 11, 2009 12:18 PM
Clearly, what Dawkins needs to do to make the accomodationists happy is to write a book about Creationism.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 12:18 PM
And Orac sends his personal apology to PZ when?
Posted by: jdhuey | August 11, 2009 12:24 PM
"...hiding behind Darwin's skirts."
This is a common phrase, but I still find it a bit sexist.
Posted by: Michael Fugate | August 11, 2009 12:26 PM
How does the middle ground or the third way between theism and atheism become "moderate" theism? Shouldn't it be agnosticism? Admittedly, I think agnosticism an unstable equilibrium and likely not to sustain itself very long.
Posted by: penguinsaur | August 11, 2009 12:26 PM
Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.
So because religion has brainwashed people into denying facts and evidence, we should stop criticizing religion and show it total respect? Yeah, I'm sure refusing to ever question religion will completely loosen its grip on people's minds.
Also I like how 'new atheists' are total assholes for talking about religions the way religions have been talking about each other for all eternity. "religious people are morons"- your an intolerant, militant asshole for saying something so grossly offensive about people who have an imaginary friend. "all non-christians deserve to be brutally tortured in a fiery pit for all eternity"-just expressing your beliefs...
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 12:28 PM
Shorter M&K: "We tolerate you credulous religious folks unlike the big New Atheist&trade meanies... we know you're good people & smart enough to BUY OUR BOOK! (we won't tell you you're deluded like Dawkins & Myers will {buy OUR book})
Apple-polishing and othering to sell a book to the faithful and the accommodationists. Doesn't that qualify them as charlatans?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 11, 2009 12:28 PM
Wait a minute, did anybody else notice this from Mooney?
"bash"? Surely not? However will he communicate by bashing? Fucking hypocrite...
Posted by: ERV | August 11, 2009 12:28 PM
E.V.-- Nonononono. You dont get it. PZ cant write about S&M because, because thats totally petty.
But S&M can bitch about PZ and drag his name through the mud all they want because they suck Oracs cock in their articles when they mention him.
Do you understand now?
Its all very logical.
Posted by: Schmeer | August 11, 2009 12:32 PM
By now it should be clear that M&K will not address the questions posed to them, intentionally misunderstand the comments by anyone who disagrees with them and have no intention to actually improve scientific education of US citizens. I think it is fair to compose any response to the toothpaste twins entirely out of profanity from now on.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2009 12:32 PM
Morse code?
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 12:33 PM
(a) They've got it the wrong way round. Richard Dawkins is an in-your-face evolutionist* touting atheism.
(b) It's only Dawkins pre-existing fame which will get him published (in the pop book sense) and then read at all. Do M&K seriously imagine/pretend that an unheard-of writer stands a better chance?! Getting one's material read in the first place is the only hope for gaining any epiphanies at all. Like the (horrible) UK lottery slogan: "you've got to be in it to win it". Non-famous people aren't even in the game.
* NB I don't care right now - it's snappy!
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 11, 2009 12:33 PM
Because Stephen Jay Gould's books about evolution were so very effective at getting anti-evolutionists to understand the subject.
Posted by: David Wiener | August 11, 2009 12:34 PM
S&M - with friends like these...
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
August 11, 2009 12:35 PM
Once, while I was married to a fundamentalist Christian, we had a discussion about evolution. She wanted me to read some of her books (this was before Behe's stupid book came out, which she later gave to me as a gift). I said I would, if she would read just one: "The Blind Watchmaker."
She agreed.
I read the books she suggested, each with the same old, "violates second law of thermodynamics" misrepresentation (I was a physics student at the time, and realized the absurdity of the assertion), and other just as tired canards.
She never read Dawkins.
Not because he was an atheist. *I* was an atheist, so it wasn't that. It's that it was well-written, and presented a convincing portrayal of evolution.
Or, in her words, "I want to read books that will help my faith." Yeah. That's the way to become enlightened about evolution.
Let this be a lesson to you, kids: never, ever marry someone who is devout, if you are not. Oh, and fundamentalists won't read anything at all that conflicts with their beliefs, so it doesn't matter if it's written by Dawkins.
Posted by: Deen | August 11, 2009 12:35 PM
@17, Bernard Bumner: just more evidence that there's a double standard here: political ideology is fair game, but religion should not be criticized.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 12:36 PM
How does the middle ground or the third way between theism and atheism become "moderate" theism? Shouldn't it be agnosticism?
Agnosticism is not mugwumpery. Huxley originated agnosticism: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
Posted by: John C. Welch | August 11, 2009 12:37 PM
Yep, they're now official John C. Dvorak clones, only instead of steadily publishing anti-Mac articles, they just keep bringing PZ/New Athiests up, because that's how they jack their hitcounts.
Has all the sincerity of William Randolph Hearst at a peace rally.
Posted by: protocol | August 11, 2009 12:40 PM
M&K are not very smart are they? I'm on the fence on this whole thing, yet their incoherent and substanceless arguments are highly irritating even to me.
Posted by: John C. Welch | August 11, 2009 12:41 PM
I guarantee that they already have the followup post for their 'normal' haunts ready to go, that expounds upon the LA Times post, so that they can jack their hitcounts up even more.
This is just New Media Douchebaggery 101: Keep the fauxtroversy hot by posting it in MSM outlets.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 11, 2009 12:41 PM
PZ is becoming pathological.
Second post on the trot of this type.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2009 12:42 PM
I'm starting to think M&K have a huge crush on PZ, the way they can't seem to stop talking about him.
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 12:43 PM
@ nigelTheBold #24:
Indeed, that typically even includes reading the whole of the bible (or other relevant holy book)! As well as being fundamentally lazy, they daren't read it all, let alone think about it properly, (and won't be encouraged to do so by their religious handlers) because it contradicts not only reality but also itself and some part of the beliefs of every individual religionist who ever made up their own personal version of the religion - ie all of them!
Posted by: Dan! | August 11, 2009 12:45 PM
Dawkins is writing this book #1 because its genuinely interesting and #2 so he has something to point at when people clamor for the evidence for evolution without ever looking for it. M&K fail to see that everything Dawkins write isn't about atheism (in fact most things aren't), and is usually at the head of the class when it comes to communicating science.
Posted by: Walton | August 11, 2009 12:45 PM
No. Agnosticism isn't a halfway house or compromise between theism and atheism; rather, it relates to a slightly different question. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, hence why I describe myself both as an agnostic and as a weak atheist.
Agnosticism is fundamentally an epistemic position. It is the recognition that, given the lack of solid empirical evidence either way, we cannot "know" with any meaningful degree of certainty whether deities exist or not. Once one rejects the notion that we can "know" things through "faith" without empirical evidence, agnosticism is the only rational position to hold. A deity of some sort could conceivably exist, but there's no evidence to suggest that it does.
At the same time, I would also describe myself as a weak atheist. Most theistic religions claim not merely that deities exist, but that he/she/they intervene actively in the material universe. This is an extraordinary claim, for which there is no extraordinary evidence; and so, as with any claim unsupported by evidence, the default position is to assume that it is not true, until empirical evidence is presented to demonstrate that it is. Thus, I'd say that I'm an agnostic as to the idea of deities in the abstract, but a provisional/weak atheist as regards specific deities.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 11, 2009 12:46 PM
There is more than a little irony though, because the Republicans and religious right constitute a signficant proportion of those who Mooney claims the "New-Atheists" are alienating from science. Apparently, he is free to attack, where the more popular and widely read authors should remain meekly silent.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 11, 2009 12:46 PM
No, he didn't. Darwin did not start science. Darwin did not start the conflict between reason or empiricism and superstition. These are larger matters that long preceded him. Stop trying to trick people into thinking this is merely a question of evolution education. You silly, silly twits.
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: JHS
|
August 11, 2009 12:46 PM
ZOMG "highly abrasive language"! We're monsters!
And, seriously...what IS their point? They claim to want to promote science...by telling scientists to STFU? At least about anything that might, say, hurt Ken Ham or Bill Donohue's wittle feewings?
Posted by: ckitching | August 11, 2009 12:49 PM
Accommodationists were the primary voices trying to support public acceptance of evolution for decades, and it didn't work. The solution is to continue this non-functional strategy?
I'm reminded of the saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results. Mooney and Kirshenbaum might want to take note of this...
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 11, 2009 12:50 PM
So let me get this straight...
Scientists need to communicate better, until they start communicating, at which point they should shut up.
That's how I read their position.
Posted by: tsg | August 11, 2009 12:51 PM
Yes, quite. Responding to yet another op-ed where M&K mention PZ by name is entirely uncalled for and indicative of obsessive behavior :eyeroll:
Posted by: J | August 11, 2009 12:51 PM
So M&K criticize Dawkins for writing a book that they haven't read yet. It's like they are angry that he isn't a different person, writing a different book for a different audience. WTF? PZ should seriously stop feeding these inane trolls.
Posted by: Bob L | August 11, 2009 12:51 PM
M&K "Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?"
I can not believe anyone claiming to a non-believer seriously said this. What's next, books titled "In the imitation of Darwin"?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 11, 2009 12:52 PM
To call attention to themselves, thereby selling more copies of their lousy book. This has been another edition of simple questions to simple answers.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 12:53 PM
Let's see... they openly quotemine & misrepresent Dawkins, Pz, et al, to establish they're not like New Atheist&trade scientists, to energize lagging sales and so they must appeal to a specific demographic who might buy the book since so many scientists gave it a "meh".
Do they not realize that the religious demographic they're so desperate to unload their book on is overwhelmingly overlapped by that Republican demographic they say they love to bash?
Jeebus, these two have compartmentalizing down to an art form.
They criticize people for their political stance (which is largely based on their religious stance, usually) but scream "hands off" when it comes to religion. So now, it seems, the fate of their book lies in the hands of curious credulous Christian Democrats... wonder how that will turn out?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 12:58 PM
Popes John Paul The Two Eyes and Benny Ratzi both said that evolution is just neato spiffy keen. Since most creationists think that Catholics aren't Christians and the Pope is the Anti-Christ, wouldn't PZ's anti-Catholic comments resonate with creationists, making them more amenable to evolution? Seems like Mooney and Kirshenbaum should be thanking PZ for his efforts.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 11, 2009 12:58 PM
PZ is a fool.
Posted by: Deen | August 11, 2009 12:59 PM
From the article:
Note how Mooney and Kirshenbaum don't actually deny anywhere in the article that religious belief is at the root of the resistence against evolution. I don't see how they could, either. How much opposition to evolution would you think exists that is not religiously motivated?
And wouldn't that realization change the validity of the strategy of confronting religion?
Not to mention the fact that M&K still can't bring themselves to admit that maybe both strategies could be used in parallel...
Posted by: James Sweet | August 11, 2009 1:05 PM
I'm not surprised at all. My impression has been that Eugenie Scott sincerely believes science and religion are compatible, but she is not one of those people (*cough*Mooney*cough*) who gets all bent out of shape because someone somewhere disagrees.
Mooney would seem like so much less of a tool if he took a hint from Scott and decided to just pursue his own strategy, rather than spending all his time WRITING A DAMN BOOK about how other people's strategy is bad-mm'kay.
Posted by: clausentum | August 11, 2009 1:05 PM
Glen Davidson #7
Did you mean the other way round? That has always been my understanding.
Posted by: havoc1995 | August 11, 2009 1:06 PM
The Blind Watchmaker started me on my path towards godlessness. I came into college a deluded YEC bio major. I always knew deep down it was all a load of bullshit, and reading Dawkins really helped pull the wool from my eyes.
I always get a kick out of it when people say Dawkins, PZ, etc. will never reach people. Yes, they will. They'll reach young people who are stuck in Christian bubbles that know deep down they're being lied to.
I've read Miller, Collins, etc. None of them had the impact on me that Dawkins and Bertrand Russell had.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 11, 2009 1:06 PM
Let's face it, Dawkins is never going to get on Oprah writing about 'evolution'. He should give up all that boring facty based stuff and concentrate on the really important topics in modern biology. Like kissing.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 11, 2009 1:08 PM
That does look like an argument from authority, thus a fallacy.
