Pharyngula

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 7, 2009 10:06 PM

I saw those posts and just knew that they were taking Dawkins out of context and misrepresenting his (and my) views. Josh even went so far as to characterize the debate as one between "accomodationists vs. enablers". Enablers???? That would be like saying that the landscape of US politics is "conservatives vs. America-haters". Pffft!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 7, 2009 10:10 PM

That would be like saying that the landscape of US politics is "conservatives vs. America-haters"

Wait

It's not?

Posted by: MadScientist | October 7, 2009 10:20 PM

I occasionally visit Mooney's blog to see what comments need to be slapped around. The ones about Dawkins were plain intellectual dishonesty. Mooney is establishing a rather obvious penchant for intellectual dishonesty; for me it was first brought to the front with the Unscientific America debacle, but this one about Dawkins is just more evidence that Mooney is quite happy to engage in lying - for what purpose I have no idea.

He's getting quite a thrashing for promoting a "Pluto really should be a planet" book (perhaps a pre-release of the manuscript gave him the idea for bringing up the Pluto non-story in his book with Kirschenbaum). I asked about the credentials of the book's author because I could find no Astronomy or Planetary Physics publications by the guy; Mooney mentioned that the author was a 'science writer', but passing off a journalist's opinion as somehow superior to the majority planetary scientists' opinion is rather stupid at best. Now is that the sort of "scientific communication" that Mooney is proposing in his book? I suspect that is the case, and I hope no one in science tolerates the bullshit.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 7, 2009 10:22 PM

As I've said umpteen times before, you could say that being a Christian is compatible with being a murderer because a lot of murderers are Christians.

Hell, I've even heard Duane Gish use that exact analogy, in reference to "Can Christians be evolutionists?". How come Mooney can't keep this obvious point straight?

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | October 7, 2009 10:25 PM

Wait, you made a big mistake, PZ. Mooney is neither a scientist nor a journalist. He fail at both.

Rosenau has been taken apart at Jerry Coyne's WEIT blog.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 10:30 PM

Chris Mooney is not stupid, but you wouldn't know it from reading anything he's done in the last two years. He really is a poor communicator.

Posted by: PhysicistDave | October 7, 2009 10:33 PM

And, of course, PZ, when we say that we have friends and even relatives that we are fond of, who happen to be Christians… well, that proves we have abandoned our atheist position!

How to get them to understand that *we* are the ones who do not judge human beings solely by their religious opinions? They are projecting their own hatred of anyone who disagrees with their religious views onto us… and then they are surprised we really do not hate them.

PZ, how do we tell ’em we are just sweet little puppy dogs who are simply unwilling to keep our mouths shut when we see con men and liars deceiving so many guileless and credulous human beings?

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Posted by: MadScientist | October 7, 2009 10:41 PM

Holy Crap - I just checked to see if there was a response to my comment on Mooney's blog asking about the credentials of the Pluto book's author - my goddamned comment was deleted! WTF? I guess I'm being offensive by asking simple honest questions. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Posted by: E.V. | October 7, 2009 11:04 PM

my goddamned comment was deleted! WTF?

As for Orac, with his ire raised for his single minded crusade against anti-vaxers, he won't be satisfied until Professor Dawkins has publicly drawn and quartered Bill Maher and personally pissed on the writhing carcass.
Perhaps Orac and Mooney will go shoe shopping with Isis and live in accommodationist bliss far away from their keyboards.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:16 PM

Perhaps Orac and Mooney will go shoe shopping with Isis

W.T.F?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 7, 2009 11:18 PM

PZ, how do we tell ’em we are just sweet little puppy dogs who are simply unwilling to keep our mouths shut when we see con men and liars deceiving so many guileless and credulous human beings?

Apparently it's okay to con people out of their money, promote credulous nonsense, put harmful beliefs out there that lead to intolerance, hate, suffering and even the deaths of others - but not okay to call it nonsense because it can hurt peoples feelings. Go figure...

Posted by: Noadi | October 7, 2009 11:23 PM

I had to reread that post a few times, puppies kept distracting me.

I don't seem to have a problem grasping the difference. I'm very disappointed that people as intelligent as Mooney can't seem to grasp what you, Dawkins, and Coyne are saying. Disagreeing with the concept is a different matter than not getting what it is in the first place.

Posted by: SC OM | October 7, 2009 11:38 PM

If anything, Orac's purist position on science-across-the-board is more analogous to the new atheist's position, than the accomodationists. He's arguing in favor of scientific consistency, not, like Mooney, special pleading in favor of inconsistency.

I asked him to provide links related to his assertion that he "often" disagrees with Dawkins about religion on the recent Dawkins thread. No response yet. (I also asked Isis if she was nuts on the recent Maher thread. No response from her yet, either. For her to be giving advice on how to address errors of judgment is...well, it's something.)

[Holy shit! Colbert's mocking the Conse...pedia Bible! He's telling people to go there and add him in!]

Posted by: Greg Laden | October 7, 2009 11:49 PM

PZ, you bastard. First, you stole my puppy. Then, when you took that puppy you forgot to take the OTHER puppy:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/07/nature_bad_puppy.php

What am I supposed to do now?????

Posted by: Scooty Puff Jr. | October 7, 2009 11:54 PM

I came across an article from H.L. Mencken discussing the Scopes trial. It's sad that 80 years later people like Mooney and Rosenau are still trying to sell the same old strategy that has never worked.

"…in the America of to-day, after a time of quiescence, the old conflict between religion and science has been resumed with great ferocity, and the partisans of the former, not content with denouncing all free inquiry as evil, have now undertaken to make it downright unlawful. Worse, they show signs of succeeding. And why? Chiefly, it seems to me, because the cause of their opponents has been badly handled—above all, because it has lacked vigorous offensive leadership. Even the defense is largely an abject running away. We are assured with pious snuffling that there is actually no conflict, that the domains of science and religion do not overlap, that it is quite possible for a man to be a scientist (even a biologist!) and yet believe that Jonah swallowed the whale. No wonder the whoopers for Genesis take courage, and lay on with glad, sforzando shouts. At one stroke they are lifted to parity with their opponents, nay, to superiority. The bilge they believe in becomes something sacrosanct; its manifest absurdities are not mentioned, and hence tend to pass unnoticed. But meanwhile they are quite free to belabor science with their whole armamentarium of imbecilities. Every cross-roads Baptist preacher becomes an authority upon its errors, and is heard gravely. In brief, science exposes itself to be shot at, but agrees not to shoot back. It would be difficult to imagine any strategy more idiotic….

[I]t is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it—to admit this, as the more fatuous of the reconcilers of science and religion inevitably do, is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse.
"

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | October 7, 2009 11:56 PM

SciencePundit: "That would be like saying that the landscape of US politics is "conservatives vs. America-haters". Pffft!"

I think it'd rather more be like "dirty-fucking-hippies vs. fascist bastards." The point of that phrasing was precisely that "accommodationist" has become a meaningless slur that serves to divide rather than unite. And PZ has been clear where he stands on that.

