Previous post taken down

*hug*

For what it's worth, I did agree with you. PZ may be a great guy in person, but to me he seems like a royal prick online (which is part of my problem with him. Never say anything about anyone that you wouldn't say to their face). But why the hell would you let people who disagree with you, no matter how vehemently, bully you into taking it down? I thought you raised a point that needed to be made.

Nyagh! I go a day without checking blogs and I miss a nice rant!? Phooey.

Well, you missed a rant... I'm not so sure about "nice".

Well, perhaps I can contribute a little earnestness and civility to this thread before it, too, inevitably goes downhill, eh? So here's what I was gonna say re the former previous post and a couple of the (thoughtful) comments:

Julia brings up a very interesting issue, pretty fundamental to what Rob is discussing, I think - folks like PZ and Dawkins do make it more difficult to say to believers that a science career won't expose you to attacks on your beliefs.

On the other hand, it might not be completely honest to say to believers that doing science won't threaten to shake their religious beliefs from within, or by virtue of the environment in which they find themselves.

Rob, with respect, I will suggest that your point about other sources of knowledge besides science may be tangential. I doubt anyone would argue against the possibility of gaining knowledge of the beauty of language, the varieties of human nature, etc., from Shakespeare. But art, poetry, etc., are not the areas where a deity is usually invoked.

I'd suggest there are three areas of human experience where deities are commonly invoked: (1) to explain natural phenomena (e.g., weather, natural disasters, the origin of life and existence of human beings) - clearly this is an area where science has much to say. (2) morality - I'd suggest science has little or nothing to say here, but I would also suggest it is unnecessary to invoke a deity to discuss what is right behavior and what is not. To the extent this is unnecessary, the question of existence of a deity or deities is tangential to the issue of whether we can gain moral knowledge. (3) feelings of immanence or 'glory' - I'd suggest that science has historically been undervalued in this respect. I'm sure you've seen the "Cosmos" series - did you not find it thrilling when Sagan pointed out that we are made of stardust? Though religion has historically had a tremendous role here, perhaps you'd be willing to agree that invocation of a deity isn't necessary in order to explain feelings of glory. Thus again I'd suggest the issue of a deity's existence or non-existence is tangential to whether humans can have such feelings or knowledge.

I do think Dawkins' and PZ's style and language in discussing religion, though admittedly shocking and not my style at all (at least I would hope), has a useful and interesting effect: It causes us to examine traditional assumptions that religious belief ought to be less subject to question than other varieties of non(scientific)-evidence-based belief.

But art, poetry, etc., are not the areas where a deity is usually invoked.

Not around here -- but a lot of modern religion, at least of the variety I belong to, is much more about thoughtfully approaching life and thinking about the right way to live, about seeing beauty in the world, than it is about explaining the mechanisms of the natural world.

As I've said before, religion sucks at explaining the mechanisms of the natural world, whereas science has an amazing track record. Once upon a time, that was part of what religion was before, but I don't see that as a meaningful role for religion to play in the modern world. But, I also don't think that means religion has *no* role to play (or, to be clearer, no positive role -- we all see the negative role it plays).

While I fully agree that there's no need to invoke a deity to discuss morality and a sense of glory or a connection to something greater, for some the invocation of a deity or deities does aid in that. So, why not? Myself, I do both.

-Rob

Oh no! I completely missed the post in question. What was it about?

Rob, in future, can you consider just locking a post if things get out of hand?

Most people don't like 'memory holes'.

I know you don't particularly care for me, but I also happen to generally agree with the sentiments you expressed. Then again, I said the same in the recent bad Atheism/Science PR discussion. And in the interests of going with the spirit of your post, that's all I'll say here.

-Mecha

Don't worry, mollishka and MH, the URL still works (found it via google -- I wanted to read the rant too):

http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/07/more_evidence_that_pz_is_a…

Thanks Peter!

I hope no-one does anything to make it disappear totally.

I still think it would be best if it was reinstated and locked. Too much like Uncommon Descent to snip it out completely.

Rob, out of interest -- were you asked to nix the post, or modify your stance? It was rather uncollegial. If I were a Seed overlord I might have asked you to tone it down myself so I intend no criticism of Seed (or of you) here. I think you had a good point to make, and rather shot yourself in the foot with the invective.