However, it can be used differently, so we could look at the history of the success of evolution and note that not only Darwin but many others pushing for science were "accommodationists," and seemed to achieve success by following that path.
I'm not pretending that I know that history very well, and even less do I know for sure how it applies to the situation today. All I'm saying is that we can learn from the past, and the mere fact that M&K appear to be using Darwin's position as an illegitimate argument from authority does not obviate the fact that many bright scientists apparently were "accommodationists" in the first fight for the acceptance of the science of evolution, and, as far as I know, successfully so (arguably, anti-evolutionists today are quite a different kettle of fish, however).
Even Ken Miller disagreed with the sense that M&K usually put out, that "New Atheists" should stay out of the business of promoting science and evolution, and I have always thought that a silly notion and nothing that anyone could effect even if they wanted to do so.
Yet it really isn't enough to brush aside the strategy for promoting science favored by Darwin and many others at his time without duly considering the arguments that they and modern "accommodationists" put forth, as well as looking at the effects in the past (whatever these were, they don't automatically translate into today's society). It isn't Darwin's "authority" that matters, it's the fact that he appears to have had useful knowledge about these matters, as he actually did study the persuasive arts during his theological training, and wrote quite a popular science book on evolution.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 1:09 PM
Lovely sentiment... if this were just confined to a blog. This is a public, published in a book, open letters in national journals and newspapers attack against those who speak out about religions' place in science and the anti-evo fundies who get to have their say about science textbooks and influence State and National law.M&K don't qualify as trolls, they're PR hacks on a hatchet job mission to keep their book from tanking and they don't give a flying fuck who they have to muddy and offer up to public pillorying in order to sell the SOB. It makes them seem sympathetic to vast hordes of religious people who hate outspoken atheists for being so vocal.
Let me use your name & misquote you in a public newspaper op ed column and then let's see how & how many times you respond.
Posted by: TheTransitionalForm
|
August 11, 2009 1:11 PM
I for one am looking forward to reading Dawkins new book, and don't see how him being an atheist would hinder his ability to explain the nuances of evolution to a non scientific audience. I suppose to some If you don't have "God did it" in your vocabulary then explaining anything becomes difficult, but I suspect that those people don't spend much time reading, or writing science books.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 11, 2009 1:11 PM
A priest (must be male, dunno how testicles come into it) by muttering a few magic words can turn a cracker into a body of a man who was tortured to death 2000 years old and who had no Homo sapiens father....
What kind of fucked-up world do we live in for such belief to deserve respect and not ridicule ?!!?!!
Posted by: Lowell | August 11, 2009 1:16 PM
havoc1995 @50:
Thanks for sharing your story. At M&K's blog when their book was first released, people were discussing similar anecdotes where reading the "new atheists" increased the scientific literacy of religious people.
No response from M&K, of course. (They don't respond to anything substantively, I've learned.)
Posted by: Didac
|
August 11, 2009 1:16 PM
One of the problems of Mooney/Kirshenbaum is that they fail to grasp that real problem in America is not anti-evolutionist religious people but people afraid of them. The virtue of PZ Myers is to get pride and reason in people too much afraid of religious people.
Posted by: windy | August 11, 2009 1:17 PM
ERV:
Was that intentional? Hehehe. They keep 'asking for it', don't they?
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 1:19 PM
@ Glen Davidson #52:
Only because they absolutely had to be, ie in cowardly but perfectly understandable self-defence. It was either that or be killed or, in less murderous areas, be put out of a job and (if not among the untouchably stinking rich) hence rendered destitute. Atheism has often been a criminal offence - like homosexuality.
Now that civilisation (necessarily including secularism) is really getting under way, it's possible to be honest about that aspect of reality too - ie the evident non-existence of any adequately specified deities.
Posted by: R-Tam | August 11, 2009 1:24 PM
The Darwin quote, it burns us, precious!
But seriously, so many people just don't get that Darwin is not our God. It doesn't matter that he said some things that were proven to be false. It doesn't matter that he supposedly withdrew his support for evolution (deathbed conversion). It doesn't matter what his opinion on the "New Atheists" would be. It. Doesn't. Matter. We do not make the claim that the guy was infallible. He simply came up with a good idea.
I once debated a creationist and he gleefully quoted a passage by Darwin at me that spoke of the evolutionary reason for female inferiority. I (female) just tilted my head and said "So?"
I think these people cannot imagine life without an infallible authority figure and assume we have chosen Darwin as such. Ugh.
Posted by: Heidi | August 11, 2009 1:27 PM
So this is what they're advocating by quoting Darwin? Well, um, it's been 150 years since he published Origin. That's pretty gradual.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
Not mine, though I suppose it depends upon what is meant by an "apostate." The heretic or apostate who is considered to betray the group might be considered about equal, in fact. I was thinking more loosely in using the term "apostate" than a strict interpretation might suggest, however, and was thinking more along line of one being "infidel" as Dawkins might be considered (technically he could be considered "apostate" by leaving his religion long ago, however), not now being thought a traitor to any religious group.
Anyway, I don't have statistics or anything to back up what I said, but some think about it as I do:
Right or wrong this may be, but, specific to this issue, I think it's fair to say that theistic evolutionists are often depicted as furthering the work of "atheists," thus betraying Christianity in general. That is to say, they're as "bad as atheists," supposedly, and are portrayed as undermining their religion while continuing to remain in the church. Many churches do expel these people, quite preferring that they be counted as "apostates" rather than "rotting the church" as "heretics."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Sara | August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
Somehow, I can't help but picture M&K gripping their harpoons while crying "from hell's heart I stab at thee!!!1!1!!!!!!111", "thee" being obviously PZ.
As to what their argument is, it's mostly about how PR is magic, obviously. Instead of being mean and heartless, and trying to convince people using those pesky rational arguments, you, meaning the scientists, should just wave your magical PR-wand and, *ZING*, here it is, in a cloud of rainbow sparkles, Scientific Literacy!
Obviously, some scientists are downright critical of using PR-magic, because magic and the magical community have been scorned and alienated by scientists since at least 500 CE, but shouldn't we rather try to get along?
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 11, 2009 1:32 PM
The thing is, Dawkins doesn't even use abrasive language. If they're going to level that criticism against PZ, fine, but it doesn't apply to Dawkins.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 1:33 PM
It was Dawkins who got me into evolutionary biology.
He did not turn me into an atheist, as I was already one by the time I read "The Blind Watchmaker". I had never rejected evolution but had not given it much thought up till then.
Posted by: Tuck Cranmore | August 11, 2009 1:33 PM
I intend to read Dawkins' new book for the same reason
that I regularly check out Pharyngula: because
PZ & Dawkins are both writers who take pains to be
'effable', unlike a certain bronze-age deity I could name.
"...your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god".
Now that's what I call effable.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 1:36 PM
McCarthy over at The Intersection would disagree with you. Nevermind the fact that he has been unable to produce a single example of Dawkins being uncivil, he still maintains that he is.
Since Mooney has decreed comments on a blog can be taken as coming from the author of the blog, the conclusion to be drawn is that M&K are lying arseholes.
Posted by: Sara | August 11, 2009 1:39 PM
# 64
Oh, but he tells people they might be wrong. How's that not abrasive?
Posted by: Lynna | August 11, 2009 1:40 PM
@24
My brother had exactly the same experience with his girlfriend (luckily, he decided against marriage). The woman insisted that only faith-producing literature was "true" and that reading "crap" outside the church-approved list of books was a waste of time. (I was surprised that she would even say "crap" -- a testament to the strength of her aversion.)
This woman was so well indoctrinated that she did not recognize the placebo effect and was therefore prey to a host of pyramid schemes, as well as being submissive to church authority.
She finally agreed to read one science book. "You want me to learn about atoms or something?" So my brother bought her an introductory book, which she then refused to read. He read everything she demanded that he read.
Posted by: Jdhuey | August 11, 2009 1:40 PM
"...a single example of Dawkins being uncivil."
Dawkins once called a persons thinking 'muddleheaded'!! Now if that isn't uncivil I don't know what is.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 11, 2009 1:40 PM
"So, if everybody knows you're out as an atheist, like Richard Dawkins, you shouldn't write best-selling books about science?"
No, it's ok if you're Chris Mooney. If you're Mooney, then you're allowed to be an atheist who (in his own words) "bashes" the "religious right." I'm not sure why. Is it the hair? Dawkins has nice hair, too. Maybe it's that Mooney isn't an Uppity -- oops, I mean New -- Atheist. The distinction being, I guess, that "old" atheists limit themselves to criticizing only the religious beliefs of people who disagree with them politically.
Also, if you're Mooney, you ask "profound" questions like:
"Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?"
Well, putting aside the question of whether a book must provoke epiphanies to be worth writing -- judging by the way Mooney and Kirshenbaum have spun some very mixed reviews as positive, they don't honestly believe that to be the case -- I expect that some people will, in fact, change their minds as a result of Dawkins' writing.
Sort of like the people who have written Dawkins to tell him just that:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
Posted by: kiki | August 11, 2009 1:43 PM
Darwin is a figure that "both sides respect"?
I don't even know what to say to this.
Posted by: Yo | August 11, 2009 1:45 PM
What I want to know is how you denounce a major tenant of someone's faith without assaulting that very same faith. No matter of sugarcoating is going to change that. Also, there are no anti-evolutionist fence sitters at all I guess
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 1:46 PM
One thing I also just noticed.
Why the fuck does Mooney think that Dawkins is writing for the US market ? I have had this problem with Mooney before. He seems to think that nowhere exists outside the US, and everything anyone does must put American public opinion at its heart. Like how an international science organisation is expected to defer to US public opinion of the status of Pluto as a planet.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 11, 2009 1:50 PM
Matt Penfold @ 65: "It was Dawkins who got me into evolutionary biology.
He did not turn me into an atheist, as I was already one by the time I read "The Blind Watchmaker". I had never rejected evolution but had not given it much thought up till then. "
Yep, me too.
Individually, people like me aren't terribly important. But books like "The Blind Watchmaker" and Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" can turn people from being the kind of ill-informed and apathetic folks to whom "teach the controversy" is an appealling slogan into people who understand that there is no scientific controversy.
Mooney ought to understand this, too. How many global warming denialists does he think he converted with his prior books?
Posted by: Mike Daniels | August 11, 2009 1:52 PM
First, I'm still not sure what a "New Atheist" is.
I thought an atheist was an atheist. Are "New Atheists" new in that they don't follow M&K's accommodationist approach?
What exactly would they have us accommodate?
http://www.americanvision.org/event/worldview-super-conference-iii/
Yes, it was last month. No, I didn't go. But I'm considering downloading the MP3s. Who could resist talks like "Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" (paranoia), "Christian Roots of Science", and "Creation Science at the Cutting Edge"? Not to mention "Liberal Tyranny in Higher Education"!
Is this what M&K want us to "tolerate"? How about Christian Reconstruction in general? Do M&K realize that one of the goals of the Reconstruction movement is to teach only Creationism?
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 11, 2009 1:54 PM
kiki @72: "Darwin is a figure that "both sides respect"?"
I think M & K meant the "New Atheists" and the "Faitheists," not evolutionists and creationists.
Posted by: Dave X | August 11, 2009 1:56 PM
@ "Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed."
Still, I'm confused about what audience M&K are targeting. The vigorous anti-evolutionists need to read Dawkins to be able to quote-mine it and argue against it. Open-minded or questioning individuals would do far better to read the arguments of a strong advocate of evolution (i.e. Dawkins) than some framed and packaged pablum.
Do M&K think that the church would be better off using a Phil's* advocate rather than a Devil's advocate?
Maybe journalists nowadays have to market themselves for entertainment, not information.
(* That's Dilbert's Phil, as in the spoon-wielding prince of insufficient light that darns people to heck.)
Posted by: maureen brian | August 11, 2009 1:59 PM
Would someone who can be bothered - I certainly can't - please explain to M&K that it is one thing to try "accommodationist" tactics when the people you (i.e. Darwin) are up against are largely Church of England. After all, that is how the CofE has operated within its own ranks for centuries - it probably invented that modus operandi!
It is something else entirely when 150 years later we are up against a bunch of raving loonies who take any suggestion that they look at the evidence as a grave insult and any attempt to understand them as total surrender.