PZ: I can't speak for Chris, but I know that my point was not that Dawkins was being self-inconsistent (though his tone was surely less forceful regarding scientific theists), nor that Dawkins was an accommodationist (that's what the squiggly bit in the title of my post means). My point was that similar statements by others in this debate have been labeled as "accommodationist," while Dawkins' comments weren't.

I've been arguing for essentially the same point as him, and have gotten my fair share of scorn over it. Which is fine, but I don't see why Dawkins gets a pass for similar views. He publicly cops to recommending Ken Miller's book, he praises Francis Collins, etc., but when I do the same, it's seen as suspect for reasons not entirely clear.

For what it's worth, I've got a post up inviting people to clarify what "accommodationist," "compatible" (and especially "epistemically compatible), etc. mean, as they seem not to have clear and consistently used definitions any more: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/10/on_accommodationism.php

I welcome people's feedback on that point.

And thanks for the puppies.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:59 PM

aradigm people, paradigm - just because you haven't been paying attention don't accuse me of making shit up.

OK, paradigm, paradigm, paradigm, and I'll take PZ to task as well. Using "fellating" or "cocksucking" or "cocksucker" as an insult is part of a broader paradigm of misogyny and homophobia. Cocksuckers are faggots and bitches. The person who might actually take a cock in their mouth is a lesser human (just like shoe shoppers aren't real men--that's shit bitches do).

I'm a cocksucker, even if not as often as I might like. When folks use that term as an insult, they're insulting me. Just like faggot.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 8, 2009 12:03 AM

I just checked to see if there was a response to my comment on Mooney's blog asking about the credentials of the Pluto book's author - my goddamned comment was deleted! -MadScientist

Posted by: SC OM | October 8, 2009 12:11 AM

No, I've been following it all, but I still don't see the Orac connection to this issue,

Except that he's shown up here to drive-by pop PZ for criticizing Mooney. He's been annoying and disappointing on this subject, taking sides without addressing the substance of the issues.

***

MAJeff, the shoe-shopping reference isn't misogynistic in context.

***

So I assume that if Josh Rosenau has put up these new posts, he's responded to my questions on the older one...

*goes to check*

Posted by: SC OM | October 8, 2009 12:19 AM

Nope.

Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again:

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/09/on_cracks.php#comment-1965022

Maybe you could start with this question:

If religion makes claims that are compatible with the results of scientific investigation and with the practice of scientific investigation,

Again, could you be more specific? Which claims are those, and what is the practice through which they are arrived at?

Thanks much.

Posted by: http://fordi.org/login/ | October 8, 2009 12:34 AM

[Posted on both Josh and Chris' articles]
As I'm sure both Dawkins and the NCSE will agree, it's really this simple:
As processes, religion and science are incompatible. Similar to how ice-skating and biking are incompatible. You can't perform both at the same time and expect to be reasonably successful at either. Rather, you'll tend to look a bit silly in both cases.

That doesn't imply that a person can't know how to do both. Such an assertion would be... well, it would be, as has been accused, a strawman of a real argument.

Posted by: Kobra | October 8, 2009 12:57 AM

Not gonna lie, this post is fucking adorable.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 8, 2009 1:31 AM

...here's the comment from the good Catholic mother...

Posted by: Silmarien | October 8, 2009 2:01 AM

I heartily approve the adorable puppies in this post. It would've been nice if you'd rounded it out with a sad-looking cephalopod, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one.

Posted by: Pete Moss | October 8, 2009 2:18 AM

Here's the sad cephalopod. But have you seen the happy cephalopod?

Posted by: Pete Moss | October 8, 2009 3:01 AM

Happy cephalopod must be out right now - perhaps enjoying the festivities for International Cephalopod Appreciation Day. However, when I was looking for happy cephalopod I found none other than happy spider!

Posted by: Josh Rosenau | October 8, 2009 3:25 AM

Bad Jim: You're a moron. I never told anyone to shut up, and it's the worst sort of well-poisoning bullshit to claim I did. Either justify the claim or retract it. Nor do I give a flying fig what "the average American believes." Last I check, argumentum ad populum is still invalid. If there's an objective reality to the question, then that's what matters, and if not, then it's a case of de gustibus non est disputandum. If you want to make a case against methodological naturalism, make it, but recognize that such arguments do a lot of work for creationists.

Sastra: "Accomodationists argue that one shouldn't analyze the God hypothesis as if it were a scientific hypothesis."

I would argue one shouldn't analyze claims which are not scientific claims as if they were. I don't know if I'm an accommodationist or not, but if I am, that's a fairer description of my views. Some people do advance God as a scientific hypothesis (YECs, for instance), and if they get proven wrong, that's their problem. But many religious people do not do that, yet their belief in God is still treated as if it were a scientific hypothesis. That strikes me as fallacious, and in misrepresenting people's views, as rude. Neither commends it as a style of argument. It is also, to borrow your phrasing, sloppy, as it introduces category errors.

Sastra again: "And they do this in a culture in which the majority argue the exact opposite -- that the existence of God is the only reasonable conclusion a person can draw from the evidence of the world around them, and belief in God is necessary for understanding morality, and having meaning in one's life."

I do not object to people challenging attempts to argue that religious belief is based on empirical evidence. I do object to people saying that arguments against such empirically-grounded conceptions of God capable of testing based on our shared, intersubective reality are any sort of evidence against conceptions which explicitly reject the notion of testable, empirical, inter-subjective evidence for God. In other words, I have no problem with people attacking some religions, but I do think it's erroneous to take those arguments against some religion as evidence that all religion is false.

Posted by: RickR | October 8, 2009 4:02 AM

"I do object to people saying that arguments against such empirically-grounded conceptions of God capable of testing based on our shared, intersubective reality are any sort of evidence against conceptions which explicitly reject the notion of testable, empirical, inter-subjective evidence for God."

What other kind of evidence for God is there? And what religion explicitly rejects claims that its followers can "know God"?
If anyone's conception of God actually exists (beyond some vague deistic entity) then we could indeed find "testable, empirical, inter-subjective evidence for God."
Unless you're arguing that science and religion are two, equally valid ways of knowing. If you are, [citation needed].

Posted by: shatfat | October 8, 2009 4:10 AM

Congratulations, Greg Laden, I will now be seeing that dog in my nightmares.

Thanks fer nothin'!

Posted by: shatfat | October 8, 2009 4:18 AM

Isis isn't worth bothering with. The first time I stumbled across her blog my impression was that she was an idiot, and this recent kerfuffle reinforced that impression 10-fold. Plus, given a chance, she loves to spooge all over the internet. ScienceBlogs!wank indeed.

Posted by: shatfat | October 8, 2009 4:24 AM

Strange gods:

He now has an article in the Huffington Post (booooo) in which, even though he has read Richard Dawkins' unambiguous statement that he was simply stating the position that he has held all along, Mooney has to continue to fellate his strawman some more.

What he cares about is irrelevant to the fact that using cocksucking as an insult is not okay.

Well, I won't argue that PZ has turned in the most elegant sentence ever, but this is clearly a metaphor about the fatuousness of the activity in question, and not any sort of insinuation about Mooney's sex life.

So it's not really the same thing.

