…and this is a 
It's still going on. Jerry Coyne repeated our common criticism that the NCSE spends too much effort promoting Christianity; then Richard Hoppe fires back, complaining that his comment was held in moderation (Coyne has been sick for a while, you know…I wish people would have more patience), and then repeating the common and misguided defense that NCSE is not an atheist organization. We know. We've both agreed on multiple occasions that the NCSE should not be an atheist organization. But still we get this same tiresome objection.
NCSE's main remit is defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. That defense is both legal (think Kitzmiller) and political (think the Dover PA school board election after that trial but before the verdict was in). One cannot win political battles without accepting alliances with groups with whom one does not agree on all aspects of all issues. To imagine otherwise is to live in dreamland.
Yes? Please look in a mirror, Richard!
As I've said before, said just above, am saying again, and will no doubt have to say a hundred times more, no one is asking the NCSE to become an atheist organization, and no one is saying that the NCSE shouldn't make strategic alliances with religious organizations. I'd put it in 72 point type if I thought it would help, but I doubt that anything will.
The problem is that the NCSE is not neutral on atheism vs. religion, but has clearly taken a side in preferring one particularly fuzzy, liberal, soft version of Christianity as its 'acceptable' religious belief. I have a preference for it myself — it's what I was brought up in, and I think the country would be in far better shape if there was more widespread support for a faith that quietly defers to science on material matters and supported progressive ethical values — but that does not justify exclusively endorsing it, especially since I think promoting atheism would have even better consequences for the nation. If the NCSE is to be respected as an honest broker, supporting only better science education, it can't do so by this weird sectarian favoritism.
What raises hackles is that once again NCSE is caught promoting a cult event, a group of theologians and preachers gathering to babble incompetently about evolution. As usual, they're being selective: Spong and Giberson and their ilk will always get a thumbs-up from the NCSE, but they don't seem to appreciate that they are almost as great a minority as atheists, and that supporting this one slippery version of Christianity is not going to suddenly win over the majority to their side. The fact that most of the participants at this conference are generally nice people is not a reason to argue that they're right.
Here's what would make me content, and satisfy me that the NCSE was not turning into a religious organization. It's only two things, and it does not involve sticking a knife in the back of any Christian groups, and none of it involves adding an atheist bias to the center.
Demonstrate some rigor in who they're going to promote. Right now, it looks like any religious group that announces that they're OK with evolution, for any reason, gets the happy-clappy treatment from the NCSE. It doesn't matter if what they're doing is pushing teleology and a history of godly intervention — if they say their faith is compatible with evolution, no matter how much they distort the science, they get the thumbs-up. Have some standards; don't allow your logo to be slapped on a gathering of theologians of the acceptable faith, unless there is going to be some critical thinking encouraged, and honest evaluation of the evidence.
Be more equitable in distributing information. The most glaring discrepancy in NCSE's current policy of so-called alliance-building is that atheists are left out; I presume their support is taken for granted. But I will note that some ditzy conference by Biologos-types gets front page attention from the NCSE, while Richard Dawkins can tour the country giving talks on evolution (if anyone had been paying attention, they'd know that most of his talks are about science, not atheism) and be completely ignored. It's as if the biggest, most popular promoters of science in the world do not exist, simply because they aren't liberal Christians.
Why? Apparently because the alliances they are trying to build are with delicate bigots who will balk if the NCSE even occasionally acknowledges that atheists are sharing goals with them. It doesn't help to pander to such fragile souls, especially if you're going to turn around and use their sensitivity to accuse atheists of refusing to work alongside Christians on the issues of science education. We aren't the ones threatening to abandon science education because Christians are involved in it, please notice; we aren't the ones refusing to cooperate with religious people who want to better teaching in this country. Instead, we're the boogey men the NCSE would like to hide in the closet.
Note that I agree that the principle in point #1 should also apply to #2. There are plenty of atheist conferences that address evolution, and many of them are using it to lead the cheer for atheism in the same way that Biologos uses it to promote Christianity. The NCSE is under no obligation to promote every atheist meeting. But I think if they're going to push anything as aiding the cause of science education, it ought to be events that feature science and education. Right now, it's science and education and friendly theology. That latter addition represents mission creep, and a growing bias towards promoting a version of religion.
Jerry is precisely right. NCSE is becoming Biologos, and Biologos is an openly and honestly sectarian organization that evangelizes for a specific version of Christianity. That makes NCSE the secretive and dishonest version of the same, and as a long-term supporter of the NCSE (and someone who never will support Biologos), I object. Get back on track with an honest neutrality on the conflict between science and religion, please.
And do I need to say it again? That doesn't mean promoting atheism. I know what that looks like, and I do it myself all the time, and it's not what anyone is asking the NCSE to do.
Comments
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2010 6:13 PM
Spot on again PZ. Supporting evolution does not require endorsing fuzz-headed religious folk, even from a political point of view. Science should be neutral toward religion, which means it should support the total range of religious and non-religious beliefs that support the science of evolution, and say so in unequivocal terms. Personally, that leaves Biologos out, as they must equivocate and insert their imaginary deity somewhere in the process. They should be called out on that.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
December 5, 2010 6:16 PM
Huh. Who's that doing the poor impersonation of John Kw*k?
Ah - nevermind, I just didn't scroll down far enough.
Apparently it's "Ken" now. Poor boy.
Posted by: Fred Price, The Cantankerous Cephalopod
|
December 5, 2010 6:22 PM
i saddens me that so many theists confuse the inherent objectivity of science with personal beliefs, i.e. atheism.
there is a certain amount of causality between the two, but it is not definitive. just look at this list:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation
even though they have been taught the method, they reject it completely. the armies of cognitive dissonance hqve run wild with the brains of humanity, and turned them into useless shells.
Posted by: john.marley
|
December 5, 2010 6:26 PM
"gathering of theologians" + "critical thinking...and honest evaluation of the evidence"
Isn't that sort of oxymoronic?
Posted by: James F
|
December 5, 2010 6:27 PM
As a point of information, the NCSE Facebook page recently advertised the debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Dembski, which at least adds a positive check mark in category 2.
Posted by: lordsetar
|
December 5, 2010 6:33 PM
Heh. Funny that NCSE has come up again, since I'm taking on one of those "moderate" goddists. Their claim is that science supports them as well as it does us Gnu Atheists, but when they finally got around to explaining how this was what came up:
I don't see why we try to support these people when they think that they're allowed to insert their superstition by declaring science wrong when it conflicts with their superstition. Superstition over science is not science and no organization claiming to support science should support such crap =/
Posted by: David B
|
December 5, 2010 6:38 PM
I know Richard Hoppe well on-line, over a period of more years than I like to think of now, so I declare an interest there.
I thought his piece made sense, and I don't really see where PZ disagrees with him.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 6:45 PM
You mean, where RBH is disagreeing with me.
That's because Jerry Coyne and I have been pushing the same thing for a long time: that the NCSE should be neutral on religion. And everyone agrees with us, and then says it's just fine that the NCSE endorses one peculiar brand of religion.
So don't take it up with me; bring it up with RBH and the NCSE, who seem to be logically incoherent on the matter.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne
|
December 5, 2010 6:46 PM
Just for the record: Hoppe made his comment I was too sick to access the computer. When I finally logged on, I immediately approved what he wrote and a bunch of other new comments that had accumulated. He got his knickers in a twist about nothing.
What still rankles me is that the NCSE even worked to remove the perfectly accurate characterization of evolution as "purposeless" and "unguided," just because they thought it would scare the Xtians. As you note, they're perfectly willing to accept as allies those whose characterization of evolution is tinged with woo.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
December 5, 2010 6:47 PM
As I mentioned over on WEIT (I post as Microraptor there), Spong's a really odd addition to the NCSE's list, given that he's openly against any sort of supernatural explanations for the bible. He rejects the idea that Jesus was a literally divine entity who could perform miracles, spits on the idea of the Strong Anthropic Principle, and has some very interesting things to say about the subject of divine intervention.
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
December 5, 2010 6:52 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people are baffled by the distinction between something being secular or neutral on religion, and being pro-atheism.
This comes up in Establishment Clause disputes all the time -- "if we don't allow teachers to lead Christian prayers in public schools, then we're promoting atheism! Derp derp derp!"