I've already pre-ordered the new Dawkins book and I'm not even a scientist. I expect it to be good but will issue my final verdict only when I have actually read it. There might be a lesson in there, somewhere.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | August 11, 2009 2:01 PM
I have read Richard's book. It's VERY good, and while it contains a bit more criticism of creationists than does my own book, it does not go after religion itself. Its purpose is to set out the evidence for evolution, not turn its readers into atheists. And if anybody refuses to accept evolution after reading it, this will not reflect Richard's religion-bashing, but either the denseness or religious indoctrination of the reader.
Posted by: Lynna | August 11, 2009 2:03 PM
I was, in my own muddled way, working my way toward agnosticism when I saw an interview on CNBC with Christopher Hitchens. I followed up this light-bulb moment by reading most of Hitchens's work, and most of Sam Harris's works.
It was Sam Harris that confirmed for me that accommodating the dogma of my religious neighbors was getting me nowhere. They just took politeness as an excuse to hassle me relentlessly.
I am still not abrasive to missionaries, friends, or anyone else who wishes to push religion and its rules to me. To their faces, I opt for "respect them as fellow humans" but be firm in rejecting all irrational arguments. I'm especially intolerant of passive aggressive moves like, "You'll hurt my feelings if you don't read this book (if you don't come to our pancake breakfast, etc. etc.)"
I still read whatever is offered, including the Book of Mormon, emails about Anti-Christ-Obama, interpretations of the Bible, etc. I just do not respond by submitting (with emotional tears and thanks) to the great "truths" they present. I respond with refutations, calm refutations.
It's a great relief to drop in at Pharyngula. I don't have to smile here in response to, "I know I can't do this alone. I need the help of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I wish would you let Jesus help you." (This being only the most recent comment made to me by a religious visitor who came knocking on my door without an invitation.)
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 11, 2009 2:05 PM
Perhaps "New Atheist" is an attempt to describe the recent (i.e. past 4 or 5 years or so) vigor of the atheist community, but also a way to suggest some kind of parity with the xtianity mindset: "Born Again Xtian".
Posted by: Paul | August 11, 2009 2:08 PM
And they were right to be accommodating at that point. It's easy to think of things from our perspective, but it fails when talking about how Darwin and his contemporaries composed themselves. Darwin had a great theory, with much explanatory power. However, he didn't have an explanation for the mechanism (as he doesn't seem to have connected his findings with Mendel's findings on genes). Accommodation made more sense before we actually had an observable vehicle for mutations. People could disagree with Darwin's theory without ignoring science (they would be ignoring certain observations, but who is to say that Darwin's observations could not have been coincidence or happenstance). We can observe genes and the effects they have on organisms, and we can observe mutations between generations. We can trace common ancestry through otherwise useless genome cruft. Accommodation doesn't make sense when you can actually provide a preponderance of evidence to show that you are right, because at that point people that disagree are not arguing in good faith in the first place.
Short version: the body of science now is far different than it was in the 1800s. Using Darwin quotes to suggest tactical approaches to teaching and spreading said body of evidence is...well...not even wrong. It makes no sense.
Posted by: Andrea J. | August 11, 2009 2:09 PM
I have the feeling that M&K really haven't talked much to the religionists whose viewpoints they're claiming to represent. I say this, because at sixteen, I was a staunch advocate of my Catholic parents' endorsement of intelligent design, and really, truly believed that humanity was a special, sparkling snowflake created by a loving God ... you know the jazz.
An, you know what changed my mind, and really sparked my interest in evolutionary biology as a discipline, and in evolution as a far better explanation than Jesus for life's diversity?
It was Dawkins. You know, that hard-line, absolutely anathema to the crowds of religionists, evil, evil little man, Dawkins. Because, whether or not it advocated atheism (or whatever else these people seem to find so distasteful), The Blind Watchmaker made a cogent, rational, useful argument for why evolution was a better explanation than the ID bullshit I had been conditioned to believe. It didn't turn me away from religious faith (although it did, perhaps, help me to start questioning a worldview that relied so heavily on lying...), but it did give me exactly the thing that they're railing for ... well-explained science that made sense of my world.
I am very glad that Dawkins got to me before M&K's sanitized, hand-holding, wishy-washy-not-actually-explaining-anything worldview did, because Dawkin's passionate defense of his argument, his unwillingness to back down and make concessions towards goddidit explanations, and his ruthless and spirited use of facts were, in the end, what actually convinced me that he was, you know, right.
People aren't convinced of truth by being coddled and tricked into it. That's religion's way, and it's an inherently bad way to teach people about what is and isn't true in the world.
People are convinced by, well, facts. And I'd like to live in a world where our passionate advocates for science remain passionate advocates of facts, not fuzzy feelings.
Posted by: Andy C | August 11, 2009 2:16 PM
If only mutually contradictory ideas interacted in the same manner as matter and antimatter, then the contents of the minds of Mooney and Kirshenbaum could actually be put to good use for humanity; the energy released would surely be immense.
Posted by: tandem_repeat | August 11, 2009 2:19 PM
I am living proof that fundamentalist Christians can change their minds. I was an evangelical Christian when I read "The Selfish Gene" in high school. It affected me in more ways than one. I went on to read other books about evolution and religion, and after weighing the evidence, I accepted the fact of evolution. I eventually opened up other aspects of my belief to criticism, and I am now an atheist. Dawkins' books also inspired me to get a degree in cell biology, and now I am a graduate student in genetics. Take that, M&K.
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 2:21 PM
Aside to #73:
Would that be a reliable high-paying lodger or a Dr.Who? ;-)
NB It's a common mistake to make which, nonetheless, makes some disturbing sense. I.e. the "tenant" is some bogus but popular notion which has been incorporated into the web of lies comprising the religion, and subsequently gets passed on with it as a matter of faith, but which didn't really need to be in there (unlike the actual tenets).
Posted by: John Salerno | August 11, 2009 2:22 PM
Isn't that story about the dedication to Darwin not even true? I read somewhere (Dawkin's, perhaps?) that it turned out to be someone else whom the dedication was for, but the papers got mixed up and led to the conclusion that it was Darwin.
Posted by: MartinDH | August 11, 2009 2:39 PM
JD Huey @#13:
Yeah...AFAIK C.D. was not a cross dresser. I think PZ should have written: "...hiding behind Darwin's coat-tails..." (which adds a nice Victorian feel to the phrase).
--
Martin
Posted by: Sigmund | August 11, 2009 2:40 PM
John Salerno #88 asked :"Isn't that story about the dedication to Darwin not even true?"
As far as I know it is true however there is a relevant sentence directly after the bit they quoted that puts Darwins reluctance to endorse the author into its proper context-
"I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."
Strange that, taking a quote from Darwin and using it out of context to misrepresent an argument.
Lets hope the creationists never cotton on to that tactic.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 11, 2009 2:41 PM
Fixed that for you. :)
Posted by: Lowell | August 11, 2009 2:48 PM
Below is the full letter from the Darwin Correspondence Project, available here: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12757.html
M&K left out a good chunk of it. Probably not technically quotemining, but he did have other rationales for declining the dedication: (1) he was too old to read it and didn't want to endorse something he hadn't read and (2) it would "pain" some members of his family.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | August 11, 2009 2:50 PM
No, I'm afraid it was Darwin. What you are thinking of is a false legend about who Darwin was replying to. The legend is that it was Karl Marx, and that Darwin was declining the dedication of Das Kapital. Actually Darwin was declining the dedication of a book on atheism by Edward Aveling. Aveling's common law wife was Marx's daughter Eleanor, and she inherited both Marx's and Aveling's papers. After her death, the two sets of papers were muddled up. Darwin's letter began ambiguously: "My dear Sir . . . " and the name of the book in question was not mentioned, so the addressee was not clear. It was widely assumed to be Marx, but later evidence has shown that in fact it was Aveling.Sorry.
By the way, proper names, such as mine, don't have apostrophes in them, not in English anyway.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 2:54 PM
Thanks for setting the record straight, Professor Dawkins.
*huge grin*
Posted by: Lowell | August 11, 2009 2:56 PM
The Darwin letter was addressed to E.B. Aveling, who, if I'm not mistaken, was this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Aveling
Sounds like he had an eventful life (married Karl Marx's daughter, who killed herself, they say, due to his infidelity).
No mention on Wiki about any publications. Do we know what book it was that he wanted to dedicate to Darwin?
Posted by: SLC | August 11, 2009 3:03 PM
Re Paul
Interestingly enough, after Darwins' death, a copy of Mendels' 1865 treatise was found amongst his papers. Unfortunately, it was written in German, a language that Darwin was was only poorly acquainted with and he apparently either never attempted to read it or was unable to decipher what Mendel had discovered. One can only speculate as to whether Mendels' work would have been appreciated earlier if the treatise had been written in Latin or French, languages that Darwin, like all educated Englishmen of his day, was quite comfortable with.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 11, 2009 3:04 PM
I just realized, anectdotally, after reading havoc1995,
that the moderate Christian religions I knew growing up accepted evolution almost completely, so believers from those religions had no worldview for Dawkins to shatter. As far as I know, many of the Protestant denominations (I don't know about Baptists) along with the Roman Catholic Church consider evolutionary biology an integral part of their children's educations. So I think it is reasonable to say that Dawkins' books should have the greatest educational effect on Young Earth Creationists quite contrary to M&K's assertion (the first one PZ quoted about epiphanies). The challenge is getting Young Earth Creationists curious enough to read such a book in the first place, which has more to do with Dawkins' writing style and the book's availability than it does with Dawkins' atheism.For me, it was archeology, history, foreign cultures, neurology, and friendly debate that convinced me to stop trying to believe in a god, but the real kicker was the Bible itself as it turned out to be chock-full of contradictions, discrepancies, debauchery, bigotry, and falsehoods while also having little windows into far more ancient mythologies than Christianity itself (my favorites are Lilith, the woman created before Eve, and how there is more than one god in Genesis). What I'm getting at is that studying the Bible literally and comparing it against evidence in different scientific fields is a sure path to atheism, so YECs may have a leg up on 'moderate' Christians in the race to apostasy.
Posted by: Lowell | August 11, 2009 3:10 PM
A bibliography of Aveling's works from here (which also has a history of the British secular movement in the late 19th century): http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_mcgee/british_secular_movement.html
I like this guy! Wickedness of God is a pretty bad-assed title.
I bet the book he wanted to dedicate to Darwin was God Dies: Nature Remains (1881), but that's just a guess based on the October 1880 date of Darwin's letter.
Posted by: jeremy | August 11, 2009 3:11 PM
This anti-accommodationist, new atheist (tm) steam train is really starting to increase in momentum. Decent coverage of the Ham pwnage, crackergate, a bit of criticism from Mooney and friends, and now a new Dawkins book.
Posted by: Paul | August 11, 2009 3:12 PM
SLC,
That is why I was conservative in my wording! I had heard that factoid, but did not research too deeply -- and I did not think it was too far to state that Darwin did not seem to have connected the works to his (at least not in writing). It can be interesting to theorize how things might have been.
Mainly, I felt the need to write my response because it is a constant source of irritation when reading arguments that invoke the same weak argument by authority (e.g. Darwin taking an accomodationist position based on current standards, Newton believing in God, etc). The fact is they did not have access to the same body of evidence as we do, and it's disingenuous (though regrettably common) to implicitly assume that all things are equal except their religious beliefs/approach when comparing them to people in current situations.
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 3:22 PM
@ SLC #96:
I think it's quite likely Darwin didn't read Mendel's stuff because the pages of a book in his possession containing info on it hadn't yet been cut open from the bound folds of paper on which the thing was printed! In those days, publishers didn't do the trimming which they now do as standard. Purchasers had to do that themselves.
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 11, 2009 3:27 PM
Long under fire from the religious right, the NCSE now must protect its other flank from the New Atheist wing of science.
Interest calculus FAIL
The anti-accommodationists help the NSCE because it reinforces the NSCE's moderate stance.