And before you pounce on me, answer me this: are you offended when repeated wanking on internet threads is referred to as "spooge" or (in the old Usenet lingo) "mental masturbation"?

Posted by: windy | October 8, 2009 4:34 AM

I would argue one shouldn't analyze claims which are not scientific claims as if they were.

Should Mythbusters be taken off the air, then?

Posted by: shatfat | October 8, 2009 4:43 AM

@ Josh

Bad Jim: You're a moron. [...] Nor do I give a flying fig what "the average American believes." Last I check, argumentum ad populum is still invalid. If there's an objective reality to the question, then that's what matters, and if not, then it's a case of de gustibus non est disputandum. If you want to make a case against methodological naturalism, make it, but recognize that such arguments do a lot of work for creationists.

Hahahahaha! For one so conversant with Latin, one would think you'd be familiar with the phrase argumentum at hominem.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 8, 2009 4:57 AM

Why the hell would anyone want a puppy? Cats are far superior in every respect.

Posted by: Zach Voch | October 8, 2009 5:39 AM

shatfat@65:

Hahahahaha! For one so conversant with Latin, one would think you'd be familiar with the phrase argumentum at hominem.

...which is fallacious only if Rosenau has used insults in place of dealing with bad jim's "argument" (though I hardly credit anything in bad jim's post as an argument).

Rosenau@53

If you want to make a case against methodological naturalism, make it, but recognize that such arguments do a lot of work for creationists.

The case against methodological naturalism should be made on its own merits, regardless of what usefulness it may have to creationists.

I would argue one shouldn't analyze claims which are not scientific claims as if they were. I don't know if I'm an accommodationist or not, but if I am, that's a fairer description of my views. Some people do advance God as a scientific hypothesis (YECs, for instance), and if they get proven wrong, that's their problem. But many religious people do not do that, yet their belief in God is still treated as if it were a scientific hypothesis.

Hence the problem that such an overwhelming number of religious claims are open to the investigation of science. In liberal Christianity and elsewhere, this is not so much of a problem. In the apophatic form, religion not only fails to make scientific claims, but any substantive statements whatsoever. In these vague (if not completely claim-free) forms, there is obviously little point in demanding scientific rigor, but that's not the popular form of religion. YECs are an obvious but hardly representative example.

Whenever such claims are presented as factual or proselytized, I feel that it is a reasonable normative expectation to demand objectively verifiable evidence and/or logical argument for the acceptance thereof, regardless of the `scientific' nature of those claims.

And once we have it established that the faith in question accepts the findings of science and makes no contradictory empirical claims, we return to the compatibility argument. Statements as seemingly unscientific as "God loves mankind" have expected outcomes subject to the evidence of our senses, and so the problem of evil arises (a problem compounded by evolution). And again with evolution, we lose our place as a `special' or else `planned' creation, unless empirical claims are made to the contrary.

As far as I am aware, ruling out mankind as a planned outcome of creation (another problem in and of itself) rules out most forms of religion off the bat.

In other words, I have no problem with people attacking some religions, but I do think it's erroneous to take those arguments against some religion as evidence that all religion is false.

Quite right, considering that "all religion" is a hopelessly broad and ill-defined category. Whenever we tread into this realm of "conceptions which explicitly reject the notion of testable, empirical, inter-subjective evidence for God", we go beyond the bounds of demonstrably true statements from the beginning, 'scientifically' or otherwise. I would recommend QualiaSoup's latest vid for a colorful explanation. In these cases, the claims of religion never go beyond the assertion stage, assuming that they are logically consistent or meaningful. And yet, even here I would say that it is essential to challenge these claims on their own merits, and I would consider the rejection of 'inter-subjective evidence' as a weakness.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 8, 2009 6:16 AM

If there's an objective reality to the question, then that's what matters, and if not, then it's a case of de gustibus non est disputandum. If you want to make a case against methodological naturalism, make it, but recognize that such arguments do a lot of work for creationists. - Josh Rosenau

Erm... oh, I get it - you're just keeping us on our toes Josh - the inconsistency between the two sentences was deliberate. Wasn't it?

Some people do advance God as a scientific hypothesis (YECs, for instance), and if they get proven wrong, that's their problem. But many religious people do not do that, yet their belief in God is still treated as if it were a scientific hypothesis.

All religions make factual claims. Those claims can legitimately be subjected to rational criticism, in the same way as any other factual claims - scientific, historical, legal, political, personal, whatever. For example, almost all Christians claim that their God is omnipotent, and loves us. There is overwhelming evidence against this, since he never does anything to demonstrate it - allowing rapes, murders, genocide, epidemics, famines etc. to proceed unchecked.

I do object to people saying that arguments against such empirically-grounded conceptions of God capable of testing based on our shared, intersubective reality are any sort of evidence against conceptions which explicitly reject the notion of testable, empirical, inter-subjective evidence for God. In other words, I have no problem with people attacking some religions, but I do think it's erroneous to take those arguments against some religion as evidence that all religion is false. [my emphasis]

Keeping us on our toes again, eh Josh! For those not as bright as you, I'll just note that the two pieces of text on either side of the emphasized phrase do not mean anything close to the same.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 8, 2009 6:26 AM

Sure, but it is reasonable to bear in mind the broader context, and not to be blithe about dismissing the basic way science has worked for centuries. - Josh Rosenau

Except it hasn't. Until well into the 19th century geologists were seeking evidence of the Noachian deluge, and biologists interpreted homologies as evidence of the Creator's divine design decisions. Even Alfred Russel Wallace considered that the expansion of the human brain must have been caused directly by God. Through the later 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists involved themselves in experiments on communication with the dead. Methodological naturalism is the outcome of experience - that non-naturalistic hypotheses do not lead anywhere useful - and is as provisional as anything else in science. If it is presented as a dogma rather than a pragmatic guideline potentially subject to revision, that gives creationists warrant to say that science unfairly and irrationally excludes supernatural causes.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 8, 2009 6:52 AM

I'm a cocksucker, even if not as often as I might like. When folks use that term as an insult, they're insulting me.

You state that like it's objective truth, MAJeff. It's not. Insults are wholly subjective phenomena, and I see plenty of people who go out of their way to be offended by insults not directed at them. If you really want to be insulted by other people being called "cocksuckers", fine, but don't try to drag this fellow cocksucker into your little ball of anger.

Maybe I'm too touchy-feely for my own good, but one thing I've gotten from therapy is that I control my reactions to what others say. A lot of problems start with the statement "you make me feel x" because it has a false premise at its base. Your feelings are valid and important, but it's up to you whether or not to deal with them constructively.

I apologize for griping at you.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 8, 2009 7:02 AM

I worry that a broom which sweeps away such liberal faiths along with fundamentalists would also sweep away subjective aesthetic experiences such as that of reading a novel or performing a dance. - Josh Rosenau

Do you also worry that the monster in the closet will leap out and get you when you switch the light off? That would be at least equally rational.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 8, 2009 7:28 AM

I do not really see how Mooney managed to misinterpret Professor Dawkin's position. The concept of cognitive dissonance is well understood. The human mind is fully capable of holding too wholly contradictory sets of convictions as true. There is no reason why a person cannot hold religious belief and still be a scientist.