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
December 5, 2010 6:54 PM
I suppose I should say "or pretend to be baffled."
Posted by: te24hours
|
December 5, 2010 6:58 PM
Wait, so why are you asking NCSE to become an atheist organization?
/sarcasm (closed captioned for the sarcasm impaired... like me!)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 7:00 PM
Yeah, I think Spong's heart is in the right place, and he'd make a great atheist if only his brain were in the right place.
Posted by: elronxenu
|
December 5, 2010 7:02 PM
#1 Nerd of Redhead ... Science should not be neutral toward religion where religion makes testable claims (and that is common, except for deism). NCSE should be pro-science, pro-evolution and neutral toward religion. Let the religious people draw their own conclusions regarding the compatibility of science with religion.
If they can understand how certainly we know that evolution is true, then they will question for themselves those elements of their faith that contradict it. Whether they go on to question all aspects of their faith is up to them.
Posted by: Randy
|
December 5, 2010 7:05 PM
I am mortified by NCSE's involvement in and promotion of an event that will serve only to advance the notion that evolution can serve as evidence for the existence of God. Isn't this after all what Evolutionary Christianity is saying in essence? I read Hoppe's comments.I find the following excerpt extremely unsettling:
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but isn't he in essence saying that classroom science teachers, who are after all the front lines of this battle, should accommodate the beliefs of their students by acknowledging and tacitly accepting that God may be lurking behind the scenes in evolution. How can any science teacher be true to the principles of science and act in accordance with what Hoppes is suggesting here? As a science teacher this is contray to EVERY principle of science education with which I am familiar and to any respectable adherence to intellectual honesty and integrity.
Have the folks at NCSE gone stark raving mad! Surely Eugenie Scott has not been so seduced by accommodationism that she can not see the rot this type of alliance will inflict on science education!
Posted by: Japanther
|
December 5, 2010 7:13 PM
I have to point out that Eugenie Scott is on board at the Rock Beyond Belief festival. RBB is a free secular event on Fort Bragg, NC, that is being put on by atheists in foxholes, for soldiers, family members, and civilians.
There is not a single thing about our festival that stinks of liberal (or otherwise) Christianity whatsoever. I understand where you are coming from, PZ, commenters, but I'm pointing out that the NCSE / Eugenie Scott is specifically endorsing a purely non-theist event. I talked to her extensively on this subject as we were negotiating her appearance, and I must say that she had absolutely no problem with lending her support. She even waived her honorarium, unasked!
http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2010/11/12/eugenie-scott-to-speak-at-rock-beyond-belief/
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 7:19 PM
So you're saying that it is possible for NCSE to support a secular event without simultaneously shouting that you have to be an atheist to support evolution?
That's what the atheists have been saying all along as an entirely appropriate way to support science education. The NCSE does not have to take sides on religion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 5, 2010 7:25 PM
Hmm...Any regular here think I would disagree at all with this statement, even in the minutest detail? ;)Posted by: Michael Dowd
|
December 5, 2010 7:34 PM
PZ,
It’s my fault that NSCE is co-sponsoring this Advent of Evolutionary Christianity: Conversations at the Leading Edge of Faith event. I’m the producer and host of it and Genie Scott and many others at NCSE are friends. (Connie and I rafted down the Grand Canyon with 24 others from NCSE last June, just before I was diagnosed with cancer.)
This series (I’m having an hour-long conversation with the 29 others) is in large part an attempt to promote an evidential, evolutionary worldview among Christians.
As you know, I’m an accommodationist of a different sort. To my mind, every religion must accommodate to science or it will contribute to the demise of human civilization and the despoiling of the Earth.
I’m a 100% naturalist, and, yes, I fully realize that many of these Christian evolutionaries are not. I’ll be trying to move them in the direction of naturalism, of course, but I’m also a pragmatist.
So long as people have “evidential deep-time eyes” and “a global heart and commitment”, I frankly don’t care what their theology or metaphysics may be. I can grant them whatever woo they want as long as they have deep-time values and a commitment to the health and wellbeing of the larger body of life, rather than just their own “soul’s salvation”.
I realize that you and the other New Atheists are fighting a very different fight. And as you know, I’m hugely grateful for the role you all are playing. Still, I’ve got to do what I can. And I believe that this will make a difference — at least with some.
Co-evolutionarily,
~ Michael
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 5, 2010 7:45 PM
I find it kind of funny that the promotion of a science is dictating people be amateur theologians to do so. Even on the internet so often discussions boil down to how to interpret Genesis, which has absolutely nothing to do with the science. The question is just so tainted by religion that it's hard to see why from a pragmatic perspective the NCSE wouldn't get involved with those promoting a positive message with that religious taint.
In some ways, nothing highlights the incompatibility and the backwards nature of religious thinking more than these kind of events. Ken Ham et al. Are just backwards, those trying to argue for compatibility are contorting themselves so much not to appear that way that is no wonder so many believers reject it.
Posted by: Michael Dowd
|
December 5, 2010 7:52 PM
Randy @16, As the organizer of the Evolutionary Christianity teleseries (and pretty much owner of the "brand"), I can say catagorically, NO, that's not what Evolutionary Christianity is (at least not my brand of it and not the direction I'm trying to move others in.
In a nutshell, the entire thing is an attempt on my part to help the Christian faith evolve in the direction of naturalism and evidence and away from myth and superstition. Given that roughly 33% of the human species identifies as "Christian", I think this is a worthy goal.
To my mind, any so-called “God” who can be said to exist or not exist is trivial and inconsequential compared to what is undeniably real.
I’m an evidentialist, a religious naturalist. There’s a mountain of evidence, from a variety of disciplines and across the globe, that all gods and goddesses are are relational projections of reality as a whole or some significant aspect of reality. God is a personification not a person. In fact, I know of no counter-evidence.
If you’re curious, my own views on this matter are best articulated in my public debate with Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, titled, BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY IS BANKRUPT and in the main evening program that I’m now delivering to all religious and non-religious audiences (which I also delivered at the United Nations last April): EVOLUTIONIZE YOUR LIFE: HEAVEN IS COMING HOME TO REALITY (alt title, Deep-Time Wisdom: An Inspiring Vision of Humanity’s Future“.
THIS is the direction I'm trying to move my colleagues in. Only time will tell whether, or with whom, I am effective.
If you (or others reading this) are so led, your brutally honest feedback on either of these two resources is most welcome.
Posted by: Japanther
|
December 5, 2010 8:04 PM
PZ, if you were talking to me (about Eugenie Scott's upcoming speech at Rock Beyond Belief), I'd say: YES. It is possible, and it's happening.
And I do understand and tend to agree with much of your criticisms (and you have been consistent on this issue for years).
I was just pointing out that she IS supporting at least one purely secular event. And, I had no trouble getting her to agree. I initially contacted her via Facebook of all places. She even offered to try to help me get Bad Religion to play on Fort Bragg! (Still waiting to hear from them, don't get excited just yet science punkers.)
Posted by: anthrosciguy
|
December 5, 2010 8:25 PM
Hoppe's complaint wasn't simply that his comment had been held up in moderation, but that several comments made after his had gone through; it seems dishonest to excuse that on the basis of illness and accuse the commenter of a lack of patience.
Hoppe: "I commented on Coyne’s site more than five hours ago but my comment is still labeled (after hard refreshes) as “Awaiting moderation” while several comments posted later than mine have appeared."
Posted by: nickmatzke.ncse
|
December 5, 2010 8:27 PM
Meh. Here's my comment in reply to RBH, it covers most of this. All I would add is:
1. Neither this conference nor even BioLogos are specifically "promoting Christianity", at least not mainly. What they are doing, mainly, is promoting science to a Christian audience that often has problems with science. And bringing the Christians around to thinking of evolution like they think of chemistry or meteorology -- i.e., no big deal -- is crucial work, IMHO it's the most direct way to end this unnecessary battle over evolution once and for all. This is a longer discussion, but "let's get everyone to become atheists" is not a coherent or realistic strategy for improving science education, it's just an ideology and a rallying cry for the faithful (both atheist and theist).