It's true that Coyne, PZ, and RD have to drop the naïve, drama queen posts about being excluded from the negotiation table. It's naïve for an active antagonist to expect a role where at least the appearance of conciliation and compromise are necessary. And it's just silly to complain that you're being ignored in this context. Accommodationists necessarily must keep non-accommodationists at arms length.
The smart accommodationists and anti-accommodationists know that this is the way things must be, and are natural allies.
The not-so-smart ones write things like "Who … will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany?" and "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists".
Come on.
Anti-evolutionists are scared to death of Dawkins because a lot of their coreligionists and kids read him and abandon their faith. They discuss this openly.
And of course the NSCE's political position is a strong one. Just look at the results. RD invoking Chamberlain is Godwin FAIL and plain stupid.
But that doesn't mean that PZ or RD should change their very effective strategy one jot. This whole internal debate over accomodationists is stupid. PZ has chosen more-or-less the correct tactics for a blog. RD has chosen good tactics for the book and television market. Eugenie Scott has chosen the correct tactics for NCSE. Measured in the simple metrics above, both are correct, and it is silly to view these complementary tactics as contradictory. There is only "works" and "doesn't work".
Accommodation works. Ridicule works. Use them both.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 11, 2009 3:37 PM
Hey ! Richard Dawkins reads this ? The real Richard Dawkins ?
WE LOVE YOU !!!
Posted by: Stephen | August 11, 2009 3:42 PM
"Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind? Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists."
Those folks don't read anyway. That is, they don't read *at all* (occasional exceptions for the Bible, Chick Tracts, and Left Behind-type fiction). To make it even worse, they actually look down on people who *do* read. The more you read, the less respect they have for you. Seriously.
Posted by: H.H. | August 11, 2009 4:01 PM
Evidence?Posted by: jeremy | August 11, 2009 4:03 PM
Dammit! There's a troll with a capital (J)eremy. Guess I need a new name. I like that one too, it's my real one :(
Posted by: amphiox | August 11, 2009 4:14 PM
For supposed experts in communications, K&M seem to me to miss out on a couple of fundamental aspects of that behavior:
1. It's a collaborative effort: You cannot teach he who will not learn. You cannot speak to he who will not listen.
and
2. Coersion is not possible: You can't force someone who doesn't want to listen to you to listen to you!
The fundamentalist anti-evolutionists never were, never are, and never will be our target audience. Most of these guys are lost causes. The occasional rare one who does actually turn because of some rational argument they hear or read are lucky bonuses, nothing more.
Our target audience is the uninformed and partially informed majority of people in the middle, whose minds are still open to argument, as well as, sometimes, the fundamentalists' kids, before their indoctrination is completed.
As for the fundamentalists themselves, we're really just waiting from them to grow old and die off. It's all we really can do short of kidnapping them and brainwashing them with torture. (And here I'm half-hoping they're right about the rapture, 'cause then we won't have to wait quite so long.)
Posted by: rrt | August 11, 2009 4:31 PM
Yet another iteration of the same tired theme: The promotion of science must be given priority over the promotion of godlessness, and really atheists should just shut up altogether. Only M&K's priorities matter.
I think they're wrong as it is, but this bizarre, oblivious assumption that everyone puts science advocacy first is what really gets me. Sure, lots of us do. But lots of us don't, and lots of us think they're pushing a false dichotomy.
Posted by: Mariana | August 11, 2009 4:32 PM
Mmmyeah, I think M&K, as well as that other well coiffed, wholesome looking framist whose name eludes me, should implement "converts' corners" in their websites, where people could leave testimonies such as "I was feeling uneasy about how to reconcile my religious beliefs with science, and when I was exposed to New Atheism, I considered becoming a YEC, but thanks to Unscientific America I now feel all warm and accommodated with evolution. Thank you!"
Or is it the YEC themselves that M&K are trying to win over? I'm confused.
Also, the fact that they - apparently inadvertently - used the phrasing "What Would Darwin Do?" was pretty funny.
Posted by: small case jeremy | August 11, 2009 4:34 PM
Incidentally, I converted to atheism on the back of reading the much harsher ridicule of Normal Bob Smith. Just couldn't stand feeling stupid any longer. Followed that up with a bit of back-reading - all of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Sagan, anything I could get my hands on, then started on Scienceblogs. You know, I think M&K are underestimating the number of people who are reasonably intelligent but haven't been exposed to the facts in such an accessible way that Dawkins' books present.
Posted by: Varangian | August 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Mooney and Kirshenbaum: the Neville Chamberlains of the science/faith conflict?
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 11, 2009 4:47 PM
Evidence?
face. palm.
Posted by: medstudent | August 11, 2009 5:01 PM
I hereby testify that while reading one of Richard Dawkin's books during my youth, specifically Climbing Mount Improbable, it led me to have an epiphany. To suggest that his new book won't do the same for others is completely ignorant.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 11, 2009 5:06 PM
You know, Mooney and Kirshenbaum have sort of a point.
You remember the old story about the new school marm in the district where spanking and corporal punishment were banned. She couldn't keep order. So she asked the principal to help out.
He showed up and quietly asked the class to come to attention, but nothing happened outside the usual class riot. After three more attempts, the principal strode to one of the greatest offenders, lifted him out of the seat and, with a baseball bat the teacher hadn't noticed until that moment, clocked the kid a good one. He slid along the floor and landed in a lump.
The class grew extremely quiet. The principal said, "Now, class, you will pay attention to Miss Jones.
On the way to the door she whispered to the principal, "I thought we can't use corporal punishment." The principla said, "Oh, no, we don't use corporal punishment when they do things wrong -- but you do have to get their attention first."
So the question is, how to (virtually) smash creationists in the face and get their attention, while not offending them?
It's a tough line to walk.
Posted by: H.H. | August 11, 2009 5:40 PM
se-rat-o-SAWR-us , I'm sure you think you've just somehow made a devastating point, but I don't really follow you. Are you somehow trying to make a connection between Ken Miller's testimony at the Dover trial and the success of his accommodationalist approach? How is the latter in any way dependent on the former?
Specifically, I'm looking for evidence that accommodation "works" in regards to convincing religious skeptics to embrace the theory of evolution, which is the claim accommodationalists are making. Simply pointing out that accommodationalists exist really doesn't address the question.
Posted by: October Mermaid | August 11, 2009 5:57 PM
I can offer some evidence right now that shoots down Mooney and Kirshenbaum: reading the God Delusion was what pushed me to atheism and the entire reason I know about and regularly read Pharyngula.
I was raised in a fundamentalist southern baptist home and wasted literally a DECADE of my life in constant fear and terror that I wasn't truly saved, that I didn't believe enough, that I didn't love God enough, that I would go to hell at any moment (and even the Bible asks you to stress out over this, working out your salvation "with fear and trembling.")
I would read Answers in Genesis and Dr. Dino for any small comfort I could get. I would see shows about evolution on TV and become very fearful that my beliefs would come crashing down and I would become damned. I bought the Cases for Christ and Faith by Lee Strobel and for a time, it was ok. I even had an inkpen I took to school that, each time you pressed the button on top, would reveal a new "comforting" Bible verse!
I had doubts. It's probably more to do with obsessive compulsion than any inherent ability for critical thought on my part, but I'm thankful for it, whatever it was. To believe ANYTHING, I need ample evidence. I cannot help this. So when I heard about the God Delusion, I went for it. I was already someone mad at god for not helping me with my doubts and holding me to what I felt were unreasonable standards.
But upon finishing Dawkins' book, I realized... I no longer believed. He had laid out his case in a way that Strobel, Zacharias and other apologists never could. Oh, they tried, but they didn't have much to work with.
And don't get me wrong, it wasn't a joyful epiphany at first! Look at some of my earliest comments on pharyngula if you care to and you'll see that I was in despair over my loss of an afterlife (even a horrible, fiery one!) and the fear that maybe I didn't have an invisible friend with me all along. But compare that to the despair I felt for years over the Christian mythology and failing to live up to it and it's nothing. I feel better and freer now than I EVER did then. And I have The God Delusion primarily and PZ and his commenters to thank for this.
So there, Mooney and Kirshenbaum. Explain that. And no, I won't buy your book.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 11, 2009 5:57 PM
I agree - who would read Dawkins' book or change their minds? No one obviously, because we haven't got a horde of nodding scientists with degrees in journalism.
Bizarre. I think I'll file Mooney and Kirschenbaum under "concern troll"; they're just not making any sense.
Posted by: Robocop | August 11, 2009 6:04 PM
67: "Nevermind the fact that he has been unable to produce a single example of Dawkins being uncivil, he still maintains that he is."
Perhaps these:
1. “Don’t be so ashamed of your president,” he wrote. “The majority of you didn’t vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans traveling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent.” He went on to suggest that Bush was “Bin Laden’s dream candidate,” “an amiable idiot,” and a liar. “An idiot he may be,” he opined, “but he is also sly, mendacious, and vindictive.”
2. Throughout his remarks, Dawkins could barely suppress the contempt he feels for mystical religion. “What I can’t understand is why we are expected to show respect for good scientists, even great scientists, who at the same time believe in a god who does things like listen to our prayers, forgive our sins, perform cheap miracles,” he said, prompting a burst of nervous laughter to ripple through the audience, “which go against, presumably, everything that the god of the physicist, the divine cosmologist, set up when he set up his great laws of nature. So I don’t understand a scientist who says, ‘I am a Roman Catholic’ or ‘I am a Baptist.’”
3. “I regard Genesis as the spiritual truth,” Miller said. “And I also think that Genesis was written in a language that would explain God that was relevant to the people living at the time. I cannot imagine—cannot imagine—Moses coming down from the Mount and talking about DNA, RNA, punctuated equilibrium. I don’t think he would have gotten very far.” Nonetheless, he reiterated his belief that the biblical stories of the world’s creation “are true in the spiritual sense and that they are written by human beings in the language of the time.”
Dawkins, at the far end of the table, almost levitated out of his seat with indignation. “But what does that mean?” he demanded, voice rising. The audience rewarded his indignation with combustive applause. “Is it a caricature for me to ask you, since you are a Roman Catholic, do you believe Jesus had an earthly father?”
“Ah, this is the famous Richard Dawkins question,” Miller replied, sounding a little defensive.
“No, don’t ridicule it!” Dawkins shouted, relentless.
“If I can just get a fragment of the body of Jesus,” Miller continued, “I could do DNA fingerprinting! I could figure out who gave Mary that Y chromosome!”
“That’s a facetious answer!” Dawkins cried out, his face flushed with conviction, shaking his finger at Miller. “That’s a facetious answer!” The heat was so palpable that, as Margaret Wertheim, the moderator, said later, “At least now we know that Richard actually believes this. Before, I wasn’t sure if it was just a performance.”
_____________________________
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 6:22 PM
Dawkins response to Tyson's rebuke is rather uncivil.
Posted by: Jeff F | August 11, 2009 6:22 PM
Robocop:
Perhaps you failed to notice what the author of that piece said about the very exchange you found so uncivil:
"The other thing that struck me was the tone of the debate—Dawkins, in his undeniably civil manner, was so aggressive, so relentless, and so pitiless toward his intellectual adversaries that it almost detracted from the quality of his argument.
Quote mine much?
Posted by: Aquaria | August 11, 2009 6:23 PM
I think it is fair to compose any response to the toothpaste twins entirely out of profanity from now on.
I realized that the second they started whoring their book.
That's why I came out with both guns blazing, and why Mooney got his shorts twisted over it so much that his obsession with PZ made him think that PZ wrote it.
Never did address any of the points I raised. Just stamped his foot and wailed like a titty-baby about how uncivil and militant and rude and mean I was.
Fucking wimp.
So Mooney can still fuck right off.
Posted by: Observer | August 11, 2009 6:26 PM
robocop@167
Here we have the insurmountable impasse. I don't see how those questions are uncivil. The question he asked Miller is a good one, and hardly uncivil. I share his surprise at the religiosity of otherwise sensible scientists. His comments about Bush are harsh, but certainly no harsher than the thoughts of over half the American public at the time.