Having said this, it does not alter the fact that science and religion are incompatible as systems for understanding reality for the simple reason that science actually deigns to deal with the facts, a claim that religion cannot make. Science concerns itself with hard evidence, functional methodology and intellectual rigour whereas religion concerns itself with magical thinking and outmoded mythology (and that's putting it politely).

If a humble layman such as myself can understand this (to be honest, rather glaringly obvious) distinction then I find it rather surprising that a figure of Mooney's scientific stature cannot.

The logical implication of Mooney's position is that if an atheist ever expresses anything short of vitriollic scorn for each and every theist then that atheist's position is inconsistant. If you are not a radical, bible-burning, cleric-baiting, baby-eating sociopath then don't go around calling yourself an atheist. This is an almost comedic 'strawman' presentation of atheism.

As for Mooney's statement that;

"Dawkins appears to be grappling with a communication problem . . . After writing a million-selling atheist "consciousness-raiser" and "come-out-of-the-closet" book, is it at all surprising that Dawkins now finds his evolution book being prominently linked to atheism in the media mind?"

I think that Professor Dawkins would not see the linking of evolutionary theory and atheism in the public mind as problematic at all. Indeed, he would probably argue that atheism is the logical outcome flowing from of a thorough understanding of the theory of evolution.

The Greatest Show on Earth, however is not about atheism primarily. It is about presenting the evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution in a format that may be readily understood by a layman such as myself. The Professor becomes understandably annoyed when interviewers and critics wilfully misinterpret this work as a rehash of the God Delusion. No author would be pleased when they present a new book only for the media to insist on talking about one of the author's prior works to the exclusion of all else.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 8, 2009 7:58 AM

Insults are wholly subjective phenomena, and I see plenty of people who go out of their way to be offended by insults not directed at them. If you really want to be insulted by other people being called "cocksuckers", fine, but don't try to drag this fellow cocksucker into your little ball of anger.

But it can also be viewed as a social phenomenon, in a similar fashion to the cross debate on the other thread. An environment in which "cocksucker" is an acceptable, common insult is one that implicitly agrees that it is indeed a bad thing, and contributes to reinforcing people's beliefs that it's a bad thing. (In the same way, having crosses all over federal land implies that the government supports Christianity whether the occasional Jew or Hindu is offended by it or not.) Whether you think it's an insult or not, standing by while other people use it as one gives cover to them thinking that it's a bad thing to be. And if no one calls them on it, they'll assume everyone else agrees with them.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 8, 2009 8:09 AM

I think that Professor Dawkins would not see the linking of evolutionary theory and atheism in the public mind as problematic at all. Indeed, he would probably argue that atheism is the logical outcome flowing from of a thorough understanding of the theory of evolution.

Dawkins has said that one of the reasons he is an atheist is because he is a scientist, and nothing he has studied in science gives him any reason to believe god exists.

There are data that show an inverse correlation between scientific education and belief in god. Essentially the more someone knows about science the less likely they are to believe in god. And if they do believe in god they are more likely to believe in some kind of non-interventionist god.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 8, 2009 8:51 AM

Anri,

Even if we allow that belief that god exists is not an empirical claim in itself, how many believers really think their god does not intervene in the Universe ? They would be admitting their god can do nothing. Most believers do not accept that. They might not think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but they do think their god answers prayers, or can make a woman pregnant yet have her remain a virgin, or bring the dead back to life.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | October 8, 2009 8:57 AM

Josh Rosenau wrote:

I think the epistemological questions raised by such religious groups are more nuanced than Zach seems to, but it's not a point I feel strongly about.

People cling to the tenets of their religion for emotional, not rational, reasons. No Christian has a better argument for God and Jesus than a Muslim does for Allah or a Hindu does for Ganesh - and all are equally valid from a rational perspective. And they can't all be right, can they?

So, where's the nuance? I think that what you call 'nuance' is more accurately referred to as sophistry - since any argument for religion is designed to support the already-held proposition, rather than being the means by which that proposition is reached.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 8, 2009 9:04 AM

Some people do advance God as a scientific hypothesis (YECs, for instance), and if they get proven wrong, that's their problem. But many religious people do not do that, yet their belief in God is still treated as if it were a scientific hypothesis.

Not really. In my experience, it's treated as irrelevant. A god that can't influence the physical universe can't be disproven by science, sure, but that's only because it's such an impotent notion to begin with. Such a god has no meaningful existence outside the minds of those who believe in it, and it has no power aside from what the believers possess.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 8, 2009 9:13 AM

You know, the Alexander technique advocates imagining a golden cord from the top of your head going up into the sky, to improve your posture. -Stephen Wells

Drat! So that's where I've been going wrong! I've been imagining a silver cord, so of course my posture has remained as bad as ever ;-)

Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2009 9:41 AM

I can't speak for any of those famous people being criticized. But I can explain why I always harp on the but some good scientists are religious theme: because it is the only point that is relevant.

You don't like people dwelling on it, because it is a constant reminder of the weakness of your argument.

If you take that off the table what's left is the anemic: they are psychologically incompatible. Or philosophically incompatible. Or epistemologically incompatible. And in spite of the fact that Coyne stupidly uses language like "it has been demonstrated" —it has not— because such things can never be demonstrated scientifically, they can only be argued, with sprinklings of meaningless catch-all words like "compartmentalization" and misused terms like "cognitive dissonance". These arguments only demonstrate their premise to one group and one group only: the choir.

We come back, time and time again, to the fact that there are religious scientists, because that is the show-me-the-money point. If their religion does not effect their science, or if it can not be demonstrated that it does, then the incompatibility is meaningless.

You should stick to the "religion is bad" argument. At least that is a claim that one can attempt to substantiate. It is not a new claim of course, but it has the virtue of lending itself to quantitative analysis. Unlike the vomitous "religion and science are incompatible" bromide which is total pseudoscientific, unfalsifiable, data-free, prediction-free, non-demonstrable, manifestly (in that it makes a claim about religion rather than some religions) false gobblygook that reeks to high heaven like the steaming pile of diarrhetic bullshit that it is.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | October 8, 2009 9:51 AM

Heddle, see earlier regarding compatibility of Christianity with murder; clearly if the only show-me-the-money point is that people can be both murderers and Christians, then Christianity and murder are compatible.

Have another go, maybe? You could invoke a No True Christian argument for us! Really break some new ground!

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 8, 2009 9:55 AM

Heddle has little choice but to claim philosophical compatibility is not important. He is on record as admitting he believes miracles happen.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 8, 2009 10:00 AM

Yawn, Heddle is still being a twit. Religion and science are incompatible. But I'm not going to argue that with Heddle. We should just let him talk to himself. That way, in his mind, he can have an intelligent conversation.

Posted by: SC OM | October 8, 2009 10:23 AM

Either justify the claim or retract it.

Hahaha!

I would argue one shouldn't analyze claims which are not scientific claims as if they were.

I'm so tired of this "untestable hypothesis" bullshit. People make a fact claim and then run away from it, arguing that it can't be defined or tested scientifically. If a fact claim can't be defined or tested scientifically, it's not outside of or above science - it's simply rubbish.