2. As was mentioned in the PT discussion, "evolution equates to atheism" is one of Eugenie Scott's three "pillars of creationism", i.e. one of the three absolute bedrock points of creationism that explain why people adopt creationism, why it's popular, why people fight evolution in person and in schools, and why this fight continues:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/pillars-creationism
And it's a false belief. Events that undermine this false belief = weakening creationism = worth promoting under NCSE's mission. Events that promote this false belief = helping creationism = not worth helping under NCSE's mission.
(All IMHO, as some but apparently not all know I used to work at NCSE but do not now, and either way my comments on a blog would be my own and not officially those of NCSE.)
Reply on RBH thread:
==============
Nick (Matzke) | December 1, 2010 9:49 PM | Edit
He was in South America, he might be traveling. No reason to assume anything untoward, anyway, goodness knows I don’t keep up with the blog auto-emails from PT, and links or long posts or formatting code or a new user or whatever can shunt something to the owner-approval-required zone.
That said, Coyne’s comments are off in several ways. (1) He quotes NCSE’s long-standing policy, but apparently doesn’t get it. NCSE has always worked with people with diverse religious positions towards the common goal of promoting evolution education. Coyne’s goal is promoting atheism. That’s fine, but it’s not NCSE’s goal – which is also fine: different organizations have different goals.
(2) It just so happens that the people who currently most “need to get religion” when it comes to evolution are the religious people, particularly (in the U.S.) Christians (although New Age evolution weirdness is on the rise and in a few decades, who knows what the major problem will be). I agree that it makes raw political sense to work with people from across the religious spectrum, but even more important, in my view, is that (a) basically the main source of opposition to evolution is religious people who oppose evolution because they have the inaccurate idea that evolution = atheism, and (b) while informing people about just the science is necessary, it is not sufficient by itself, because the hugest block is emotional, fearful opposition to evolution. The science has no chance while the fear is there.
(3) All that said, Coyne’s comments are inaccurate in another way, since the evolution problem is *really* not with “Christians” in general but with evangelicals. This conference NCSE linked to is substantially another liberal-moderate/mainline Christian affair, and there the evolution battle has long been won (mostly). Such events have limited impact over where it really needs to happen, in evangelical-land (although they have some).
Ironically, BioLogos is the kind of organization that really *does* have a substantial chance of improving the situation amongst evangelicals, since it is by and for evangelicals. (Also ironically, the more BioLogos is attacked by atheists, the more cred it will have with evangelicals, so the Coynes of the world might end up helping out the accomodationists of the world in the end anyway!)
So – NCSE isn’t becoming BioLogos, and neither is the conference that was announced, but it would probably be better if the conference that was announced was *more* like a BioLogos event!
==============
Posted by: nickmatzke.ncse
|
December 5, 2010 8:37 PM
PZ et al.,
Basically, the whole argument we are having about this issue boils down to whether or not one agrees with this passage, *and* thinks that creationists should be opposed on their Standard Claim #2, or one thinks the creationists are right about this.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/pillars-creationism
============
Standard Creationist Claim 2: Evolution equates to atheism
This claim is frequently used to imply that religious faith and acceptance of evolutionary science are incompatible. As has been shown again and again, it is fully possible to be religious and to accept the scientific evidence for evolution. Even so, this fear drives much of the opposition to evolution and is well-worth defusing, especially in local controversies. See the relevant section below for resources on this issue.
============
Posted by: H.H.
|
December 5, 2010 8:41 PM
anthrosciguy, Richard's initial post on Coyne's blog contained multiple links to other websites. It is not uncommon for posts with links (usually more than one) to be held in moderation until the website owner can determine whether or not they are spam. Posts without links, meanwhile, are posted immediately. This is why Richard's post was held while others were not.
Now, if I were less charitable, I might accuse you of dishonesty. But I'm going to be generous and assume your baseless accusations were founded on a complete ignorance of how bloggers routinely handle comments.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 5, 2010 8:50 PM
Only if you count evolution without a mechanism. Take away a "God guided" evolution and you're left with a very small percentage of the American population who agree with such an idea. Perhaps climate-change might be more accepted if it's God-guided temperature rising...Posted by: Josh Rosenau
|
December 5, 2010 8:51 PM
In what sense is NCSE's announcement of the event an endorsement? The brief item that has spawned all of this hysteria notes that the event is happening. It doesn't say that the folks running the webcast are right. I don't see how that is an endorsement of the event, let alone of the organizers' views. We'll call that misuse of the world "endorse": "pandering to your audience."
You'll note that Genie and other NCSE staff often speak at and promote secular events. Genie just got back from speaking at TAM Australia, and I spoke on NCSE's behalf at AHA's meeting this summer (as Genie did the previous summer). Odd not to mention that when criticizing NCSE for not doing exactly that. We'll call that "hiding the truth."
As a matter of personal policy, I don't blog or leave blog comments in my official capacity as an NCSE staffer, so I'll leave questions about how items are chosen for the NCSE front page for some intrepid blogger who wants to actually contact NCSE. I simply note that the information available to the pubic does not support the claim that NCSE only promotes events held by theists, nor that there is any endorsement going on here.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 9:07 PM
Just once, someday, I wish one of those NCSE guys would actually listen to what atheists say.
Nobody is arguing with you over this "Standard Creationist Claim 2", although we could; I think evolution does or should lead to atheism (although I don't agree with this silly formulation that "evolution = atheism"), but I am fine with NCSE avoiding that debate. But you see, you keep persisting in this myth that the militant atheists are saying that the role of the NCSE is to slap believers in the face with godlessness.
IT'S NOT TRUE, OK? Stop it. It's really, really annoying that we can tell you exactly what we want, laying it out multiple times for you, and you always fall back on this fallacious claim.
Jesus. "let's get everyone to become atheists". That's what I would love to do, but over and over again I plainly state that that shouldn't be what NCSE should do. And you repeat it over and over again, completely ignoring everything people like me and Jerry Coyne have patiently explained.
What we do object to is perfectly exemplified in your comment. You have a blind spot. A gigantic blind spot, and no matter how often we point out this giant hole in your brain you keep pretending this is true.
I refer to your comment,
Are you fucking kidding me?
Seriously?
ARE YOU INSANE?
Biologos is entirely about promoting a version of Christianity. Your credibility is blown when you make ridiculous comments like that -- and the fact that you can't see something so plain, so blatant, and so freakin' obvious is infuriating. It means you're just an apologist for Christianity, and that role is bleeding over into NCSE's job...exactly the point I've been making.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 9:17 PM
Josh: We all know Genie is an atheist. She has never hidden her views on the matter.
But that's irrelevant. We're not talking about being pissed off with Genie at all — this is an argument about the NCSE's tactics, OK? Can you guys even get that much straight?
The NCSE, in the name of reassuring Christians that they aren't going to push atheism on them at the same time they are promoting science education, go too far in the other direction and ends up pushing liberal theology on them. Josh Rosenau and Nick Matzke are completely blind to that because it is the faith they favor themselves, and cluelessly think it is just peachy to evangelize that religion.
And then, just to really piss us off, they turn around and accuse us of trying to be missionaries and use the vehicle of the NCSE to peddle atheism, when we repeat a ridiculous number of times that we are expressly against that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
December 5, 2010 9:22 PM
Josh Rosenau #29
So is NCSE making announcements of atheist events? Japanther tells us, in #17, that Dr. Scott will be appearing at the Rock Beyond Belief festival. I just took a wander around the NCSE website and while Webcast: Evolving Christianity is is touted prominently on the home page, Rock Beyond Belief is nowhere to be seen. So it does appear NCSE is promoting a religious event and snubbing atheist events.
Go ahead, Josh, show me where I'm wrong. Show the atheist events NCSE promotes.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 9:50 PM
It's very convenient for the NCSE to have an unabashed atheist in a leadership position. She can speak for herself at various events (while always careful to avoid implicating NCSE as supporting atheism!), while the NCSE itself can endorse theistic evolutionism at every point, and when the uppity atheists mention NCSE's bias, they point to Genie's personal appearances.
We'll call that "hiding the truth".
Hey, if the accommodationists get to claim Eugenie Scott's personal beliefs about religion as representative of the NCSE's views whenever it suits them, can we confrontationists therefore claim that the NCSE is an atheist organization?