I guess criticism of any kind is uncivil.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 6:29 PM
Now that we've lost our well meaning fools to the dungeon, we need some replacements. It appears that we have a new person trying out for the role. Robocop, the job entails you giving your opinion on various matters, and as a result, we know the correct thing is the opposite of what you say.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 6:30 PM
What is the problem with these two? seriously?!? Complaining that a well-known scientist publishes a book on... science? This is just getting pathetic now.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 11, 2009 6:31 PM
"Oh, Jebus. What a crock.
Darwin is not our saint."
Testify, Brother PZ!
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 6:32 PM
It's all anecdotal! *badoomp doomp chick*Posted by: Robocop | August 11, 2009 6:32 PM
121: "Perhaps you failed to notice what the author of that piece said about the very exchange you found so uncivil...."
Civility is in the eye of the beholder, Jeff, which is why I offered *three* possible examples ("Perhaps..."); I note that you only referred to *one*.
"Quote mine much?"
I appreciate your Pavlovian defense of the exalted Saint Richard, but hold the dishonesty and read more carefully if you want to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Red John | August 11, 2009 6:36 PM
I guess you could say I had an epiphany from reading Dawkins' work (specifically The Ancestor's Tale). I was raised in a religious family in the South, and while my family wasn't strongly outspoken against evolution and science, I don't even remember it being taught in my high-school biology class. Maybe mentioned, but I basically knew nothing about it. I wouldn't have called myself a creationist either; I simply didn't think about it that much. Then, as I started to come to the conclusion that there was no god, I bought a copy of The Ancestor's Tale to learn about the theory of evolution. Almost immediately I was blown away and promptly read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene afterwards (also, I was more than a little upset that I had never been taught the material before). So, let Mooney whine all he wants, but Dawkins' books do make a difference.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 6:45 PM
Not so fast Robocrock, that piece was riddled with slanting devices. That wasn't an example of journalism, that was a hatchet job.
Posted by: Last Hussar | August 11, 2009 6:57 PM
Prof Myers,
I don't know who these two are, as I live in the UK. I do wonder whether you have been too quick to condemn, basing your attacks that because it is these two writers what they write must be wrong.
" Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?
Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists."
Surely this is true- the sort of people who most need to be exposed to the truth are the very ones who will avoid the 'devil's chaplain'- they will wait for one of the 'debunking Dawkins' books, then learn that. Whilst visiting the cathedral at Bury St Edmunds I wandered round the small attached shop, and it contained a copy of "Why there almost certainly is a God (doubting Dawkins)" by Keith Ward. I looked for a section where my science was fairly solid (can't remember what- possibly the Flood, it’s a bit of a personal crusade with me at times) and with in the first paragraph it became obvious that even I with my amateur knowledge could outargue Ward. His arguments were not even particulally new. Yet it is books like these that are bought, despite the fact that 15 minutes on the Internet, or with one of Prof Dawkins books would show any neutral reader Ward's errors.
The people who will buy it are us- and surely that is (excuse the phrase) "preaching to the choir". Are we going to gain anything new from it?
Nor did they say that Prof Dawkins was " a harbinger of total moral depravity". I am afraid you appear to have quote mined. What they actually said was " they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness." Note- 'THEY fear'. It is the difference between "Dick Cheney said GW Bush was the USA's greatest president" and " GW Bush was the USA's greatest president" (Boy, is that going to confuse the Freepers if it makes it onto Google!)
Re: Darwin. The 'do what Darwin did because he was Darwin' is obviously a poor argument, but I can understand the sentiment:
Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."
Lets face it, they have never responded to us lecturing them (and shouting and sneering) at them- and I have been doing this for close on 20 years. All that happens is they become more resistant. I sometimes think the best we can hope for is keep religeon on it's side of the fence, out of science, and pick up the ones who start thinking for themselves. If there is a way to disabuse YECs of their opinions en amsse then no one has appeared to find it.
Posted by: Aquaria | August 11, 2009 7:02 PM
1. “Don’t be so ashamed of your president,” he wrote. “The majority of you didn’t vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans traveling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent.” He went on to suggest that Bush was “Bin Laden’s dream candidate,” “an amiable idiot,” and a liar. “An idiot he may be,” he opined, “but he is also sly, mendacious, and vindictive.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
I guess RotoCrock has never been to Democratic Underground. They said a lot worse than that about Bush! Stuff that would have made Mooneytits (love how ERV calls him that) get a severe case of the vapors. Might kill have RotoCrock to see that kind of incivility, if he thinks those are examples of Dawkins' incivility.
Posted by: Jeff F | August 11, 2009 7:13 PM
Robocop:
Robocop:
You offered three examples from the same article dingleberry. An article in which the only mention of civility was Richard Dawkins "undeniably civil manner". Seems to me that it's highly disingenuous to leave that part out.
Or not. Maybe civility is indeed in the eye of the Beholder,and it wasn't worth a mention. But then what is the argument exactly? That you personally find Richard Dawkins uncivil? Well, You've proven that. But that He would be considered uncivil by anyone else? Not so much. In fact, the article you quote-mined had evidence to the contrary. Evidence which you deliberately left out.
Posted by: Mr T | August 11, 2009 7:15 PM
What is the point??
M&K are so useless to this discussion. Come to a conclusion! Give an example (or even just a general outline) of something an atheist who believes science and religion are incompatible could say regarding the compatibility of science and religion, something that would be acceptable for most believers.
Should we say nothing? Um, yeah, about that: it's not going to happen.
No solution? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords
|
August 11, 2009 7:25 PM
I must say I'm really bored with this unfunny comedy duo. Maybe they should sign up for a tour of fundy colleges - the REAL money in "science criticism" is there, after all - and look for a post at Liberty U.
As with Prof. Behe, it's only another couple of small steps before the tar pits of stupidity seize them forever.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 11, 2009 7:26 PM
By the way, PZ, any chance the L.A. Times will give you a chance to reply (assuming you want to)?
Posted by: Neil | August 11, 2009 7:43 PM
I am a professor at a SUNY College. My students will be reading The Greatest Show on Earth! What I have seen of it so far is excellent.
I will be talking at a local bookshop in November as well, around the 150th anniversary of 'The Origin'. The local people are, on the whole, very open to science and discussion. I don't imagine that the bookshop will sell a copy to every member of the city, but I am sure that if they get it in stock a few locals will pick one up. He did quite a good trade in evolution books when we had a celebration of Darwin's 200th. I am trying to engage the public on the subject, and have been very pleased to see that they are open to different, challenging ideas. I don't really care what Mooney and Kirschenbaum think of this. From my perspective the problem with popular science, and the media, is that they dumb it down, so that star trek seems more plausible. If the media wants to talk to scientists, then I am willing to talk to them. Would that please M + K? I don't know. But I am willing to do it, whatever they would think.
Posted by: efrique | August 11, 2009 8:44 PM
I find it disturbing enough that the creationists imagine we're a bunch of Darwin-worshippers. Now the accomodationists (and that's what I see M&K as) have spent so much time bowing and scraping to the creationists that they have adopted their vapid nonsense?
All you have to do is actually read what he wrote in something as accessible as On the Origin of Species to realize Darwin was very human, and thus quite capable - in the face of very limited information - of coming to several wrong conclusions along the way. That he nevertheless managed to get so much right and explain it so clearly was a great achievement, but nobody who understands what he wrote at even a fairly basic level would ever think of worshipping the man.
As such, how does Darwin's opinion on how to handle a particular set of circumstances in his own era carry relevance for us well over a century down the road? Should we also look to Adam Smith for how much to tip the cab driver?
Posted by: Miguel | August 11, 2009 9:49 PM
I just can't get what M&K want... They don't like Dawkins when he writes an atheism book, and they still don't like him when he writes a science book.
What should Dawkins do? Write a creationist tome for a change? Keep things fair and balanced (yeah, teach the controversy - this way you'll empathize with the ignorant masses). They have this awfully condescending tone (Dawkins explains this at length in the God Delusion) - people need their gods (even though we don't), so let's be respectful about their silly beliefs.
By the way, this is one thing that irks me greatly: the expectation of a "fair and balanced" debate. Reality is not fair and balanced - its dictatorial. On the evolution/creationism "debate" you have facts on one side and lies/ignorance/misinformation on the other. You can't be fair and balanced about that.
And I think that its greatly dishonest to defend something you really don't believe in. For instance, regarding quantum mechanics I favor the many-worlds interpretation. If I have to, I can tell you about the good aspects of the alternatives (e.g., Bohmian mechanics). But I can't write a paper defending the Copenhagen interpretation - as far as I can tell reality doesn't work like this.
With the creationists, the issue is even worse: they don't have anything going for them. They have no evidence, no credible arguments, and their few testable predictions have failed completely (young Earth, anyone?). Yet they refuse to face the facts and instead create monuments to a lie (e.g. the Creation "Museum"). You can't be balanced about that - you can't expect to win them over by bending backwards to accommodate their beliefs. You don't win against anti-Gricean science by being polite - they'll say that you're showing weakness because you know that evolution is false (see how that New Scientist cover turned out).
Apparently the New Atheists, like Dawkins, Coyne and Myers himself share my view that honesty is paramount. Not hatred or contempt (although some central figures, like Ken Ham, do deserve it, the average creationist does not), but honestly and bluntly stating your beliefs - showing your evidence and pointing out where others got it wrong.
But when the other side denies the facts and appeals to some "holy book" or another, then you point and laugh at them. There's nothing more to be done at this point. We can just keep spreading the data around and don't let these anti-science zealots (such as Ben Stein with his "science kills people" quip) win any more ground.
Sorry for the length, BTW :)
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | August 11, 2009 9:51 PM
PZ you are the best.
Stand up and speak out!
It is hard in the corporate world to deal with xians and jews, no matter how lapsed. specially round the holy days.
I tend to mention that the solstice falls on saturday eve this year so that it is a good chance to put in the required fireworks and bar-b-q so that the sun will grow strong again in the sky.
also I love to say "vernal equinox"
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | August 11, 2009 9:54 PM
Posted by: jdhuey | August 11, 2009 12:24 PM "...hiding behind Darwin's skirts." This is a common phrase, but I still find it a bit sexist.
"...hiding behind Darwin's shirts."
there, all fixed
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 11, 2009 9:56 PM
I haven’t been following the Mooney/Kirshenbaum pissfest closely, but I’m beginning to see why you find them so irritating. That opening paragraph is incredibly obtuse. It’s futile for Richard Dawkins to write books?! (Is this satire?)
And admonishing us to emulate Darwin — when 150 years later, 46% of the population still believe in the Genesis account of creation?
Honestly, they come across like clueless, whiny cowards who are more interested in infighting than educating.
Posted by: articulett | August 11, 2009 9:59 PM
Is there any evidence anywhere that enabling peoples' delusions helps them think rationally or scientifically?
I think the core problem is that people feel ennobled and saved for "belief". That's a notion that needs to be attacked. People need to learn to get their science from scientists rather than the media, gurus, politicians, faith or feelings. The empirical method is the only method we have for understanding objective reality.
Why should a scientist accomodate religion more than they would a shaman or other pseudoscience/superstition? When has this EVER proven effective for promoting reason? It was a big fail in Galileo's time and it's a big fail now.
Faith is the problem-- not the "new atheists" that lack it.
Posted by: notscarlettohara | August 11, 2009 10:17 PM
Dear Last Hussar,
You obviously haven't been reading all the comments (I'll grant, there are a lot), but several people have mentioned how Dawkins or similar opened their eyes. And I'll throw my two cents in as well - like an earlier commenter, I felt guilty that I didn't seem to believe as much as everyone else in my Southern Baptist congregation. Then I read The God Delusion, and realized that *that is OK*. And then I read Sagan's Varieties of Scientific Experience, and realized that not believing is not just OK, it's *awesome*. I just don't understand how, once you realize how beautiful the rational view of nature is, you could *not* defend it passionately. When someone tells you Britney Spears is better than Bach, you don't say, "Well, I see where you're coming from, and while I disagree, I respect your opinion," you say, "Have you even listened to Bach?!"
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 10:23 PM
Man I'm looking forward to Mooney's new book, because surely after all these snipings about the style and tone of science educators that he's going to show how it's really meant to be done. It'll be the must-read of the decade!!!As for Dawkins' book, I know I'll be reading it. I'm already an 'evolutionist' but I want to further my understanding of the theory. Reading Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution Is True taught me quite a lot about particular aspects of the theory I hadn't explored before and I'm expecting Dawkins' book to do the same. Looking forward to the read.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 11, 2009 10:31 PM
"Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed."