Some people do advance God as a scientific hypothesis (YECs, for instance), and if they get proven wrong, that's their problem. But many religious people do not do that,

They advance the existence of their deity as a fact claim. They advance various acts of their deity as fact claims.

yet their belief in God is still treated as if it were a scientific hypothesis.

The existence and interventions of their deity are treated as fact claims. Which they are. (Their belief is quite obviously real.)

That strikes me as fallacious, and in misrepresenting people's views, as rude. Neither commends it as a style of argument. It is also, to borrow your phrasing, sloppy, as it introduces category errors.

This is blather.

SC OM: Sorry, missed that you were asking me a question.

Fine. Would you care to answer it?

I believe I meant that some religions basically say that science is right, and don't advance claims which contradict science as a method or the knowledge gained by applying science. They advance their claims in the non-empirical, "liberal" sense described by Zach above, basically.

I asked you a simple question. Why can't you just answer it?

I worry that a broom which sweeps away such liberal faiths along with fundamentalists would also sweep away subjective aesthetic experiences such as that of reading a novel or performing a dance.

OK, what the bloody hell? We've evolved aesthetic sensibilities. This has zero to do with the fact claims of various religious sects. (By the way, you might like Barbara Ehrenreich's Dancing in the Streets.)

***

heddle,

Fuck off. Seriously. Your arguments have been roundly defeated here, and you seem to believe that if you wait long enough before returning people will have forgotten, and you can repeat them as if the earlier discussions never happened. No.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 8, 2009 10:35 AM

I can't speak for any of those famous people being criticized. But I can explain why I always harp on the but some good scientists are religious theme: - heddle

So can I: it's because you're a fuckwitted bore with nothing of relevance or interest to say.

Posted by: Anri | October 8, 2009 10:37 AM

Even if we allow that belief that god exists is not an empirical claim in itself, how many believers really think their god does not intervene in the Universe ? They would be admitting their god can do nothing. Most believers do not accept that. They might not think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but they do think their god answers prayers, or can make a woman pregnant yet have her remain a virgin, or bring the dead back to life.

Exactly, Matt, that was more-or-less my point. Except that I am not at all certain why we should concede that a claim that god exists is not emperical. I haven't yet heard a cogent distinction between a god that cannot interact with the universe and one that does not exist at all.

If the faithful with to state the god's existance is beyond current scientific techniques to detect, that's fine - let them say so. But if they wish to say that god is forever beyond the reach of science, in theory and by definition, that appears to be tatamount to saying the god does not exist at all.
Which, of course, is also fine.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 8, 2009 10:48 AM

I worry that a broom which sweeps away such liberal faiths along with fundamentalists would also sweep away subjective aesthetic experiences such as that of reading a novel or performing a dance.

This I'll never understand. I'm about as atheist as it comes and I was a sculpture major in college (for a while) am a semi-pro (soon full time) photographer and love music and culinary arts about as much as anything.

I just do not understand that line of reasoning at all.

Posted by: Coriolis | October 8, 2009 10:57 AM

Lol. Heddle for all your protestations, I wonder how you would interpret these simple facts (I think I remember asking you this before when you made similar claims, although typically, you never answered):

~10% of the general US population is non-believers
~50% of scientists are non-believers
~93% of NAS scientists are non-believers

How exactly does this not imply that,

a) Being a non-believer either increases your chances of being a scientist (by a factor of about 5x), or being a scientist leads to lack of belief

b) That being a non-believer makes it more likely to be a member of the NAS (or that being a member of the NAS leads to non-belief). And of course if we can agree that NAS scientists are on average better then non-NAS scientists, the conclusions are obvious.

So yes, religious people can be good scientists. But that's not to say that there isn't a pretty real and practical problem that most people have with being both religious and a good scientist.

Posted by: qbsmd | October 8, 2009 11:07 AM

Posted by: http://fordi.org/login/

[Posted on both Josh and Chris' articles] As I'm sure both Dawkins and the NCSE will agree, it's really this simple: As processes, religion and science are incompatible. Similar to how ice-skating and biking are incompatible. You can't perform both at the same time and expect to be reasonably successful at either. Rather, you'll tend to look a bit silly in both cases.

That doesn't imply that a person can't know how to do both. Such an assertion would be... well, it would be, as has been accused, a strawman of a real argument.

That's a great analogy; the best I can remember seeing on this topic. Hopefully it's clear enough to help move the conversation forward.

Posted by: Anri | October 8, 2009 11:17 AM

And in RE: heddle -

Let's assume we have a highly skilled auto mechanic. He knows how to use all of the tools of his trade, and is fully capable of diagnosing, repairing, and/or replacing almost any problem component in the types of vehicles he services.

Let's also assume, however, that this mechanic read a book on the Invisible Pushing Pixies that move the parts of an automobile engine. He finds this book inspiring, and accepts the belief in the Pixies without any further evidence for their existence. In further auto repairs, he goes through the procedures of repair as if the engines ran off of exploding gasoline vapor, but he knows in his heart that it's the Pixies.

The point being made here is that there's little doubt that our hypothetical mechanic can be good at his job, regardless of his Pixie belief.
The other point is that the theory that these engines run off of gasoline is not weakened if one, or many, or even all, auto mechanics believe in the Pixies.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 8, 2009 11:33 AM

Qbsmd,

A while ago Rosenau posted on blog explaining how religion can be another way of knowing. He did not actually bother explaining what it was that it allowed you to know (except that it was not empirical knowledge, and he did not provide any examples. He also was not clear on what religion can explain that other fields of study cannot. He offered no examples of knowledge that can only come from religion.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 8, 2009 11:42 AM

Maybe this "accommodationist" argument is the old "pick yer battles" problem?

With Rosenau that would seem to be the case.

However creationism is only one aspect of the problem many see with religion. Potential religious allies in the evolution battle are not always allies in other battles. The Catholic church supports evolution over creationism so is potential ally in that battle. It also denounces the use of embryonic stem cells in research, so it is hardly an ally in the search for cures for disease using stem cells.

Posted by: sqlrob | October 8, 2009 11:50 AM

I believe I meant that some religions basically say that science is right, and don't advance claims which contradict science as a method or the knowledge gained by applying science.

Now, given that the main actors in this are PZ and Dawkins, so we're talking about the Western world, what percentage of religious individuals are we talking here? Somewhere in the rounding or statistical error?

You're being very disingenuous.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 8, 2009 11:57 AM

I believe I meant that some religions basically say that science is right, and don't advance claims which contradict science as a method or the knowledge gained by applying science.

That would be deism then. And even a pretty weak form of deism as that since there would be no place for god to have "started it all".

Maybe you skipped the part of "The God Delusion" where Dawkins makes it clear the argument against god set out in the book does not apply to that form of deism. He does though point out that such a god was not really worthy of the name. A god who has done nothing and can do nothing ? Pretty thin stuff for believers.

Posted by: MrFire | October 8, 2009 12:06 PM

Gregory Greenwood @79:

The human mind is fully capable of holding too wholly contradictory sets of convictions as true.