I didn't think so. I know Genie wouldn't agree with that. So why does Josh get to use the personal views of one staffperson to stand in for the mission of the organization?
Posted by: Josh Rosenau
|
December 5, 2010 10:01 PM
PZ: I'm not sure whether anything you wrote was actually meant as a reply to anything I said. I asked how the news item on NCSE's website constituted an endorsement (which you don't even address). I didn't refer to Genie's personal atheism, but I did note that she and other NCSE staff speak at atheist and other nontheist events, and that NCSE promotes those events. I mention this not as a measure of anyone's personal faith, but to point out that you are claiming an asymmetry that doesn't exist. You failed to address that. You do seem to think I said something about your wanting NCSE to become an atheist group, which I didn't say (or even say anything about).
And your attempted mindreading notwithstanding, I don't favor any faith. I'm an agnostic, as you know damn well. Again with the "hiding the truth." Didn't you write a whole long post once chiding me about that? The shoe didn't fit me then, but you might try it on now.
'Tis: How about this event, which I referred to above? Or my talk at East Bay Atheists? My talk with NCSE's Steve Newton at AHA? This announcement of Barbara Forrest's address to Atheists United at CFI-LA? My address to Free Thought Fort Wayne? Not to mention Genie's address at the CSH 30th anniversary, which also featured PZ.
As for RBB, the organizer is telling you that Genie is involved, and that he's happy with the level of NCSE's assistance. Until a date is set, there isn't much for NCSE to announce or promote, though, is there?
Posted by: Japanther
|
December 5, 2010 10:02 PM
@32 I'd just like to say, that it's likely because I'm new at this. I'm an active duty soldier, and I'm really doing a juggling act here getting this thing going. I haven't officially announced the exact date for Rock Beyond Belief (for complicated reasons I'll spare you), so it's difficult to post about. The Emcee for our event is fellow scienceblogger, Ed Brayton (Dispatches from the culture wars). I don't feel snubbed at all by 'only having one post a few months ago'. Our event was too far in the future!
We have many prominent atheist speakers (and are close to announcing one more, and a HUGE game-changer at that), and only a handful have made any mention of us at all anywhere. We don't feel snubbed at all. It's still 4 months away!
I'll be asking for a lot more prominent support from Genie and NCSE as Spring approaches, as well as from all the other great guests.
Aside from that, I do see what you mean by endorsing a religious viewpoint sometimes (ESPECIALLY about BioLogos... that's a little ridiculous to claim otherwise). I'm not here to defend that. I'm just saying that you guys are wrong about a minor point you are making. Eugenie Scott is supportive of at least one specifically non-theist event. I can't say for sure that NCSE will follow suit, but every indicator I got from Genie was 'yes'.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
December 5, 2010 10:05 PM
Oh, NCSE is not a Gnu Atheist Organization, and therefore it must be a Jesus Shopfront. I get it now.
Posted by: anthrosciguy
|
December 5, 2010 10:13 PM
This is why Richard's post was held while others were not.
Now, if I were less charitable, I might accuse you of dishonesty.
If PZ had suggested that (mulitple links in Hoppe's comment) as the reason, rather than illness, I would have no problem with it. He didn't, did he? You ignored that in your reply to me, so which one of us is being dishonest? :)
Posted by: anthrosciguy
|
December 5, 2010 10:17 PM
Sorry about the bad formatting I did on the above reply. The second line, where H.H. graciously is charitable toward me, should have also been identified as his. His charity, while appreciated, is not needed.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
December 5, 2010 10:23 PM
@ Michael Dowd #22
Mountain? I'd settle for a few pebbles.
And I'm almost afraid to ask, but what's a "relational projection" supposed to be? Is this some sort of Christianity/post-modernism mash-up? If so, I prefer biblical literalism.
The same can be said about the Easter Bunny.
I suggest you read Terry Pratchett's Small Gods for the best "feedback" regarding your ideas. I trust you'll find him "brutally honest."
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 10:23 PM
Completely. Not. Getting. It.
No, there aren't just two alternatives. The NCSE could be a secular organization. It's bound and determined not to be.
Posted by: Don Smith
|
December 5, 2010 10:26 PM
Oh! I think I see the problem:
To most theists, not promoting religion = promoting atheism.
Posted by: Kagato
|
December 5, 2010 10:38 PM
The comment was probably held in moderation automatically because it contained links (whereas comments without links were not).
The comment then remained in moderation for several hours, because Jerry Coyne was ill and didn't manually approve any.
Where is the problem here?
Posted by: H.H.
|
December 5, 2010 10:41 PM
The reason Richard's post was held initially was because of the links. This is common policy widely enacted throughout the blogopshere. The reason Richard's post was stuck in moderation was because Coyne was ill and not checking his spam folder with his usual promptness. No one's being dishonest, but you are being particularly dense.Now, you have been wrong twice so far, and each time you've magnified your error with accusations of dishonesty. So how about you apologize for your rashness and stop flaunting your ignorance, eh?
Posted by: Travis
|
December 5, 2010 10:49 PM
Anthrosciguy, as Kagato points out in #42, those two answers are for different questions.
PZ answered the question Hoppe asked, where he wanted to know why his comment stuck in moderation for so long. Had he instead asked "Why is my comment being held in moderation?" it would be accurate to say it was there as it contained links. Now I think it is likely he wanted answers to both questions because I have the feeling he was ignorant of how comments are often moderated and did not realize that only that one comment was in moderation, that the rest were never held up at all.
Posted by: Samuda
|
December 5, 2010 10:49 PM
Do NCSE representatives go to Christian events to explain evolution in secular terms, or do they go to the Christian events and actually say or imply that evolution is compatible with religion?
Posted by: Jerry Coyne
|
December 5, 2010 10:53 PM
Anthrosciguy:
You seem to be repeatedly implying that I'm lying, so let me set you straight.
Hoppe's post required that I click on it to approve it, either because he was a first-time poster or because it contained two links (I'm not sure which was why it was held; I don't know if he had ever posted on my site before). I didn't check email for several days because I was ill, so I didn't even have the chance to approve it. During that time, other, regular posts on the topic went though fine, because they were from non-newbie posters.
When I got a bit better and and logged on, and saw Hoppe's post, I immediately approved it.
What about this don't you understand? And can you please drop it now?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 5, 2010 10:59 PM
Don Smith, #41,
Exactly. I don't know how many times I've had to explain to a theist that secular != atheist, or anti-religion. A lot of religious leaders seemed damned determined to conflate the two ideas.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 5, 2010 11:13 PM
I know. It's past ridiculous. Usually it's the accommodationists condescendingly lecturing atheists on how secularism is not equivalent to atheism. We know that. We've been through it already. Somehow, though, the spokespeople for NCSE fail to understand that they are steadily destroying the NCSE's status as a secular organization by pushing the theistic evolutionist line all the time, instead of maintaining an honestly neutral position on it.
A secular organization would be discussing the scientific evidence, would be promoting good science education and pedagogy, and would not be telling everyone how much they love theistic evolution (or atheism) -- it would be an information clearinghouse, advocating secular positions like the separation of church and state, and getting accurate scientific information to legal teams. There is lots they could do without leaning so heavily on the tactic of reassuring Christians that evolution supports their views.
If they really believe that the best strategy for winning over Christians to support for evolution is by adopting the theistic evolutionist position as the best story to tell, then they should be honest about it and say so instead of pretending to be secular. Then they could also honestly make a case for a middle-of-the-road, religion-friendly approach, instead of misleading everyone and claiming that their religion-friendly approach is secular, something it is not.
Of course, if they did come right out and admit that they were a pro-religion institution, a lot of atheist support (including mine) would melt away. Not that that would make them hesitate in the slightest — the one message we get loud and clear is that the NCSE washes its hands of atheism to embrace apologists for faith already.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 5, 2010 11:16 PM
I don't think the NCSE gets the problem.
The real science-religion debate is taking place not in the area of belief, but further back. It's about methods of analysis. Many religious people manage to accept both evolution and their religious views by compartmentalizing. They treat spiritual claims as if they were values instead of factual inferences, giving them a special pass when it comes to fitting in with how everything else works.