That also seems like a good reason to wear atheist t-shirts, even in places like, say, the Creation Museum.
Posted by: Defaithed | August 11, 2009 10:34 PM
"Must science declare a holy war on religion?"
Bloody hell, what is with these loons?
Science has NOT "declared a war on religion". Religion has declared a war on science.
Science makes no claims one way or the other about gods and avatars and leprechauns, other than to point out (truthfully) when asked that there is no scientific evidence for such things. Science doesn't concern itself with such evidence-free concepts.
Science makes observations about reality and creates theories that best explain those observations. Then religion comes along, invents some Magic Man out of pure imagination, conjures "truths" about that Magic Man out of nothing, declares that science's theories conflict with those Magic Man "truths", and demand that science change its theories of reality to accommodate! It's all the more lunatic in that religion upchucks *thousands* of different contradictory versions of Magic Man doctrine (including Magic Trinity and Magic Persons and anything else imaginable). And science is supposed to accommodate these thousands of dogmas that can't agree on anything?
Science is just going about its business (with spectacular results, as always). If religion wants to invent its own dogmas that oppose reality and then scream about "a holy war on religion", that's religion's problem. Science SHOULD respond with "go away, idiot".
As for M&K: They're obviously working hard to carve out a marketing niche for themselves. When the "he said, she said" media need a "balanced position" to reconcile observation of reality with insistence on magic fairies, they're on call as media's go-to twins. They've identified a market for their fuzzy feel-good position, and plan to milk it vigorously. Honesty be damned; they've got a business to run!
Posted by: Ray S. | August 11, 2009 10:35 PM
relative to the video of Tyson rebuking Dawkins (see 119 for linky):
Tyson whines that Dawkins isn't sensitive enough to the state of mind of the person he's trying to reach, sort of a more subtle accomodationist stance. Dawkins, after Tyson finishes, accepts the rebuke. He partially deflects it with an anecdote about someone else. No one appeared to have their feelings hurt. How is that uncivil? Is it because Dawkins telling of the story required the use of the F-bomb?
I think it has to do with people like those who objected tot he Iowa bus ads. We're offensive just because we exist.
Please compare Dawkins to anyone on talk radio and show me where RD sets the standard for uncivility. I don't get it.
Posted by: omar ali | August 11, 2009 10:35 PM
I posted this comment on the LA Times site: In posing as honest brokers in this debate, Mooney and Kirshenbaum are being intellectually dishonest. Their book promotes exactly the accomodationist stance that they ascribe to the NCSE and they have had a very contentious argument with Dr. Meyers about this issue. Yet from reading the article, you would never guess that they themselves represent one faction among the two being discussed in this article. Whether they are right or wrong, they should at least try to be honest.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 10:40 PM
Robocrock is trying out to be our well meaning fool. They state stuff that doesn't always say what they think it says. And they don't apologize when caught. So far, he has a shot at getting the role.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 10:42 PM
That's one thing I admired about Ken Miller's book Only A Theory. He didn't try to pretend that religion wasn't the main problem in this conflict, and instead tried to make the case for a reconciliation. Now that to me seems a good way of going about things as it seems to address the core underlying problems with acceptance of evolution.I really wonder whether Mooney will throw his hat into the ring and show Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, etc. how it is meant to be done. It would be great to see Mooney actually put into practice what he preaches, the only reason I don't think that he is that his entire position would fail spectacularly if he dared attempted to do it. Meanwhile Dawkins will continue on the best-seller list and people will continue to learn about evolution from him long after Mooney has faded into obscurity.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 11, 2009 11:07 PM
It's encouraging that former theists are coming forward with stories about how the Mean™, New™, Militant&trade atheists have had profound impact on their lives and brought them to a point where they appreciate science.
Since I've never been a theist it's difficult for me to weigh in on what I think does or doesn't work in terms of freeing people from their antique superstitions.
However, I can say that, prior to reading Dawkins and visiting blogs like PZ's, I didn't have more than a fleeting interest in science. I'm your average layperson who did science at high school and therefore only knew bits and pieces about evolution - but accepted it as fact.
These days I'm far more interested. I've got a copy of The Blind Watchmaker, I've read The Ancestor's Tale and I'm going to get Dawkins' book when it comes out. I may well track down a copy of Jerry Coyne's as well.
I can't imagine I'd have done that if all I read were weak-tea, bent-over-backwards appeasing of religion. I've got no time for people who lack the courage of their convictions. If you can't trust science to tell you the important facts about the universe (i.e. that there's no evidence of any kind of god in it), how do you know that you're correct about anything you are accepting (e.g. evolution)?
And don't even start me on 'other ways of knowing'. That's the weakest, most vacuous, pissant dodge of all.
Posted by: articulett | August 11, 2009 11:36 PM
*tee-hee* Orac has a bitchfest about Bill Maher being honored by AAI including PZ's support, and then gets all prissy when PZ disses S&M-- the latter are people who have truly denigrated atheism with their ass kissing accommodation, blaming of "new atheists", and stereotyping "new atheists" with criticisms more suited for themselves. I guess Orac thinks that only his opinion about who is worthy of criticism should be respected.
I prefer PZ as a spokesperson for reason and Maher (I think Maher is educable in his woo-ish areas and he recognizes very clearly that faith is leads to problems in reasoning) over Orac or Mooney. Both of these dudes think a lot more of themselves than I think of them. Perhaps that is why those they criticize (like PZ) are much more widely read than they are--and thus MORE RESPONSIBLE for ameliorating scientific ignorance and atheist bigotry than their critics imagine.
There's only one reality. I prefer mine undiluted with religious pandering. When religion is making claims about reality, it is guilty of pseudoscience and needs to be treated accordingly. I strongly encourage the faithful to keep their superstitions as private as they want those with competing faiths to keep theirs.
I'm sure S&M can show us how they think the "new atheists" should have acted to their criticism by modeling that response with our return criticism. The same goes for Orac--whom, I generally like (more than Mooney)--but, face it, Orac is no PZ. Ugh-- like Ben Stein, they love to dish it out, but suddenly clutch their pearls and pout when it is returned in kind.
Posted by: Tulse | August 11, 2009 11:46 PM
At Jerry Coyne's blog, the poster Screechy Monkey has made a staggering find: this 2001 review by Mooney of the PBS series Evolution. Reading it, you could hardly tell it's the same person:
[...]
[...]
Honestly, could his current position be more different than these passages? What the hell happened to him?
Posted by: Dan W | August 11, 2009 11:57 PM
Wow, these two accomodationists are really sinking to new lows. Dawkins wrote a book against religion/for atheism, so therefore he shouldn't write any more books? Even when it's a book about science, probably evolutionary biology, which Dawkins knows a lot about?
And they've resorted to quote-mining, something I'd expect religious trolls to do, not rational, logical people. But then, I've come to realize that not all atheists are rational or logical people. Too bad, then (hopefully) there'd be less accomodationist idiots like Mooney and Kirshenbaum.
Posted by: articulett | August 12, 2009 12:27 AM
I agree that Screechy Monkey's find is excellent, Tulse!
Perhaps we should tell creationists they are not able to learn evolution so long as they believe their salvation depends on them not understanding it. We can pat them on the back and say, "there, there... it's kinder... I don't want to force you to bite from the tree of knowledge"--
Let's admit it--some people are too "seeped in faith" to be able to understand the facts of evolution. We should treat such people as the magical thinking children they are and keep them away from the grown up conversation until they're need for the facts surpasses their need to believe a fairy story.
We can "accommodate" them the same way we try to be sensitive to little children who may still believe in Santa--
I bet understanding of evolution happens rather quickly when we treat creationism like another crazy conspiracy theory or superstition. People should not feel deserving of respect because they've come to believe crazy things. We'll pat them on the heads kindly, and invite them to join us when they get a clue.
Posted by: Fallsroad | August 12, 2009 12:49 AM
@146:
As for M&K: They're obviously working hard to carve out a marketing niche for themselves.
With their accommodationist jack boots squarely on the necks of their intellectual superiors.
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 12, 2009 1:08 AM
Come on Robocop, what's that, proof by ediorial?
Perhaps you could claim that point 1 was mildly "uncivil", but if that's the case, maybe there just isn't a civil way to point out that someone is a vindictive, lying idiot. But sometimes it still needs to be pointed out.
Regardless, that's not exactly on-topic, when we're talking about his civility toward religious people. (Actually, it was about the use of 'abrasive language', for which I think we can agree PZ has a certain aptitude, but can hardly be said for Prof. Dawkins. Let's run with civility though.)
Your further examples, however, say more about the tone of the article, than the comments from Dawkins himself.
Allow me to highlight:
You'll notice pretty much everything that sets the tone of the exchange, as written, occurs outside the quotations. Now, I don't know the occasion in question, and I haven't seen any video, so perhaps the exchange was as heated as described here. But the language itself seems pretty civil to me. The worst might be calling Miller's response a "facetious answer"... but it was!
You could rewrite just the parts I've highlighted, and put a completely different spin on the article.
Posted by: Niket | August 12, 2009 2:11 AM
I think, to be fair to M&K, they aren't saying that Dawkins book is bad... their argument is that the book is "preaching to the choir" and will win no converts. I don't think they are belittling the book. I guess their fault is that they have "framed" Dawkin's book based on their opinions of what he ought to be doing.
Having said that, my own example goes in favour of PZ/Dawkins, rather than M&K. I was never really religious, since my dad is an atheist. But when I first landed in US as a grad student, I found comfort in praying to the photos of deities that my mom had given. I was moving from "agnostic" to "leaning towards theist". In due course, I moved back to being "agnostic" because I reasoned that I really can't second guess god even if s/he exists.
It was only after reading Dawkins, and then regularly visiting Pharyngula that I became a "convert". I guess I can describe myself as "agnostic about god" in the same way as I am "teapot agnostic". So yes, Dawkins and PZ did help me articulate my atheism, be comfortable with it and distinguish god in personal sphere vs. god in public policies.
So, based on my personal experience, I disagree with M&K.
Posted by: articulett | August 12, 2009 3:09 AM
Well, of course we win the battle--we're smarter, more honest, scientifically literate, plus we have REALITY on our side. Moreover, we can speak freely and we're not forced to defer to sacred superstitions. Duh. What does religion have except their straw men and their tendency to bully people into deference? And if people are easily offended by religious mockery, then Pharyngula is probably beyond their understanding level anyhow.
It's not the fault of the "new atheists" that the facts speak for themselves and don't bode well for those who have invested trust in religion for explaining the real world. If a religion is good or true what the hell does it matter that someone doesn't believe it? Why would one need others to respect it? Why can't a person just feel all warm and special and divinely inspired without others propping him up? Why shouldn't we treat religion like any other pseudoscience? That's the most honest tactic in my book-- Treat all religions the way religionists want conflicting myths, faiths, and pseudoscience addressed by scientists.
It's not the fault of scientists that there is no more evidence for "God" than there is for Xenu or the IPU.
If people are bothered by hearing the opinion of "new atheists", then perhaps they should keep their own precious opinions to themselves so that the "new atheist" doesn't feel compelled to correct them for fear of having silence mistaken for assent. No one forces them to read our writings and we aren't barging into their churches to "teach the controversy".
Uppity Atheists are my favorite! And I learn so much from so many here. I hope the Pharyngula folks spread their knowledge far and wide. I think the best thing you can do for the religiously brainwashed is to toss a few critical thinking seeds their way, because surely some will sprout as it has for so many here.
I think M&K seriously underestimate how many lurkers become more scientific BECAUSE of "new atheistst" like PZ and Dawkins. Moreover, I'm not sure any method works when people feel like their salvation depends on them believing a particular creation story.
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 12, 2009 3:41 AM
So let me see if I've got this right:
M&K complain that all these New Atheist scientist types keep writing books about evolution that might be great science, but aren't doing enough to attract anti-evolutionists and convert them.