I'm assuming that was a typo, yet it still seems correct somehow :)

Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 8, 2009 12:14 PM

Josh Rosenau (#70):

I worry that a broom which sweeps away such liberal faiths along with fundamentalists would also sweep away subjective aesthetic experiences such as that of reading a novel or performing a dance.

For some reason, I am reminded of a blog post by Greta Christina, who is about as vocal an atheist as the blogohedron can deliver:

I was at a wedding last weekend, a wedding of friends in the dance community that I'm part of, at which there was oodles of dancing. [...] I was dancing in a particularly good set, with a particularly good partner, doing a dance I'm particularly fond of, and I was getting that special transcendent brain/body fusion that I only ever get from dancing...

...and I was suddenly filled with this sense of wonder and awe -- that out of atoms and molecules, here we were managing to create the experience of joy.

Though I myself am no good at dancing, I have read a few books in my day. At university, I took enough literature classes for the fun of it that I almost got a literature minor by accident, and, as is well-known among these parts, I am an aspiring hack novelist. So, maybe it's just my personal bias, but I don't see how godlessness detracts from the aesthetic side of life at all.

Posted by: Peter G. | October 8, 2009 12:21 PM

As the owner of five dogs I recognize those looks. It isn't sadness it's guilt. It means: "I pontificated on the rug" or maybe " I left a stool sermon in your bedroom."

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 8, 2009 12:37 PM

Heddle blathered

I cannot find someone who is an unrepentant murderer (i.e., has a lifestyle dedicated to murder) and is also faithful to the teachings of Christianity.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 8, 2009 12:43 PM

Been to Belfast? Columbia? Any urban centre that still has a Mafia presence?

But InfuriatedSciTeacher... clearly someone living in Belfast or Columbia cannot be a True Scotsman (they would have to be living in Scotland!), so Heddle is right after all!

Posted by: heddle | October 8, 2009 12:46 PM

InfuriatedSciTeacher

You can hide back under the "No True Christian" argument now, because your other one is crap.

I never hide under the "No True Christian" argument, but proudly state that it is legitimate to assert the obvious, that claiming to be a Christian does not make it so.

It just gets regurgitated, as if it is sophisticated, by the simpleminded likes of you, who pretend that it is a true logical fallacy--when in fact it is nothing more than: "it is convenient for me to argue that murderous Northern Ireland terrorists who claim to be Christians, must be, because, after all, they claim to be."

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 8, 2009 12:50 PM

Of course we all know that the one and only True™ way to enter Heaven is to stop by and purchase one of heddle's True Christian™ badges on the way up.

Posted by: Anri | October 8, 2009 12:51 PM

sqlrob:

How about the pope? Or don't you consider negligent homicide murder?

I believe heddle does not. In an earlier discussion, it certainly seemed the heddle believes that allowing evil to occur is fully compatible with perfect goodness.

I might be wrong, of course.

Posted by: sqlrob | October 8, 2009 12:55 PM

. In an earlier discussion, it certainly seemed the heddle believes that allowing evil to occur is fully compatible with perfect goodness.

Allowing? He's encouraging it.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 8, 2009 12:56 PM

So now Heddle gets to decide who's a Christian and who isn't for purposes of his/her argument? That's convenient, and absolute bullshit. What criteria are you going to use to make this judgement, apart from only those that support your original assertion? They claim to be Christian because they believe: - In the God of the Bible, that Jesus was his Son who died for their sins etc... How would most Christians define themselves, if not by those terms?
I don't have to pretend your lack of understanding is a formal logical fallacy, it's still an attempt to weasel out of being wrong by changing the definitions (see "Weasel Words" in Carl Sagan's Demon-haunted World for further explanation).
Would you consider the Pope a Christian? Someone else raised that above, but you conveniently ignored that one...

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 8, 2009 12:58 PM

Hang on a minute.

Lying is a sin. Heddle lies like he breathes. Ergo Heddle is lying when he says he is a Christian since if he was Christian he would not lie, especially about being a Christian.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 8, 2009 1:02 PM

It seems by Heddle's thinking, it could be successfully argued that there are no, and have never been, xtians. Anywhere.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 8, 2009 1:07 PM

Actually, heddle has a point when he says that we are inventing a logical fallacy. After all, No True Fallacy would ever be a problem for the point he is trying to make, ergo, the No True Scotsman fallacy cannot is No True Fallacy.

Right?

Posted by: Anri | October 8, 2009 1:09 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but heddle is a Calvinist - he believes that the only true christians are those that have been given sufficient grace/faith/holy bitz by god.

According to this worldview, it doesn't matter if someone identifies themselves as a christian, only god can give someone what is required to be one.

This definition has the advantage of being utterly unprovable - only god knows for certain who he has given grace to and who he has not. Of course, heddle seems to feel he's pretty good at detecting this, and is therefore able to make statements like that one about murderers.

Again, I might have the completely wrong impression here, please correct if so.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 8, 2009 1:12 PM

Hey Matt, we now have two independent lines of evidence proving that heddle is not a Christian. That's a magnificent performance you've kept up for so long, heddle - but you can drop it now.

And since Heddle is a scientist, evidence must mean something to him right ?

I am sure he will find some way to squirm his way out of this conundrum though. He usually does, often by changing the meaning of words mid-sentence.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 8, 2009 1:15 PM

I would just add that the more Heddle protests and claims he is really a Christian the more evidence there will be that in fact he is not.

Result.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 8, 2009 1:19 PM

Matt> Oh I'm not, just appreciating the irony in that statement.

Posted by: CJO | October 8, 2009 1:24 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but heddle is a Calvinist - he believes that the only true christians are those that have been given sufficient grace/faith/holy bitz by god.

That's right. Ultimately, he'll beg off the accusations that he's arrogating the right to identify Christians with this bit of obfuscation, "the grace of god." But look what he does here:

I cannot find someone who is an unrepentant murderer (i.e., has a lifestyle dedicated to murder) and is also faithful to the teachings of Christianity.(my emphasis)

So, we either can or we can't tell who is actually a Christian, depending on whether we mean the god-only-knows kind, or the "faithful to the teachings" (according to...?) kind.

Heads, you lose; tails, heddle wins.

Posted by: shatfat | October 8, 2009 1:29 PM

@128

sgbm:

You see yourself choosing not to let insults affect you. I see you trying to avoid eye contact with a bully.

Well, Strange Gods, that's all well and good on the internet, but in meatspace an unrelenting aggressiveness towards perceived insults is punished pretty quickly.

Guess what, if you make eye contact with that bully and it comes to blows, that's anti-social behavior and you might spend the night in jail.

If you "call out" everyone at the job who says something offensive/that offends you, you'll quickly find yourself ostracized and passed over for promotions/taken off important projects/persecuted/singled out for discipline/laid off.

Sometimes life does require us to grin and bear it. Actually, I agree with your incision of Naked Bunny's logic, I just disagree with your absolutism. There's a balance. Sometimes you stick up for yourself. Sometimes you let it roll off your back.