The gnu atheists instead argue that it's time to stop placing religion in a special area and subject the God hypothesis to skeptical scrutiny in light of the methods and discoveries of modern science. We think such compartmentalizing is intellectually dishonest.
The NCSE is not neutral in this debate if it tries to tell people how they can compartmentalize. Gives them lessons.
And if it starts in with "evolution proves God" or "evolution makes God even better" then it's advocating.
Posted by: Susan
|
December 5, 2010 11:37 PM
Go PZ! Tristero over at Digby's place posted some Zappa today, and it reminded me of you and the Gnu Atheists.Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
December 5, 2010 11:52 PM
Michael @22:
I went to your article Biblical Christianity is Bankruptand read until I got bogged down in the last section (which I only had the energy to skim after deciphering the first bits).
You said:
If god is another name for reality, why do you seem to invoke god/creator so much? Just go ahead and call it reality, call it science, call it natural. Why make it something supernatural or religious. Call it atheism--"not religious".
Here you say that supernaturalism is all in our heads: And here you try to rename the supernatural:It's even harder to find out what you really think of supernaturalism, here you say science reveals a creator:
Please get a little more specific about your version of a "creator". You simply replace a biblical woo with a newagey woo and don't really get anywhere specific.
If this is where you think Christianity should "evolve", it's little better than what's out there now. You seem to reject all the tenets of the religion so it wouldn't even be xian anymore. If you really think god = reality, just admit it's really atheism you are touting. But if you were to do that, you wouldn't be able to start a new religion...
Posted by: Markjn
|
December 6, 2010 1:12 AM
Seems to me like manipulation 101, and I don't have a problem with that when its truth v nonsense. Learning about evolution then fighting contradictions is what turned me atheist. Seems like it would be a good starting point for others.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
December 6, 2010 1:25 AM
Some interesting quotes from Richard Hoppe's site:
That's the tipping point of the disagreement, I think. There's a lot of fear out there that accepting evolution and similar scientific explanations of the world must inevitably lead to the abandonment of belief in god or gods.
I suppose there's a lot of fear about it because the truth is that it does. Is it possible to interpret one's empirical senses if one is not rational? And rationally, there is no reason to believe in god/s.
Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
December 6, 2010 1:33 AM
I want to know; I really want to know what you people must think of AronRa. He's quite the accomodationist himself, working side by side other Christians in his own state to restore sanity to their brainless Board of Education. If he were wasting time arguing about the insanity of religion in power with them, he would never be able to achieve any of his important goals.
Because, as we all admit, personal beliefs are essentially meaningless, unless they characterize ignorance and cruelty. Most Religions do this: most personal beliefs do not.
Basic education of science is 1000-fold more important than dismantling religion completely and suddenly. Precisely because if you do the first, then the second will inevitably follow--also 100% agreeable even here.
"And rationally, there is no reason to believe in god/s"
Descartes was a rationalist. He was still wrong, but he was a rationalist and brilliant in many other ways.
Posted by: SC OM
|
December 6, 2010 1:42 AM
Excellent post and comment @ #48.
Promoting this garbage is not in keeping with their mission statement, has no solid rationale and doesn't serve their mission. And when I was searching fruitlessly for links from them to Dawkins' tour, I came across the (generally positive) review of Greatest Show. This was interesting:
Again, it's basically very positive, but the suggestion that it's "indelicate" to Y/OECs? Is he kidding? A tour about a book that contains that is too indelicate to promote? Is Dawkins' frustration with the excesses of religion "plainly sensed" in the book or was it on the tour?
Posted by: footnotes2plato.com
|
December 6, 2010 1:58 AM
Sastra,
I think compartmentalization is precisely what is at stake, but it goes both ways. Atheistic materialists also compartmentalize, being careful to separate their ontological materialism from their political liberalism. How does the mechanistic reductionist's deterministic universe coincide with his moral commitment to freedom of thought and action?
Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
December 6, 2010 2:09 AM
"How does the mechanistic reductionist's deterministic universe coincide with his moral commitment to freedom of thought and action?"
Simple: one is about one's perceptions. One is about how perceptions "ought" to be shaped. Just because people are determined does not mean the spectre of moral responsibility vanishes: in fact, it means that any action (good or bad) had a cause that, if steps had been taken, would have been prevented. The problem being is that there is most certainly a correlation with absolute authoritarianism and the atrocities of humankind. Freedom of thought is the easy answer.
"ontological materialism"- Ontology deals a great deal with things that are distinctions with no real differences. As such,I think that idealism is perfectly at home with empiricism, and materialism.
Also: ontology IS a separate course of inquiry from ethics. One does not really have anything to do with the other.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 2:17 AM
Because we've evolved free will.Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
December 6, 2010 2:21 AM
Kel, no. There is no evidence of free will in any of our neurology. the closest thing may be a "free won't". But you can't shape your life by saying no all the time.
Posted by: H.H.
|
December 6, 2010 2:25 AM
How do any of us escape solipsism? By making a choice based on pragmatism. If isn't useful as a worldview, doesn't lead anywhere, and can't inform one's choices, then forget about it and operate on premises that are useful. Small leaps of faith are always needed to get anywhere. The key is not to overdo it.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 2:31 AM
Yep, you really do embrace science for what it is!Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 2:33 AM
But you can't shape your life by saying no all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgI2ZQVyrBo
Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
December 6, 2010 2:42 AM
"But you can't shape your life by saying no all the time."
Gotta have a yes to say "no" to
/completely ignoring youtube link even though i looked at it
Posted by: nickmatzke.ncse
|
December 6, 2010 2:43 AM
Hi PZ -- it's too late at night to write a rebuttal to everything you've written in the comments, but please go back and have a look at it later. A lot of it is unfair and overwrought.
Particularly since this all started over a mere NCSE post that basically said "FYI for those who are interested" about a meeting that included two of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case (Kenneth Miller and Jack Haught) and various other well-known evolutionists who happen to be Christian and who (gasp!) want to talk about being both evolutionist and Christian at this meeting.
Also, we are unlikely to be able to have a useful discussion about this if you are determined to construe what I am saying in the most simplistic way possible. E.g., with BioLogos -- can you bring yourself to admit any substantial differences between BioLogos and your typical evangelical organization? Ask yourself questions like:
(a) Why was BioLogos founded?
(b) Who do they primarily argue with and criticize?
(c) Who is their primary intended audience?
And, like I said before, and which you punted on, basically the fundamental questions that everyone involved in this argument has to decide on are:
1. Is it true that one of the major reasons for the popularity and persistence and activism of creationism is the notion that accepting evolution means you have to give up your religion and become an atheist?
1a. Is it true that this consideration is probably more important for most creationists or people on the fence than even the "scientific" arguments?
2. Is this ubiquitous creationist claim correct?
3. If it's not correct, should those concerned to promote evolution education (a) undermine this creationist claim, (b) be silent on it, or (c) encourage this creationist claim?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 2:44 AM
I think compartmentalization is precisely what is at stake, but it goes both ways. Atheistic materialists also compartmentalize, being careful to separate their ontological materialism from their political liberalism.
the author of that is not doing a good job of compartmentalizing jargon and coherency.
Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
December 6, 2010 2:47 AM
"escaped solipsism"
How dare you slander the Holy Creed of Unbeing?!
"My mind is a copy of which there was no original."
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 2:52 AM
You have a blind spot. A gigantic blind spot, and no matter how often we point out this giant hole in your brain you keep pretending this is true.
I was thinking about Matzke when I read that, and then I read #31.
the pattern is just too similar amongst the accomodationists to be coincidental.
I've had this same argument with Matzke, Rosenau, Mooney, Nisbet, Pim Van Meur (old PT contributor) repeatedly.
they simply cannot seem to actually comprehend the point that is being made.
most remarkable.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 2:54 AM
Two ways to answer this.First is that the lack of free will is perfectly compatible with wanting a society where the maximal number of people can pursue their own interests. We need to eat to survive, for example, and this is true whether that person is free or not. That person suffers without food and that person can be satisfied through food. So one can be politically liberal even without free will because the questions of suffering and desire for the good life exist whether we are free or not.
