At AAAS, a Focus on the "New Atheist Confessional"

I have to agree with the sentiments she expresses. I love readin about science but it gets more than a little difficult to find the science amid all the "LOLXTIANS" proselytizing. It is almost always the case that mocking people makes them less likely to listen to you. I doubt you will find many people who look at people like Dawkins and say, "Wow, it turns out that I've been an idiot all my life and I am now an atheist." It just doesn't work that way.

This is a talk being given at the session that's not about criticizing the so-called "New Atheists," right?

For a group that values accurate communication, you don't seem to be very good at it.

I can't keep myself from chiming in, to say that I find it incredibly ironic that for a talk about communication/framing, and for a person who keeps telling us that we have to know how to talk to our target audience without pissing them off... that you sure don't seem to know how to talk to athiest scientists without pissing them off.

Unless athiest scientists aren't your intended target audience. Which, seeing as this is at the AAAS, leaves just the thiest scientists. Which kinda seems like preaching to the choir, don't ya think? And would also seem pretty disrespectful and rude (to, I hope, both athiest and thiest scientists alike) to simply write off a big chunk of your audience.

Seems to me like you should be trying to convince PZ and fellows that you're approach to science communication is a good one. But instead you seem bent on insulting them, angering them, and excluding them from discussion as much as possible. Which is a fine way to win an argument, but also happens to be pretty much exactly the same thing you yourself criticize in the way PZ and fellows deal with their opponents, i.e. thiests.

-Kevin

The time for treating religion differentially is past. It needs to be discussed, analyzed, praised, criticized, just like any other topic. It should be neither taboo or out of place to discuss religion. People should feel free to say it is important in their lives and why they believe, likewise they should be free to say that they think it is nonsense and a product of wishful thinking. Do you fault the writings of Copernicus, Newton, or even Darwin for their religious overtones? Let us all stop being so sensitive about the topic of religion. It should be one of the most important topics in the free exchange of ideas because it is one of the most important in or lives. Much of the worlds population sees religion as fundamental to their lives and how they perceive the world. This is to be ignored and only discussed in church or in private? I say the more education and discussion on the topic the better. The religious need to understand that if they want to promote their beliefs in the public marketplace then they have no right to demand special treatment or consideration. Scientists should have every right to publicly critic and question every aspect of the teachings of the various religions. Peoples beliefs have important consequences on the choices they make. Many of the choices an individual makes has consequences for the whole society. To put it another way, my neighbors personal beliefs do affect me, and therefore I should have an opportunity to challenge those beliefs if they affect me adversely. If someone believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the rapture is coming any day now, then their concern for the environment and the future wellbeing of the planet will be minimal. Are you suggesting that one should not confront this insanity? To me, it is astounding that three of our presidential contenders are creationsits. What is even more troubling is the fact that they havent lost all qualification for the job by admitting to such belief. This is serious stuff. I attribute part of this sad state of affairs to the lack of an open discussion on the merits of religious belief. It has been sheltered from open criticism and analyses for far too long. Time to let the light in.
rick-

"Wow, it turns out that I've been an idiot all my life and I am now an atheist."

Except , of course, it does work like that and it has worked like that. Just a look at the testimonials page on richarddawkins.net. More importantly it does give most people a reason to pause and at least consider the issue from a foreign outlook.

This argument about framing has always been used whether in opposition to gay right, racial equality, feminism (insert suitable example here)... and it turns out that rocking the boat does and is indeed the only way to effect change. Mostly because in raises the consciousness of those not involved in the movement.

"Here's my science, it's wrapped up in my atheism..."

Where has any credible scientist presented their work that way? Strawman.

"We need to give more credit to the American public interested in science. They can read the science, evaluate the hypotheses and the evidence presented."

Really? Really? No one seriously believes that and she sure as hell can't prove it or even provide evidence to suggest it. But I sure hope we get to that point some day...

Wait a second, all religions do make conterfactual claims. All religions are false. Therefore, they need to go.

Science produces progressively accurate representations of reality, and also happens to be deeply inspirational. So, if we need a feeling of "woo", the "true-woo" of science should replace the false "woo" of religion.

What's wrong with that? People are always afraid we will tap into the persecution complexes of the religious. So what? If we wait for them to be ready, we will wait forever. Maybe if we fight, it's our side that will tap into its anger and organize. Let's fight every bit of superstition everywhere. Let's make it embarrassing to be religious. Let's not let them have yet another generation of children to warp in the imaginary fires of hell.