So, instead of writing the anti-evolutionist-converting book they wish everyone else was writing... they write a book complaining that everyone else isn't doing a good enough job.
I see.
The thing is, they don't even need to write some brilliant catch-all Best Evolution Book Evar. All they need to do is get their readers into just enough of an open-minded state to be willing to listen to evidence.
See, then those people could be suggested to go out, and read those books that they would have rejected before! Rather than write one big book that convinces them of everything, M&K could just write one little pump-priming book, and all that other wonderful scientific literature would become available to their readers!
And surely, if M&K expect other authors to work this little magic trick into their books on other topics, they must know what's required; and without all that other science cluttering up the text, it would be an easy job!
Man, everything will be great once they've written that book.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 12, 2009 4:45 AM
-An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.-
You can't argue with a true believer, they have the TRUTH and everything else is ignored.
Accomodate them however and you will merely validate their claims to them, give them a platform they don't deserve and respect they have not earned.
M & K are now merely an embarrassment. Clueless and vindictive.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 5:02 AM
short, sweet, and 100% correct.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 5:13 AM
What the hell happened to him?
Kirshenbaum?
or the combination of Kirshenbaum and Nisbet.
Nisbet cornered himself a bit of a niche, and I rather think Mooney has become convinced there's a worthwhile market there, and is probably supported in that rationalization by Kirshenbaum.
*shrug*
I'd be happy for em if they would just get on with writing their books, and stop fucking whining about everything.
OTOH, I guess they figure it's all good publicity.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 12, 2009 5:17 AM
It's the weirdest thing. M&K write a book about how we need more science popularizers, then lash out at Dawkins for writing a popular science book.
Because the creationists are all rushing out to buy Ken Millers book, yes?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 12, 2009 5:20 AM
Maybe M & K could write the book they accuse Dawkins of not writing. It would be interesting to see what bits of evolutionary biology they would leave out in order to appease the creationists.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 12, 2009 5:22 AM
Tulse #153
Jerry Coyne blogged about this old post a while back and Mooney even addressed the matter himself a month or two back (I know, hard to believe but he actually answered a real question!).
Mooney's answer was that he agreed the position he took back then is in complete contrast to his current position, and that what he says now directly contradicts his stated opinion in that piece.
His reason for changing is (to paraphrase) due to him 'reading more history and philosophy and deciding on a more pragmatic approach'.
The pragmatism I can understand - the twins are desperately trying to carve out a 'middle ground' in which they can safely reside as the media friendly 'moderates' to whom reporters can turn for a friendly and middle-America safe quote of two.
The history and philosophy he has been reading I can't quite fathom.
Maybe Anthony Flew's last book, perchance?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 5:27 AM
Mooney's answer was that he agreed the position he took back then is in complete contrast to his current position, and that what he says now directly contradicts his stated opinion in that piece.
Interesting.
actually, he started off by saying that there was no contradiction at all, and maintained that position for some time (this was when it was first pointed out to him, after he started buddying up with Nisbet).
This response is recent.
At least his rationalizations are more coherent now, if still based on vapor.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 5:43 AM
Read about it here.
…indeed, I find my work from 2001 on this topic pretty unsatisfying. I guess you could say I’ve changed my view; certainly I’ve changed my emphasis. A lot more reading in philosophy and history has moved me toward a more accomodationist position. So has simple pragmatism; I don’t see what is to be gained by flailing indiscriminately against religion, other than a continuation of the culture wars. That’s especially so when those who flail against religion do so in philosophically or historically unsophisticated ways, or (worse still) with the bile, negativity, and even occasional intolerance that I have encountered in such discussions.
I really wonder why Mooney spoke out against this book? Did he just want to point out the obvious in that Dawkins won't convert creationists? Is it to drum up more sales of his book? Or is there some practical benefit out of it? Either way, Mooney is really starting to annoy me with his holier-than-thou attitude towards science education and I really hope he writes the book and does the media appearances he's criticises other scientists for not doing.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 12, 2009 6:02 AM
I noticed the emphasis on 'sophistication' - it's pretty much a Courtier's Reply beneath all the other oily backsliding and cowering.
And of course it leads to the obvious questions: why do arguments against religion need to be sophisticated? The overwhelming majority of Christians don't have an especially nuanced or subtle understanding of their religion. Why the heck should those who point out its failings be required to meet the standards of the tiny minority who're actually familiar with Plantinga or Lane Craig or any other woo-soaked sophist with a repertoire of philosophical tricks and a shiny new gap to cram their god into?
If it were only the 'sophisticated' theists causing the problems we face from religion all we'd need do is ignore them.
Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 6:09 AM
@ RamblinDude #141:
There are two significant phases of Darwin to compare and/or emulate:
Firstly, there's the stage where he'd pretty much worked evolution out but kept quiet about it and didn't publish the book he'd mostly written and re-written. During all those years, remarkably few people became "evolutionists". Clearly that tactic was a failure.
Then there was the stage where the sudden discovery of the existence of another person who'd finally recognised the truth of at least part of evolution prompted Darwin to belatedly publish and go public. And we know how well that book turned out in engaging and influencing lots of people.
So I think Richard Dawkins is doing better by emulating that latter phase of Darwin and going ahead with publishing stuff (based on sound science). It worked much better than the clamming up phase did. He's even emulated Darwin in the sense of getting a background reputation in science long before coming out with the controversial stuff.
The remaining difference is really just the publicity over atheism. Darwin still escorted his family to church and then merely remained outside himself instead of engaging his devout wife in a shouting match or fisticuffs over the issue. But who would seriously expect that Dawkins behaves any differently in his civility at that sort of family level. Had the meejah been the same in its stalkership then as now though, Darwin might well have been publicly outed as an atheist (professed agnosticism notwithstanding) and ended up resembling Dawkins more in the public arena too.
PS re #153: well done, Screechy Monkey.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 12, 2009 6:15 AM
Here's the direct link to Mooney's June 3rd admission that he is now contradicting his earlier incarnation.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/06/03/do-i-contradict-myself-very-well-then-i-contradict-myself/
Posted by: RHM | August 12, 2009 7:23 AM
From M&K op-ed:
"It's certainly valuable to have the case for evolution articulated prominently and often, but what this unending polarization around evolution and religion does for the standing of science in the U.S. is a very different matter."
Could someone please explain this sentence to me, because I haven't a clue what they mean. Are they saying that articulation=polarization? If that's true, then all that is needed is silence to achieve agreement. Great reasoning. And ignorance is bliss, right?
Never mind. I'm baffled by the entire piece.
Perhaps if Dawkins includes a "god loves evolution!" coloring book with his new publication it would satisfy M&K's requirement for accomodation. Idiotic, but hey, atleast it's an example of an action - something M&K have yet to produce.
Posted by: Leigh Jackson | August 12, 2009 7:44 AM
Re. Darwin, M&K should study what he says carefully. He implies that science can achieve what direct argument against religion cannot.
He was speaking from personal experience. There is not the slightest doubt his theory caused Darwin to question his Christian faith.
Darwin also says that direct arguments against religion produce little effect on the public - directly contradicting what M&K say.
The new anti-atheists ought to reconsider.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 12, 2009 8:41 AM
Amazing stuff from these nit wits.
Their point seems to be (to quote Darwin again):
In other words: Athiests must shut up, theists may speak.
There is (in my opinion) no one out there who can communicate the facts of science in a more engaging way than Richard Dawkins (Coyne, Shubin, Ridley, Zimmer, Gould, Thomas, many others do/did a fine job.) They really do seem to be saying that he should shut up becuase he also happens to be a vocal atheist.
Science clearly shows that all the "great" religions' truth claims are nonsense. Why should science hide this?
Kissing the ass of religion will not convert the anti-science fundies. (Nothing will; I've had many tell me that no scientific evidence could shift them from their belief in their god. What could be more anti-scientific than that? Most atheists could easily name some evidence that would convince them that god(s) exists(s).)
There is a slice of the religious population that is susceptible to reason and evidence (watch the Creo"museum" videos and see how many of the SSA attendees are recovering from religion). And these are convinced by exactly such books as the upcoming The Greatest Show On Earth. So their entire line of reasoning is just rubbish.
I think the real purpose of the op-eds is just to try to generate more sales for their book. Dawkins has long coattails. (Note the number of "fleas" he has: http://richarddawkins.net/fleas.) Mooney and Kirshenbaum will soon qualify as fleas themselves ...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 8:47 AM
That comment made my night!I read a review of Unscientific America in New Scientist tonight. Again, PZ's name was mentioned. Who'd have thought a small-time professor could become a pseudo-celebrity without having to write Darwin's Black Box ;)
Posted by: windy | August 12, 2009 8:51 AM
Over at Coyne's blog, Peter Beattie pointed out that Dawkins's not-yet-published book is already outselling UA.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 12, 2009 8:55 AM
BTW, my atheism was crystalized by reading Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow. I'd been one for years but still had a soft spot for "belief in belief." Dawkins made "the scales drop from my eyes."
Why do so many fundies home-school their kids? Indoctrination. They fear (and rightly) that if their kids are exposed to the facts as revealed by science, they will question the dogma that have been fed them and possibly reject it. (I've had several express this exact fear, in those exact words.) You've got a pretty shaky position if you fear that any outside information will topple it, haven't you? This is the exact tactic of all cult leaders: Isolate, indoctrinate, control.
If M&K think any fundies are reading Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution they're nuts. And those religious people who are susceptible to reason aren't afraid of Dawkins.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 9:01 AM
Windy #176, great news. Something more for them to be bummed out about.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 12, 2009 9:01 AM
This is probably a naive question for which I will get hammered; but here goes:
What does the "OM" appended to many of your tags mean? I wiki-ed it and come up with many things, none of which seem likely ...
Net lingo says, "Old Man."
Thanks.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 9:12 AM
It's an honorary thing for this blog.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 12, 2009 9:40 AM
Nerd@180:
Thanks! I never connected 1+1=2 (or was that 1.9934567?)
Posted by: Ramases | August 12, 2009 10:05 AM
Well I can say that many years ago, in the late seventies when I was in my teens, reading a Dawkins book certainly contributed to an epiphany.
I had been brought up religious, but was doubting it very much by my later teens. But the causality argument still influenced me, as I did not have a great understanding of scientific processes, and although I accepted evolution did not fully understand it. Reading The Selfish Gene soon after it first came out very much opened my eyes not only to an understanding of evolutionary process itself, but to scientific thinking.
There are some nuts and hard liners who will never be influenced of course, but it would be quite wrong to think that some brought up with a certain world view are not capable of rethinking it in the face of a well written scientific book that presents and alternative way of thinking.
Thank you Mr Dawkins. My journey all those years ago would probably have been to the same place, but you certainly made the going easier.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 12, 2009 10:16 AM
it isn't just US xians who have closed minds. Here in Eastern Scotland at the weekend I was putting the roof rack on the car prior to a trip to the Borg for some plaster coving (we are redecorating). I noticed a suspiciously clean cut middle aged couple working the other side of the street. I got two smug besuited middle aged men.
They asked 'do you think the bible is relevant to modern life?'
I responded with 'do you think the Baghavad Gita (sp?), writings of Buddha or Polynesian creation myths (I have some passing knowledge of them) are relevant to modern life and if not, why not?'.
They smiled and hummed and hawed and said they had not heard of them. Then failed to answer. When I pointed out that they had failed to answer one replied that 'there isn't time to read everything'. By which he meant: 'I have no intention of reading anything other than the babble'.
At which point I apologised that I had to go, got in the car and went. I never did find out which sect they were from. Too old to be Mormons, probably SDA or JWs.
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 10:28 AM
Kagato is writing some Molly worthy stuff. Just sayin'.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 10:54 AM
Thanks, Sigmund. I had missed that.
I assume later in the comments Mooney discusses the specific works in philosophy and history that led to his change of position, and how. As many of us incompatibilists are philosophers or historians, or have training and knowledge in these fields, it would be interesting to have a discussion on substantive questions within them. And surely Mooney later substantiates his sociohistorical contentions at some level beyond "I don't see what is to be gained" followed by a mischaracterization of others' actions. I mean, being a conscientious journalist and all. Ah - but I see he promises that the topic of religion and science is "developed in considerably more detail" in the book, so I guess I'll just wait for tha
Oh. Well. Alas.