Second is that free will in a sense exists. We can think through scenarios and act according to perceived future events. We can act in our own perceived interests and these can be hindered by others. If you don't think this is true free will, then free will is magic. Real free will, on the other hand, is recognising that we are agents and have the capacity to reflect and act accordingly and that others do as well. This sits perfectly with any liberal political view.
A guess a third option would be that one doesn't need to be politically liberal to be an atheist.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 2:57 AM
we are unlikely to be able to have a useful discussion about this
Nick finally says something I can only agree with.
I've never seen him weigh in on this issue with anything useful.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 3:00 AM
To be fair, it would be a disappointing thread if Matthew Segall didn't turn up to argue the dire consequences of a "materialist" world-view. We need people like him to remind us just how cold and meaningless the world is if we don't place its foundations in vague lucid sophistry... ;)Posted by: The Laughing Man
|
December 6, 2010 3:05 AM
"We need people like him to remind us just how cold and meaningless the world is if we don't place its foundations in vague lucid sophistry"
If he did he would be an idiot, forgetting about Sartre and Neitzche, who firmly believed it was the meaninglessness or life which allowed people the freedom to construct for themselves a mode of living and a code of ethics.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:06 AM
Is it true that one of the major reasons for the popularity and persistence and activism of creationism is the notion that accepting evolution means you have to give up your religion and become an atheist?
NO.
fucking hell, Nick, it's not like there isn't a large body of published literature on this subject, which I have time and again deliberately pointed you to, and which, time and again, you entirely ignore in favor of your own collection of what I can only conclude are personal anecdotes.
You make a poor scientist, and do indeed confirm exactly what PZ said in 30 and 31; you have a big blind spot when it comes to understanding this issue, and you deliberately REFUSE to fill it, preferring instead to rely on your personal ignorance.
here, for at least the third time, is a nice review article (published in Science) on the subject, which relies on a nice cross section of the literature on the subject for further review:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Assets/bloom&weisberg%20science.pdf
now seriously, fuck off.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 3:06 AM
Only if you take a Cartesian model of the self...Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:09 AM
(a) Why was BioLogos founded?
misplaced adventurism.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:13 AM
There's a lot of fear out there that accepting evolution and similar scientific explanations of the world must inevitably lead to the abandonment of belief in god or gods.
that can just be boiled down to "there's a lot of [irrational] fear out there"
what needs to be done is NOT give these fucking people a security blankie, but show them there aren't any monsters hiding under the bed.
accepting scientific evidence DOES lead to the abandonment of belief in deities.
it's a simple fact, and is what SHOULD happen, damnit!
what needs to be done is not confuse people with the idea that they can be perfectly happy compartmentalizing bullshit from reality, but that they NEED NOT FEAR just dumping the bullshit altogether.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 6, 2010 3:27 AM
Sadly, the best way to answer this would violate Godwin's Law, so I shan't expand any further.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 3:29 AM
It's been the argument he's been making on here for about a year and a half now.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:36 AM
If it's not correct, should those concerned to promote evolution education (a) undermine this creationist claim, (b) be silent on it, or (c) encourage this creationist claim?
you forgot the obvious:
-point out the claim is entirely irrelevant to the definition and practice of science, which IS WHAT NCSE SHOULD BE DOING.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:45 AM
Josh sez:
I did note that she and other NCSE staff speak at atheist and other nontheist events
LOL
as if that actually addressed the point PZ raised.
wow.
It doesn't help if the staff go to atheist events to push the accomodationist position!
...and yes, I heard Genie's speech at the latest conference, which is exactly what I'm basing this on.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
December 6, 2010 5:16 AM
Could we summarise the problem as: NCSE is supposed to be about science education, so they should not be publicising religious education.
If the content of a conference is theological, NCSE shouldn't be involved in any way- even if the theology is supposedly science-friendly. If the title of your conference is "conversations at the edge of faith" then you can go jump over that edge right now and the NCSE should be ignoring you. As and when one of these "science-friendly" religious groups actually organises a secular scientific event with no religious content, NCSE can push that.
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 5:23 AM
@The Laughing Man in #54: another common objection against New Atheists, and a common misconceptions. New Atheists are not against working together with theists towards common goals. Simply doing that doesn't automatically make you an accommodationist. New Atheists just don't want to pay the price of staying quiet on their beliefs. They don't want to pretend that there might be some validity in theism, if that is not what they believe.
The people that are called accommodationists, on the other hand, are the people that think that atheists should keep quiet on their atheism, at least around theists. They fear that atheists being openly critical of religion might hurt the cause of increasing the acception of evolution.
AronRa doesn't seem to fit that category. He may work with Christians to try and fix the Texas BoE, but he's also been quite clear about what he thinks about theism, even about the liberal variants of it. He's also not been too shy to promote atheism - like appearing on the Atheist Experience several times. So I don't see AronRa as an accommodationist at all.
Posted by: anthrosciguy
|
December 6, 2010 6:13 AM
You seem to be repeatedly implying that I'm lying, so let me set you straight.
Let me point out, because I'm sure it's not clear, that on the general subject of Biologos and the NCSE I'm totally on your side and disagree with Richard Hoppe. My objection to H.H.'s comment -- not your post, or your later comment at all -- was simply about how PZ characterized Hoppe's complaint. PZ's characterization, whether deliberately or through some mistake, framed Hoppe's complaint inaccurately, in that it said that Hoppe complained his comment was held up without mentioning others had gone through. I accept your explanation, a complete one that was easy to do and which I'd suggest PZ should have done as well.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
December 6, 2010 6:27 AM
As to RBH's held-up comment at WEIT: I noticed his Panda's Thumb post about it, and so since Jerry was sick and recovering from surgery I emailed one WEIT's guest moderators about it, who then cleared RBH's comment. No-one had acted on it till then since everyone was either sick or up to his ears in real-life work.
I don't see any maliciousness on anyone's part.
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 7:45 AM
@Nick Matzke in #64:
In their own words:
In short, they don't promote science, evolution or education, they promote a particular worldview. A worldview that is explicitly Christian and even Biblical, that happens to include accommodations to evolution. How much more implicit do you want it?
By the way, if an organization thinks that science is a belief structure, are they really pro-science?
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
December 6, 2010 8:03 AM
Yes, that's perfectly compatible with random mutation, natural selection and the invisible hand of Jesus guiding each and every step, as every biologist knows. All in just 6000 years, too.
Just as Darwin's faith was strenghthened by the harmony between Ichneumonoidea and its hosts, and even more by the early yet meaning-bringing death of his daughter, so right-thinking scientists see God's plan unfolding in the beautiful, gospel-declaring suffering of all His creatures.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
December 6, 2010 8:18 AM
Jesus fucking Christ, did public transportation set up a stop for the deliberately obtuse train at Pharyngula? Look at all the obtuseness on display here, from the usual accommodationist nitwits, and now we have
#82
Look, deliberately obtuse one:
HH offered an explanation for why it was there at all, while PZ offered one of the reasons how a comment probably stayed in moderation so long. WHY and HOW are not the same thing, douchenozzle!
THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, NOT SOME ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD A STUPID TWIT LIKE YOU.
In other words:
YOU'RE NITPICKING OVER NOTHING! AND STUPIDLY!
It happens to all of us, but if you're deliberately obtuse as a habit, you might want to go to Rosenau's blog. You'd be in similar company.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 6, 2010 8:59 AM
Is Nick Matzke really as ignorant as he comes across here, or is he making some kind of special effort ?
Francis Collins has said some very odd things about evolution, especially with regard human evolution which he seems to regard as inevitable. That is a view consistent with his religious beliefs but it not a view consistent with the scientific evidence.
Seems like Matzke is ready to ignore scientific evidence if it means he can be friends with Collins.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
December 6, 2010 9:27 AM
I think I see the problem. I can't find a clear mission statement for the NCSE, but Nick Matzke pointed to http://ncse.com/taking-action/pillars-creationism which says
He seems to think the NCSE's mission is fight creationism on those points by providing evidence of evolution to anyone who will listen, attempt to convince people that evolution does not lead to atheism, and fight any attempt to put creationism into a curriculum, even alongside evolution.
PZ, on the other hand, seems to be going from their main page which talks about defending good science education, and thinks they should focus on providing evidence of evolution to anyone who will listen, ensuring the quality of the evolution being taught, and fight any attempt to put creationism into a curriculum, even alongside evolution.