The person who never answers insults is perceived as weak. The person who constantly claims they are insulted (even by conversations they are not party to) is also perceived as weak. They may also be seen as a bully. What neither one gets is respect.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 8, 2009 1:58 PM

It's a nonsense definition - quite unscientific - and deserves to be scrapped for reasons quite independent of its impact on public culture.

So, that would be the "No True Planet" fallacy?

Posted by: Tulse | October 8, 2009 2:17 PM

The problem with the No True Scotsman response that heddle gives is it cuts both ways -- someone can call themselves a scientist, but that doesn't necessarily make them one. Presumably one could say that, whatever they may claim, if someone believes in supernatural causation, then they aren't really a scientist, just as if someone believes it is OK to murder people, they aren't really a Christian.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 8, 2009 2:17 PM

Hey Matt, we now have two independent lines of evidence proving that heddle is not a Christian. That's a magnificent performance you've kept up for so long, heddle - but you can drop it now.

Posted by: sqlrob | October 8, 2009 2:23 PM

The problem with the No True Scotsman response that heddle gives is it cuts both ways -- someone can call themselves a scientist, but that doesn't necessarily make them one.

What defines a Christian? "By their acts ye shall know them?", by that argument, there's a handful, if any. And by that definition, I'm closer to a Christian despite not believing in god or christ.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 2:39 PM

Well, Strange Gods, that's all well and good on the internet, but in meatspace an unrelenting aggressiveness towards perceived insults is punished pretty quickly.

I'm not necessarily saying that the best course of action is to punch the other guy in the nose. (But lest I be misunderstood the other way, sometimes throwing the first punch is a great idea.)

I did not say anything absolutist. You read something into my comment that wasn't there.

What I criticized was this New Age bullshit which pretends that we make our own realities, and if you pretend someone isn't insulting you, then they really aren't insulting you.

As for the appropriate way to respond in the workplace, there's a pretty good resource from the SPLC.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 8, 2009 2:55 PM

You see yourself choosing not to let insults affect you.

On the contrary, they do affect me. I just don;t respond by lashing out like a child.

I see you trying to avoid eye contact with a bully.

You opinion is noted, as is your terror at the idea of looking into your own mind. Your belief that posting anonymous opinions on the internet makes you courageous is a laughable delusion.

If you really want to make eye contact with a bully, look in a mirror.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 3:13 PM

On the contrary, they do affect me. I just don;t respond by lashing out like a child.

On the contrary:

Insults are wholly subjective phenomena, and I see plenty of people who go out of their way to be offended by insults not directed at them.

A lot of problems start with the statement "you make me feel x" because it has a false premise at its base.

This mentality is the remnant of a slave religion.

If you think that 'Using "fellating" or "cocksucking" or "cocksucker" as an insult is part of a broader paradigm of misogyny and homophobia' is 'lashing out like a child', then you have a pretty strange notion of adulthood.

You opinion is noted, as is your terror at the idea of looking into your own mind.

Oooh! Tell me what you think I will find in the abyss.

Your belief that posting anonymous opinions on the internet makes you courageous is a laughable delusion.

Logical fallacy. From "it is cowardly to ignore insults against whole groups of people" it does not follow that "it is courageous to speak up against those insults."

It may be instead that speaking up is the absolute minimum of decency, neither cowardly nor courageous, just necessary.

If you really want to make eye contact with a bully, look in a mirror.

I'm a bad, bad man. I have to cover up all the mirrors, to keep from remembering my crimes.

Posted by: qbsmd | October 8, 2009 3:39 PM

Posted by: James Sweet

Actually, heddle has a point when he says that we are inventing a logical fallacy. After all, No True Fallacy would ever be a problem for the point he is trying to make, ergo, the No True Scotsman fallacy cannot is No True Fallacy.

Right?

When did we get metafallacies?

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 8, 2009 4:28 PM

heddle's back! Maybe he'll stick around to discuss the origins of evil, this time around?

I never hide under the "No True Christian" argument, but proudly state that it is legitimate to assert the obvious, that claiming to be a Christian does not make it so.

It just gets regurgitated, as if it is sophisticated, by the simpleminded likes of you, who pretend that it is a true logical fallacy--when in fact it is nothing more than: "it is convenient for me to argue that murderous Northern Ireland terrorists who claim to be Christians, must be, because, after all, they claim to be."

So, just to be clear, someone who shoots someone else, or hangs them, or sets them on fire, or orders them shot or hanged or set on fire (and just to be even more clear, not in self-defense or defense of others -- the victim is not threatening them, and has not attacked or killed anyone) is definitely not a Christian even if they claim to be?

I ask only for information.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 8, 2009 4:45 PM

There is even an argument to be made that the bible predicts this.

*yawn*

I make up the flying spaghetti monster religion and predict that it will generate much scorn.

the bible makes predictions much like astrology makes predictions.

Actually, I suspect that heddle may be thinking of the deeply anti-intellectual verses in 1 & 2 Corinthians, eg: 1 Cor. 1:20-25, and many more.

(heddle will not doubt deny that they are anti-intellectual (oh, no, they're "predicting" those arrogant so-called wise people who ask for logical consistency in premises, arguments, and conclusions, even about God -- God just hates that!!), because when it comes to the bible and religion, he throws logic out the window. Or even jams an icepick up his nose and autolobotomizes himself.)

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | October 8, 2009 7:05 PM

Re: Knockgoats @ #68:

Walton, you totally walked right into that one. ;)

Posted by: E.V. | October 8, 2009 9:08 PM

What's interesting here on on Orac's blog is the knee jerk response to defend some of the bigger players out of some some obscure sense of loyalty or deference to authority figures. The usually measured MAJeff and my hero Sastra misconstrued what was essentially an absurdist joke. Likewise, Orac defends Isis and Mooney for reasons I can't fathom.
{Disclaimer:My dislike of anyone has nothing to do with sex, sexuality or gender (however like may be influenced by these things).} Okay - I tend to automatically jump to the defense of PZ, not out of some paean to authority but because my ideology/understanding tends to be very close to his although I do not have his science background nor quite his intellectual acumen. I know he's a big boy and can take of himself, but i have his back to the best of my ability to defend him when he needs to be defended.
I am amazed by the clarity and conciseness of many who post here(you know who you are), not just because I always agree with their arguments but because they possess the ability to back up there statements logically and rationally - something Heddle seems incapable of despite his intellect. Even though I respect his medical opinion, Orac can be added to the latter category: he seems to have blind loyalty toward Mooney and Isis sans criticism but is more than ready to take digs at PZ and Dawkins at the drop of a hat. What's more, Orac's regular posse tends to rag on Pharyngula and PZ as if there is an actual rivalry/feud between the science blogs. I read Ed Brayton too and Phil and several others. I enjoy commenting here although i rarely comment elsewhere. I don't feel the need to discredit them out of some false sense of duty to Pharyngula.

I was empathetic and sympathetic to SC's treatment by Isis and her rabid minions; I think she was shocked by the hostility directed against her since she probably assumed there would be some effort to establish solidarity from a feminist perspective. I've seen it happen before. It has to be some atavistic flashback to tribalism.