Posted by: Dave | August 12, 2009 11:32 AM
Finally, I can quote Charles Darwin, too. I prefer this line, in which he argues how best to defend his theory of evolution. It also applies to any idea anyone might think worthy.
Talk about a non sequitur.
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 12, 2009 11:52 AM
Or you could just quote the article's author on Dawkins's civility [my italics]:
The rest of the quote is relevant:
No. Choosing the best tactics for the venue isn't a paradox. Though it is unwise to directly personalize the issue in one-on-one public exchanges with a colleague, RD's arguments and style are highly effective in other venues. So use them there.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | August 12, 2009 12:38 PM
Oh god they get stupider and stupider as time goes on. Are they on stupid pills, or what? They look like such petulant childish whiny bedwetters - it's pathetic. Waaaaaaaaah, Dawkins; waaaaaaaaaaaaaah, PZ; waaaaaaaaah, Jerry Coyne; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, New Atheists. Why can't they all act the way Darwin did 150 years ago? Waaaaaaaaah.
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 12:59 PM
Posted by: H.H. | August 12, 2009 1:38 PM
Kagato wrote:
You mean like this?[...]
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | August 12, 2009 2:06 PM
"The history and philosophy he has been reading I can't quite fathom."
No. I've noticed that he doesn't talk about that any more - I think enough philosophers and historians have commented on the book and/or the PR campaign for the book that it has dawned on him that he's not the expert on history and philosophy he thought he was. (Seriously, he used to talk about it as if no one but him had ever read a word on the subject. It was cringe-making.)
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | August 12, 2009 2:12 PM
I'm still banned from The Intersection, by the way. Other critics get to comment, but I can't say boo. I feel Special.
Posted by: KristinMH | August 12, 2009 2:32 PM
PZ, you devil! Comic Sans. That's gotta sting.
Posted by: Robocop | August 12, 2009 2:39 PM
123: "Robocop, the job entails you giving your opinion on various matters, and as a result, we know the correct thing is the opposite of what you say."
Since you asked, Nerd, here's what I think about the accomodationist dispute, with the obvious caveat that I don't have a dog in the fight.
I think both sides are (intentionally?) talking past each other since I think the guidelines for how to approach communication amidst disagreement overall are generally pretty obvious and ought to apply here. There are no "rules" for this in that different people respond in different ways to different approaches in different situations. However, I do think that there are some good guidelines. My idea of what they are follows.
1. Everyone ought to receive courtesy and civility unless and until they have shown they neither want nor deserve it.
2. Respect is a different matter. People deserve respect unless and until they have shown they neither want nor deserve it. Respect for ideas must be earned.
3. We all would benefit from a healthy dose of (secular) reverence – which includes the idea that our views ought to be held lightly (not to be confused with “without conviction”) because we may well be wrong. Paul Woodruff’s Reverence (Oxford University Press) is outstanding here.
4. What one’s target audience and overall objective are will have a major impact upon the proper approach. If your objective is to change individual people’s “hearts and minds,” the positive approach is usually better. Most people don’t respond well to being belittled, insulted and ridiculed, for example, especially in one-on-one conversation. However, more mass communication can allow for other – more “direct” – approaches to work. Moreover, if your objective is to overturn something like a societal structure rather than to change individuals’ minds, “making nice” doesn’t usually work too well.
5. Whether your “side” is primarily an affirmation or a denial matters a lot. If your goal is positive promotion (e.g., “science is awesome”), honey usually works better than vinegar. If however, your goal is negative (e.g., “religion is evil”), vinegar can be very effective. Difficulty can arise (obviously) when there are multiple objectives and/or when the same person targets some of the same audience with multiple objectives. Dawkins is a good example. His science writing, in my view, is brilliant, persuasive and entirely positive. But some people he might reach on science are put off by his negative approach toward religion (which clearly works with some but strikes me as silly and sophomoric at best).
So go ahead, Nerd, tell me I’m wrong.
P.S. I think Ham and his cronies have a point when they say that one's preconceived notions impact how one looks at the evidence, despite even the best intentions and the best attempts at self-analysis and self-correction. But I also think that Ham (among other sins) blurs the line between fact and interpretation improperly.
Posted by: Judith | August 12, 2009 3:02 PM
Our Nikki may be pre-ordering her copy of Dawkins' book even as we speak!
Posted by: Dave X | August 12, 2009 4:37 PM
Still, I don't get what audience Mooney and Kirshenbaum are aiming their message at.
Do they want some non-atheist scientist to write "Microevolution for Dummies" in the hopes that "those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists" will buy and read it and convert themselves? The rabid ones will probably read and quote-mine Dawkins first.
Posted by: Dave X | August 12, 2009 4:40 PM
Oops: It is already written: Macroevolution versus Microevolution
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 4:46 PM
Robocrock, you are still in the running for our well meaing fool. (And no, I didn't ask.) There is a way to get yourself out of the running. Maybe, if you are smart enough, you may even figure it out. But I doubt it.
Posted by: Robocop | August 12, 2009 4:49 PM
You're consistent as ever, Nerd -- heavy on the snide but empty on the content. Well done.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 4:56 PM
Oops: It is already written: Macroevolution versus Microevolution
That's actually a far better summary of the correct interpretation than wiki!
still, one thing I would change:
"macroevolution" as a term, is simply unused really. What is used is "macroevolutionary", because what we are doing is describing processes.
Punc Eq was a macroevolutionary level explanation of patterns seen in certain fossil records, for example.
no publishing scientist I've ever met or read (in the primary evo lit) uses the terms "macro" and "micro" like the creobots do.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 4:58 PM
Robocrock, you are still in the running for our well meaing fool.
I've seen him before.
go ahead and killfile. You won't miss anything.
Posted by: Dave X | August 12, 2009 5:23 PM
Ichthyic @ 200:
Yeah. I was trying to think of what sort of accomodationist book M&K might be advocating for non-abrasive scientists to write. What sort of book would an anti-evolutionist buy and leave lying around the house for his kid to read? "Microevolution for Dummies" sounded like it might make the cut, but when I googled it, the dummies.com link popped up.
The only people I see who can potentially put M&K's solutions into practice are federal funding folks, but they'll be tied down with all the politics. Can you imagine the stink about Obama wanting some stimulus money for the Science division of AmeriCorps to hire science journalists to frame evolution?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 5:28 PM
Can you imagine the stink about Obama wanting some stimulus money for the Science division of AmeriCorps to hire science journalists to frame evolution?
I rather think Obama can, too. Hence his "embrace" of the faith-based initiative left to him by his predecessor.
OTOH, it's been a long dry spell since any administration spoke of support for basic science at all.
It was nice to hear, even if they end up being just pretty words.
*sigh*
Posted by: Kagato
|
August 12, 2009 7:51 PM
E.V.: Aw gawrsh, thanks!
H.H.: Yep, like that. I was going to add my own rewrite there, but I didn't want to bloat up the thread too much with my post.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 13, 2009 12:44 AM
Nonabrasive science writers who are unequivocally for evolution and science are David Sloan Wilson, who wrote "Evolution for Everyone" about the application of thinking about evolution in other contexts than plain biology; Michael Shermer, who wrote "Why Darwin Matters"; or Neil Shubin, who wrote the delightful "Your Inner Fish"; Carl Zimmer, who explains in "At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs" how macroevolutionary changes in body style and habitat occur.
What shines through their writing is not hostility towards religion nor even concern with it, but simple delight in finding out how the world works.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 13, 2009 12:55 AM
#106, how about "jeremy, FCD." Just visit the Friends of Charles Darwin web site and tell them that you're a friend, too.
Then pop on over to Darwin Central to chivy them about sending your decoder ring tout de suite.
Posted by: windy | August 13, 2009 2:04 AM
I wouldn't be so sure that it's dawned on him, he's even giving a class on the subject. But I don't know why Mooney seems so cool with this Marquis de Condorcet fellow: he doesn't sound all that civil!
"The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free man who know no other master but their reason; when tyrants and slaves, priests and their stupid or hypocritical instruments will exist only in works of history and on the stage; and when we shall think of them only to pity their victims and their dupes; to maintain ourselves in a state of vigilance by thinking on their excesses; and to learn how to recognize and so to destroy, by force of reason, the first seeds of tyranny and superstition, should they ever dare to reappear among us."
Tsk tsk!
Posted by: llewelly | August 13, 2009 9:01 AM
The difference being that trolls manipulate people for entertainment, whereas PR hacks manipulate people for money.Posted by: Bernard Kirzner, M.D. | August 13, 2009 2:22 PM
P.J.
I hope you will express our ideas about science, rational thought, separation of Church and State, and the strange ideas about creationism/ID, literal interpretations of the bible, non-rational beliefs...WITH ATTENTION TO THE IDEAS NOT TO THE PEOPLE SAYING THEM.
Content, not ad hominem attacks at/about the people. The literal fundamentalists will still squeal but it keeps the conflict where it belongs. On the issues.
Secondly, Mooney and Kirshenbaum mix up Dawkin's straight forward works on science, such as The ancestors' Tale, and I'm sure his new book on evolution, with his books and speaking about Atheism. That they put in quotes "with the stunning 'evidence for evolution'" means they can't separate out science from religion, fact from belief.
We need to emphasize that. The purpose of science IS NOT to undermine religious belief. The purpose of Creationism/ID etc. is exactly the opposite, to hang on to religion by pseudoscientic philosophic/religious ideas, and do it by pretending to be scientist, i.e. the purpose of the creationist/ID folk is to undermine science.
So, stick with the content of our ideas, not the people, and keep pointing out the purpose of science/science books, not the effect.IF it's true, it's true, whatever the consequences.
(I know we are preaching to the choir, but isn't that a major purpose of the Atheistic books? To bolster people's confidence in speaking up un-ashamedly against irrational beliefs and associated policies. Mooney and Kirshenbaum mix up that purpose also.)
Posted by: Bernard Kirzzner, M.D. | August 13, 2009 3:15 PM
Mr T "Give an example (or even just a general outline) of something an atheist who believes science and religion are incompatible could say regarding the compatibility of science and religion, something that would be acceptable for most believers."
I agree, its impossible as asked, but there are reasonable answers, such as, "I accept these conclusions about evolution (round earth, the earth going around the sun, the age of the earth being more than 10,000 years, etc.)based upon the data, the facts, the overwhelming evidence from different areas of science. THE CONFLICT WITH CERTAIN RELIGIOUS IDEAS DOES NOT IMPACT THE VERACITY OF THE CONCLUSIONS.The purpose of science is not to undermine religion. If it happens, it is (possibly) unfortunate, but it doesn't change reality."
At this point in the discussion we can either talk about religion, or about philosophy, or the 1st Amendment of the Constitution about Separation of Church and State. None of these undermine the veracity of the scientific conclusions, in this case about Evolution. None of these issues should interfere with exploring what we don't know with an open mind.
Posted by: Hyman Rosen | August 13, 2009 5:08 PM
"Hiding behind a skirt" isn't sexist. It's what a little child does, using his mother's skirt as a shield while occasionally poking his head out.
Posted by: E.V. | August 13, 2009 5:17 PM
You are correct Mr. Rosen. Dr. Kirzzner is also correct. Thank you both for providing a welcomed moment of clarity.
Posted by: Dan O'Reilly | August 13, 2009 5:27 PM
You do not get it. One wonders if you read the whole article. The point is that Dawkins trying to convince religious folk that he is a great evolutionary biologist is like Rush Limbaugh trying to convince the Democrats that he is a great entertainer. They are! However, they have come across as so prejudiced in the arenas of religion and politics that they have no credibility. How can one reasonably look for respect from groups you belittle? Mooney and Kirshenbaum are not sneering at Dawkins. They are saying if you call people idiots, they will not read your book. DUH!
Posted by: Paul | August 13, 2009 5:48 PM
I'd be willing to bet that more religious folk will read Dawkins' book than will read S&M's tepid screed.
Posted by: Craigles | August 26, 2009 7:05 PM
It seems likely that more religious people will read The Greatest Show on Earth than might read The God Delusion