Therefore, PZ sees himself as pointing out a problem with the NCSE's actions relative to what it should be doing to better science education, while NCSE employees seem to see PZ as trying to change their mission for his own purposes. Relatedly, PZ believes atheist organizations make good allies for the NCSE, while people affiliated with the NCSE seem to see anyone arguing that evolution is evidence for atheism (including most atheist organizations) is an enemy of their mission.
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 9:37 AM
@qbsmd in #88:
Citation needed.Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 6, 2010 9:50 AM
Deen,
You just need to read the stuff Rosenau, Mooney et al have written to understand they object to the likes of Myers or Dawkins that a significant reason they are atheists is because of what they learnt from science.
Mooney has been really quite explicit in this, in that he criticised Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth not on the grounds it does a poor job of explaining the scientific evidence for evolution but because it was written by Dawkins and people will not listen to Dawkins.
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 10:33 AM
@Matt Penfold: which of my comments are you responding to?
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 6, 2010 10:46 AM
Deen,
#89
Posted by: joetelegram
|
December 6, 2010 11:01 AM
Is it possible Biologos is a befitting segway to bridge the gap from 'young earth creationism' to an appropriate understanding of the evolution/age of the universe/earth/stellar objects/formation of planets et al? 'Militant Atheism' might not be the first alternative, in fact it may be quite repugnant to most coming from a Christian world view. The majority of Americans tick Christianity when surveyed asking their religious preference. Biologos is 'speaking their language' if you will. It is a smooth transition among others. Its like saying to someone who holds said world view, 'hey, here are some of your own peers who have arrived at some completely disparate conclusions about evolution in the science classroom.' etc. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 6, 2010 11:13 AM
The problem is that the science presented on the Biologos website all to often framed in a way that alters the science in order to fit in with their biblical worldview.
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 11:21 AM
Ah, ok. Well, science does of course erode religious beliefs for many people, there is no doubt about that. I'm also sure that some people (like Mooney) would rather atheists didn't say this out loud. Tough luck for them. Hiding simple, verifiable facts isn't going to make people listen to you either.
However, what I objected to in #89 was the idea that evolution is evidence for atheism. It's not, although it is evidence against religious origin stories. It is also evidence that the Bible may not be as reliable as some would lile us to believe.
Besides, you don't need evidence to not believe in a god. We'd need evidence for a god to start believing in one.
Atheists in general know all this, of course. So when someone claims that "most atheist organizations" use evolution as evidence for atheism, I want something to back up that claim.
Posted by: RBH
|
December 6, 2010 11:39 AM
Chemo is kicking my ass today so I'll be brief. PZ wrote
NCSE is at base a political organization, in the sense that its mission requires it to be active and effective in a context in which success is measured as elections won or lost, curriculum policies adopted or rejected, and/or lawsuits filed or not, and success in those is largely determined by the alliances one can make across a range of organizations and people with whom one might disagree on some core questions. It's that fundamental misconstrual of what NCSE is and has to do do that vitiates PZ's and Coyne's complaints.In actual fact I fully sympathize with those complaints: I wish NCSE (and I) didn't have to make those alliances and cooperate with organizations whose core beliefs are alien to me. But as far as I can see, it has to.
Posted by: RBH
|
December 6, 2010 11:42 AM
Chemo is kicking my ass today so I'll be brief. PZ wrote
NCSE is at base a political organization, in the sense that its mission requires it to be active and effective in a context in which success is measured as elections won or lost, curriculum policies adopted or rejected, and/or lawsuits filed or not, and success in those is largely determined by the alliances one can make across a range of organizations and people with whom one might disagree on some core questions. It's that fundamental misconstrual of what NCSE is and has to do do that vitiates PZ's and Coyne's complaints.In actual fact I fully sympathize with those complaints: I wish NCSE (and I) didn't have to make those alliances and cooperate with organizations whose core beliefs are alien to me. But as far as I can see, it has to.
Posted by: RBH
|
December 6, 2010 11:47 AM
Apologies for the dual post. I'll now walk quietly away from the keyboard.
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 11:48 AM
@RBH: are you saying that you can't be secular and political at the same time?
Posted by: RBH
|
December 6, 2010 12:28 PM
If "secular" implies something like "disregard the fact that the main support for the anti-science and anti-evolution movements in the U.S. is from theists who think that accepting the science is tantamount (or operationally equivalent) to becoming an atheist", then no, you can't be secular and political at the same time.Posted by: Iain Walker
|
December 6, 2010 12:34 PM
footnotes2plato.com (#56):
Firstly, not all atheists are politically liberal. Secondly, you're conflating political freedom with free will, when they're not the same thing. Thirdly, philosophical materialism is not necessarily deterministic or reductionist. Fourthly, there is no inconsistency between adopting a set of factual beliefs (e.g., philosophical materialism) and a set of value judgements (e.g., political liberalism). Fifthly, there is no inconsistency between determinism and free will (provided that the latter is intelligibly construed, i.e., not as so-called libertarian free will).
Can I respectfully suggest that you make some attempt to learn some actual philosophy? Because at the moment your painfully uninformed waffle is an embarrassment to those of us who worked long and hard for the right to use big words.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
December 6, 2010 12:41 PM
Then the emperor has already won.
Like many here, I come from a theistic (Christian) background that completely opposed the TOE. A bit of liberal Christianity that claimed that God worked through evolution was not going to soften that opposition one bit. Those people were no different to me than the atheists, because they both rejected the plain meaning of the Bible.
What did soften, and eventually destroy, my religious objections to the TOE was eventually learning enough science to understand it and see the vast amounts of evidence supporting it. To me, it's science education that helps people understand evolution, not some half-breed, wishywashy religious distortion of it.
Posted by: CJO
|
December 6, 2010 12:46 PM
Can I respectfully suggest that you make some attempt to learn some actual philosophy? Because at the moment your painfully uninformed waffle is an embarrassment to those of us who worked long and hard for the right to use big words.
Ramen, brother.
Footnotes to the edition of Plato they hand out at clown college maybe.
Posted by: Michael Dowd
|
December 6, 2010 2:29 PM
PZ,
I just got off the phone with Genie Scott and I now realize that I was the cause of this unfortunate situation more than I first realized.
NCSE agreed to let their list know about my teleseries because promoting evolution among religious people is in alignment with their mission, but they did NOT agree to "sponsor" the event precisely for the reasons that you and Jerry Coyne and many of your readers have articulated.
I've instructed my production team to remove the NCSE logo and mention of them from our website and emails.
I apologize for being the source of unnecessary confusion.
Co-evolutionarily,
~ Michael
Posted by: Tulse
|
December 6, 2010 2:45 PM
Michael, for many folks the problem isn't with the way you have represented the NCSE's participation on your site, but rather the way they highlighted the event on their site.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:08 PM
attempt to convince people that evolution does not lead to atheism
the point is to even make such a statement seem entirely obtuse to the actual practice of science itself.
I frankly couldn't give a shit if someone spouts off a personal opinion that the study of any specific area of scientific endeavor might lead one to challenge previously held beliefs.
fuck me, that's what IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO, IMO.
the difference is, when an ORGANIZATION that purports to be involved in promoting good science education starts to debate the theological merits of specific RELIGIOUS positions, like theistic evolution, universalism, etc, then they have abandoned being an organization that is promoting good SCIENCE education and instead are merely noise in the endless debate on religious and philosophical sophistry.
If NCSE thinks that, politically, it is more expedient for them to debate religious issues than scientific ones, even as they relate to education, then they shouldn't be calling themselves ncSe, now should they?
How about something like...
"National Study Center for Culture Impacts on Scientific Education"
too long?
whatever.
If I want an organization that is involved with promoting good SCIENCE education, I'm going to NOT be looking at one like NCSE at this point, but rather one that specifically focuses on how to teach good science in schools, period.
individuals like PZ, and Coyne, and Mooney, and Nisbet, can all contribute to debate with their PERSONAL BLOGS.
If they, OTOH, start speaking for a national body on science education, I would expect the focus to be on that.