The Catholic church happens to support evolution. I will ignore the flirtation with ID some within it seem to have been having of late and will concede that fact. In this regard they are friends of science.

The Catholic church also supports the concept that Mary was a virgin. Mary conceived Jesus without sperm from a male being involved at all. The scientific term for that is parthenogenesis. It has never once been observed to occur in mammals, let alone humans, and scientists do not believe it to be possible in mammals.

Oh dear. It seems that the Catholics are not that friendly towards science after all. How can any scientist who wants to be credible let the claim of a virgin birth go unchallenged ? It is just as ridiculous as creationism.

Lest anyone think I am picking on the Catholics, belief in the virgin birth is also common amongst Anglicans.

Why is it ok to criticise belief in creationism and point out it is a dumb idea incompatible with science, and not ok to do the same for the equally stupid ideas held about virgin birth ?

You know, one thing that SOCIAL scientists do, when they begin their analysis of another group of people, is to state their BIASES up front. So, if the sociologist is an Animist, they say that, in the introduction, so that readers take the author's background/viewpoint/experience into account. I think it is incredibly helpful to do this in the social [un-hard] sciences.

Perhaps it could be a helpful practice to the rest of the scientific community. I realize that the hard sciences strive to be "objective", but scientists are also human beings who have influences. I don't think it's necessary (or even a good idea) to talk about one's beliefs in academic scientific papers, or conferences. But in discussions of the COMMUNICATION of scientific IDEAS, perhaps it might help in the "framing" of the question.

"I say that we all should frame science around the evidence. If you say 'Here's my science and it's wrapped up in my Christianity' or 'Here's my science, it's wrapped up in my atheism,' then people remember the atheist, they remember the Christian. We need to give more credit to the American public interested in science. They can read the science, evaluate the hypotheses and the evidence presented."

This is the old argument (under a mask, of course) that we should "respect" - not in the real sense, but kind of just sucking it up - the religious views of everybody. Which is fine, but this of course pisses off PZ and co. directly, as their main idea is that religion should be treated as any other topic. I sometimes do not like their tone - but they are right. The moment you create topics you cannot, or should not, speak about, you create self-censorship and you make your first move towards accepting a totalitarian society.

For one who talks about framing, Ms. King remarkably forgot to make the atheists included and tolerated in her statement.

See, it would have worked just fine like this:

"I say that we all should frame science around the evidence. [...] We need to give more credit to the American public interested in science. They can read the science, evaluate the hypotheses and the evidence presented."

Because that's what she wants, right? So why even mention the "wrapping up" in the first place...

I am pro-framing, if I can say that, but framing as a tool to make things understandable to the lay people - not to shut people's mouths, and continually attack atheists who have the courage to state their opinion even in places where this can have harsh consequences (like the pretty much automatic exclusion from access to public posts as Congress(wo)man, or higher).

And Dawkins is a very decent person. Shame on her!

She is quick to add that the trend also includes declarations of faith by Christian scientists, which are just as divisive as the testimonials by agnostic or atheistic scientists.

So explain to me how the title of this post accurately reflects the content of the presentation as described by the press release.

Oh, I forgot, I suppose it was just "framing" it...

Experience has shown that critical comments don't last long on this blog, but here we go anyway. This is dishonest even by the lights of Framing Science, evincing at second hand an extraordinary disrespect for the majority audience while fraudulently dressing that up as the opposite:

"[...] people remember the atheist, they remember the Christian. We need to give more credit to the American public interested in science. They can read the science, evaluate the hypotheses and the evidence presented."

Way to have one sentiment completely misrepresent another.

If you're going to claim any respect for your audience -- if you even pretend to believe they are interested in the science and can evaluate hypotheses on their own terms -- then you have to credit them with the ability to distinguish between what is being said and who is saying it.

But no: King specifically asserts that people are too stupid to recognise interesting evidence if they perceive the speaker to disagree in the slightest on their irrational beliefs. She then somehow concludes that they therefore shouldn't be challenged at all.

This is morally-bankrupt intellectual tinsel of the most specious kind. Sad enough in the first person; even more so as coat-tail grabbing blog fodder.

I like to believe in evolution AND intelligent design but a lot of your responses make me question both. Are we so biased, so territorial, and so indoctrinated in our dogmas (whether it be from the church or the lab) that we can't see past our own self-righteousness? In fact, all of you are doing no more than confirming her thesis: we refuse to look at science (even hers) without fighting, championing, and criticing a scientist's belief.

Is science so weak that it cannot stand alone without bringing in belief biases?