Posted by: E.V. | October 8, 2009 10:17 PM

Perhaps I misunderstood the entire Maher debacle beyond the he was basically given the award as a way to popularize the event. Throw the award to a high profile agitator because all the cool kids will pay attention. Just as no one(usually) gets on Conan or Dave's show without hawking a new movie or a book, Religulous allowed the award committee flaunt a quasi mainstream figure rather than some obscure marginalized scientist or journalist.
I also understood that Dawkins had little sway with the selection of the recipient of his eponymous award. PZ wasn't particularly crazy about Maher from the beginning but understood the popular appeal of the movie and Politically Incorrect/Real Time. Dumping Maher for his antivax stance would have created a media storm which would have probably damaged any progress on the atheism/agnosticism front. Orac's stance on antivaxers and homeopaths is admirable but he seemed to hold PZ and Dawkins personally responsible for the entire affair or for not creating a shit storm against Maher. WTF?
Is Maher a possible ally? Not really - his views are emotional and pseudo-heuristic rather than reasoned. An effort was made to admonish maher without publicly humiliating him (and possibly alienating him, which as a public figure with a HBO cable show commands a little more media pull than Dawkins, PZ and Orac combined, would not be smart)Making him an enemy is not an option unless the entire point is to court more fury over the religious question.
Unfortunately in our present culture celebrity wins out over intellectualism. Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are known to almost everyone under 50. Dawkins, Dennet not so much and Hitchens only to the quasi-literate Americans.
It's possible to influence Maher with sound arguments if he's willing to listen. The rest of the HuffPo croud and McCarthyites are a lost cause.

*****
I'm not attacking you Sastra. I'd never dream of doing that even under the worst circumstances. You're among the most reasonable voices I know. I have great affection for MAJeff too.
I just remember 3 specific threads on Orac's blog where he recused Mooney for his accommodationist views and called PZ on the carpet. Orac may not be an accommodationist directly but he abets those who do - well two actually - M & K.
(I love ERV btw, I can barely tolerate Isis, for which I'll probably be labeled a sexist pig)

Posted by: E.V. | October 8, 2009 11:06 PM

moot(endlessly debatable), mute(unspoken) or mu (null)?

Posted by: titmouse | October 8, 2009 11:26 PM

Orac is amazing. We're lucky to have him.

PZ likewise is a gift.

When I look at our misinformation enemies, I'm overwhelmed. Press releases from US News and World Report seem to be about new neuroscience research. But in fact the content is a disguised sales pitch for fish oil from a vitamin manufactuer, with ties to Dr. Oz's "RealAge," affiliated with the Hearst-Harpo media empire, linked to the Center for Neurotechnology Studies. I would joke about the latter looking like my fantasy of a [redacted] front company, but [redacted].

So the bad guys have their billionaires and media celebrities. What to we have?

We have us. Yay us!

Posted by: E.V. | October 8, 2009 11:54 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: raikoala | October 9, 2009 5:57 AM

Josh, Mr. T - for me this "aesthetics" argument goes into the same direction as the "moral" argument.

Only a person who hasn't wasted a thought on moral or aesthetics could come up with the idea that they're necessarily linked to religion.

I'm not an artist, though I do art in my free time. But as any human, I experience aesthetic, art, and I appreciate such things. And I honestly don't see how religion isn't more likely to interfere with the appreciation of art than aid it. For example, I can look at chapels and the work therein (I just recently visited an altar with bible scenes carved from marble) and find them beautiful, appreciate the art, marvel at the artist's skill, or just lean back and enjoy it. I can also do that for erotic photography or blasphemic art. I am sure there are religious people for whom this is possible as well, but I am equally sure that many are unwilling to appreciate certain types of art for religious reasons. To accuse atheism of threatening aesthetic feelings and art appreciation comes close to accusing atheism of threating moral. It's nonsense and the accusers should definitely take a look at their own camp.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 9, 2009 6:57 AM

titmouse> Check out the link I provided in my above post, it pretty much details the stance taken by the NCSE. The "official position" doesn't seem to match what actually comes out of there (i.e. they don't remain mute about compatibility, etc), and I can't speak for Eugenie's personal position because I don't know her.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 9, 2009 8:55 AM

titmouse @ 196,

That's your tribal brain playing tricks on you (I'm aware that "fan" is a low insult among skeptics).

Sorry, I'm not aware of that insult, maybe I'm not a member of that ingroup.

You didnt answer my question.How and why are we "lucky to have Orac"?

I love PZed, Dawkins, and Gorski as if they were like family

Not my business, but you seem to be confusing feelings of love, bonding and attachment for and with family members with acceptance and respect for authority figures in their specific field.

Posted by: titmouse | October 9, 2009 9:15 AM

Rorschach,

How and why are we "lucky to have Orac"?

Not my business, but you seem to be confusing feelings of love, bonding and attachment for and with family members with acceptance and respect for authority figures in their specific field.

I try to separate people from arguments.

Posted by: titmouse | October 9, 2009 9:36 AM

Seems to me like there are a million, actually.As in, like, every single MD that is worth the title.

Over 40 of our leading medical schools now have departments of integrative medicine.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point in response to my comment about separating my feelings toward people and the arguments that those people happen to be making. "Separate" does not mean that I have no emotions.

Posted by: titmouse | October 9, 2009 10:20 AM

Yes, that's the IOM report. But your link is a fairly scrubbed down summary. More here:

http://www.iom.edu/?id=4829&redirect=0

As you say, ID and IM (integrative medicine) are both about woo instead of science. There is an important difference, however: unlike doctors, biologists have been successful at keeping ID out of academia.

IM is now well established within academic medicine. Medical student education mandates CAM coursework and clinical experience and is under further revision to expand CAM training.

UCSF's example: http://insider.ucsf.edu/2008/Oct/spotlight_4.html

The Discovery Institute is mom 'n pop in comparison. Never mind the billionaire supplement manufacturers, look at the charitable money behind IM:
http://www.bravewell.org/transforming_healthcare/strategic_partnerships/

The American Medical Student Association now supports naturopathy:
http://www.amsa.org/naturopath/

Where are the doctors speaking out against IM? Seems to me there are about 12 of us, and we are nobodies.

Posted by: titmouse | October 9, 2009 1:55 PM

I understand now this accomodationist thing has a history. Old wrongs that can't clearly be made right.

I'm sure it's not my place to speak, not knowing the details, but I hope there's a way beyond this.

The science-based medicine movement is like 12 dudes. Really, it's pathetic. On the other hand, the woo-pushers have more money than God.

http://www.bravewell.org/transforming_healthcare/strategic_partnerships/

We need everyone semi-interested in the issues to help us push back against this coordinated corruption of medical education by the integrative medicine movement.

"Integrative" medicine is irrational. For if a treatment works, why not prove it and so save us the trouble of figuring out how to "integrate" it?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PbW94bQ7hfDDpgZIW3U_hMjFlIlrQRqxDkwdPxjeJX9Bt9yQZ6yJi6Qwhij8ldlG#35d13 | October 14, 2009 3:22 PM

What did Orwell say?

Doublethink: to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them — Orwell

The complete context:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

the anti_supernaturalist