If a creationist, or a catholic, or a muslim, has a conflict between their personal views of their own dogmas and some aspect of science or reality, that's simply NOT the purview of science to even address. It's obviously the purview of religious or philosophical or theological organizations to address.
so, the argument many have made, MANY times over the last few years, is that organizations like NCSE, and much more importantly, organizations like NSF and AAAS, should LEAVE THE QUESTION OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF SCIENCE WITH RELIGION TO...
THE RELIGIOUS!!!!
this is why we always carp on the moderately religious to go ahead and address why their fundy counterparts "have it wrong".
You have a problem with some aspect of scientific endeavor and your religious dogma?
don't talk to a scientist about it! TALK TO YOUR FELLOW RELIGIONISTS.
you have a question about some specific event and what the actual SCIENCE has been done regarding it?
ask a scientist.
don't ask a scientist to interpret how your fucking religious ideology could or could not be compatible with actual science.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:17 PM
...
I would add, that in the end, the apparent political landscape that is encouraging NCSE and AAAS to involve themselves in matters of interpreting religious ideology might indeed mean that most people DO recognize the value of science in explaining the world around us, and so do indeed start to lean on scientists to help them resolve their own conflicts.
That said, even though this might be seen as something positive (and inevitable), for the reasons I stipulated in the previous post, any scientist worth their salt should, when representing science or science education, entirely shun that mantle.
NCSE should either shun that effort, and focus strictly on SCIENCE education, or else modify their mission statement and name to properly reflect the fact that they are primarily a political organization, working to resolve cultural and philosophical issues people have with science and science education.
two entirely different missions, not compatible WITHIN the same public organization.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 6, 2010 3:24 PM
(a) Why was BioLogos founded?
Biologos was founded to help people keep their faith despite challenges coming from science. Instead of encouraging believers to reject the theory of evolution, Biologos instead shows them how to spin-doctor the scientific and religious claims into a superficial semblance of harmony. Their end measure of success is how strong a person's faith remains.
The goal is not really to increase acceptance of evolution. If people accept evolution but reject religion, that is counted a failure.
Of course, Michael Dowd goes about as far as one can go with this: if you can still use religious language and terms to describe the atheism which results from your rejection of religion -- success!
Posted by: Tulse
|
December 6, 2010 3:31 PM
Perhaps, since they focus on evolution, their name could reflect their combined emphasis on biology and writing about science education and religion. Maybe, to show their compatibility, they could even put both the notions of biology and writing or words into their name. And, of course, it's always classy to use Greek roots.... Hmm...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:33 PM
Their end measure of success is how strong a person's faith remains.
exactly.
-it's why we say that they are being dishonest up front about their goals
-it's why we say that in the end, they are HARMING science education, and not helping it
-it's what we see NCSE evolving in to now as well
I haven't seen anything from Josh, Nick, or Eugenie that dispels these concerns.
or hell, that even RECOGNIZES them to begin with!
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
December 6, 2010 3:43 PM
Is that success, or jumping the shark? I know he means well, but so much blatant equivocating and anthropomorphizing just leads to different kinds of confusion and wishful thinking, which is hardly an improvement.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 6, 2010 3:44 PM
footnotestoplato #56 wrote:
Many good responses above, but since this was addressed to me I'll add mine.
You misunderstand atheistic materialism: we don't reduce everything down to its smallest possible unit and then do all the work with that because that's what it "really" is. There are layers of complexity and you have to deal with the right level to answer the right question. That's not separating similar things into compartments in order to protect them.
Your complaint is I think a re-hashing of the fallacy of "Like Comes Only From Like." No, evolution is but one mechanism which helps to explain how like does not always have to come from like. New things eventually grow and evolve out of things that are not like them at all.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
December 6, 2010 3:53 PM
Is that success, or jumping the shark?
If you take a moment to understand my meaning...
I really do hope it's the latter.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 3:58 PM
To quote Martin Rees:"Reductionism is true in a sense, but is seldom true in a useful sense"
And to quote Dan Dennett:
"Some years ago, there was a lovely philosopher of science and journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." And I thought, exactly. That’s the view. Yes, we have a soul, but in what sense? In the sense that our brains, unlike the brains even of dogs and cats and chimpanzees and dolphins, our brains have functional structures that give our brains powers that no other brains have - powers of look-ahead, primarily. We can understand our position in the world, we can see the future, we can understand where we came from. We know that we’re here. No buffalo knows it’s a buffalo, but we jolly well know that we’re members of Homo sapiens, and it’s the knowledge that we have and the can-do, our capacity to think ahead and to reflect and to evaluate and to evaluate our evaluations, and evaluate the grounds for our evaluations.
It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation."
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
December 6, 2010 4:07 PM
Ichthyic:
Yes, I suppose I do as well. ;)
Still, Dowd's (and the NCSE's) methods seem like an awfully messy way of beheading religion. I'm not squeamish or whatever. It's just unfortunate that he won't put them out of their misery swiftly and honorably.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
December 6, 2010 4:19 PM
Kel, in addition to not having an immaterial or immortal soul, I also don't have a soul which exists independent of causality. None of our ancestors could have evolved such an ability, and there's no reason to think any being, anywhere in the universe will ever do be able to do that. I'm part of this world, not separate from it like some minor deity -- to think that Christians call themselves monotheists!
(I realize you're not saying otherwise, but wanted to add to your comment.)
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 5:10 PM
@RBH in #100: oh, come on, you know full well what 'secular' means.
And yes, we should acknowledge that a lot of resistance against evolution has to do with fear of atheism. But why do you think that promoting an NCSE-approved brand of Christianity is the best answer? What is stopping an evangelical from thinking you're after their soul, rather than doing science?
But moreover, are there really no alternatives? How about pointing out that even if evolution would lead to atheism, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist? Instead of implicitly admitting that that is a valid concern? And something to be prevented at all costs? Or would that be "promoting atheism", or "becoming an atheist organization"?
Just face it, by promoting a particular brand of Christianity, and tacitly admitting that atheism is to be avoided, you've given up on your religious neutrality. You may have done so for political reasons - we all know politics is not as secular or religiously neutral as it should be - but you can nevertheless no longer pretend to be neutral.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
December 6, 2010 5:22 PM
Y'know what is frustrating about all this? The tacit admission that science and religion are incompatible, coupled with the official policy of compensating for that by promoting religion.
The admission that science and religion are incompatible is obvious from the reaction of the religious. The more we learn, the more there is a blowback against science. It starts with, "But science hasn't shown us everything; there are deep mysteries in which dwells God," but soon turns to, "Science does not have a monopoly on knowledge; there are other ways of knowing that are equally valid." (Yet for some reason, "equally valid" means "trumps science.")
The fact that the NCSE feels obligated to make overtures to the religious indicates the NCSE is quite aware of this as well. Their attempt to make science less threatening is an attempt to remove the fangs of science. The problem is, the fangs are the very tools that make science effective.
Science cannot be domesticated into the service of religion. Why does NCSE pretend that it can?
Posted by: Deen
|
December 6, 2010 5:23 PM
And in case you were wondering, no, I don't want the NCSE to promote atheism. I don't think NCSE needs to have a "faith project" and it doesn't need an "atheism project" either.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 6, 2010 8:23 PM
I completely agree with comments 106 through 111.
So you openly admit to being a Type V antihero?
Scary.
What do you mean by "reductionism"?
The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is the sum of its parts plus the sum of the interactions between these parts plus the sum of the interactions between these interactions plus the sum of the interactions between the interactions between the interactions between the parts...
So, to figure out how the whole works, it's easiest to first figure the parts out, then their interactions, then the interactions between the interactions and so on. That's what I call "reductionism": the bottom-up approach.
Into my quote collection.
O RLY? If given the opportunity, how often do they try to mate with cattle or, I don't know, yaks?
When closely related species live together in the same place (which isn't the case in this example), and hybrids are impossible or have significantly reduced fitness, species recognition becomes an important selection pressure. It's like sexual selection, except it doesn't only apply to one sex.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 8:43 PM
The example Rees used was it would be silly to calculate the breaking of the wave on a shore by the principles of quantum mechanics.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 6, 2010 8:54 PM
If I would have to pick what Rees is saying, it's 'don't be a greedy reductionist' even though complex phenomena are underpinned by simpler ones.