That said, Johnny Chimpo has it right - I doubt PZM or Dawkins have the gall to be that rude to anyone's face, so it beats me why anyone pays attention when they indulge their inner assholes in print or online.

Finally, one more vote for not deleting posts unless they're going to get you fired!

I tried to post this yesterday but it ended in a browser crash...

When PZ Meyers supports a position that I happen to agree with, it always makes me want to change my mind. The way he says things is so obnoxious that I don't *want* to be on the same side as him.

If someone so close-minded and arrogant thinks the same way I do, I need to question my thinking.

Sucks, because he actually does take positions I agree with all the time. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Anyway, just so you get a couple of words of support as well as the flames, I'm with you.

-Mary

Taking down the original (so nobody can see how stupid your remarks were and how thoroughly you were drubbed in the comments) but enabling comments for this whine (evidently in the hope that your sycophants will commiserate with you) is typically classless. You were a poor addition to Scienceblogs, I'm afraid. (How ironic that PZ apparently was one of those who recommended you to Seed.)

Yeah, I found the old post about thirty seconds after commenting earlier, but had decided to not comment on it :)

Mary,

Has it not occurred to you that PZ might feel the same.

Ken Miller is often cited as a christian who is very vocal in the support of evolution. He is also a catholic, a church that has an extremely bigoted position on preventing HIV and on gay rights. As you said, with friends like that ........

PZ's combination of holy wrath, self-irony (pirates, squids, "complaints" about being seen as a "mild-mannered professor" instead of as a 3-m-tall tentacled monster shooting lasers from its eyes, and, well, holy wrath), and an environment rich in creationists and just about lacking in European-style Christians is apparently bound to produce misunderstandings. His rants are supposed to be read with a broad, evil grin.

By "European-style Christians" I mean what I see around myself: people who believe that religion is a private affair (and don't ask you American questions like "so, what church do you go to?"), who see the Bible as full of metaphors and parables and as telling the way to go to heaven rather than the way the heavens go, don't care about about the details of what (say) the Book of Revelation might actually be supposed to mean, and so on. Over here, there are no cre_ti_nists except for Jehovah's Witnesses.

That's not what PZ is surrounded by. He gets e-mail from ten cre_ti_nist kooks a day, and not each time the same ten ones. He lives in a country where the Religious Wrong is the 2nd biggest influence on the government (after Halliburton and before the Constitution). He agrees with Dawkins that if all or most religious people were what I have called "European-style", there would be no problem, and he wouldn't write rants -- but that's a speculative situation for him.

I can imagine that many people find his humor childish. But it is humor.

You have a blog. A high-profile one. You made a post. You should be able to deal with the consequences. One thing I hate is when a blogger takes down a post that was either very unpopular or horribly wrong. It's revisionism. It's egotistical. It's spineless.

You made a statement, you set forth your case, and you were jumped on. Have you changed your mind? If so, post that. If you haven't changed your mind, then you're not comfortable standing up for yourself and your beliefs.

You're also giving in to censorship of the masses. If you're so concerned about the silence of your viewpoint, you've just made it worse. You've complained that people like you don't speak up enough. And now you've gone and silenced yourself. Way to set an example.

I disagreed with what you said about PZ, but I respected that you said it and took the heat for it. Now - none.

I would like to echo what David's has said about "European Christians".

I live in the UK and here religion is a private matter. I have no idea what the religious views are of any of the politicians who represent me. They see no reason to tell me and I have no reason to ask. Indeed a politician who confesses to holding strong religious views is likely to be views with some suspicion: When it comes to votes on issues such as abortions will they vote according to their faith or what their constituents want.

It would also be considered extremely bad manners to ask someone what church they go to, even worse than asking how much they earn.

David is right. If the religious decided that invading another country is the thing to do because their god told them it was ok was not ok, if the religious decided that whether to carry to term was a decision for the woman and no one else, if the religious were to stop trying to destroy science education, if the religious were basically stop trying to enforce their morality on those who do not share their faith, then this whole debate would have a completely different tone. However that is not the case, and since the moderate theists refuse to deal with their more radical brothers it falls to "angry" atheists to stand up and say "no more".

Ken Miller is often cited as a christian who is very vocal in the support of evolution. He is also a catholic, a church that has an extremely bigoted position on preventing HIV and on gay rights.

To be fair, I'd be surprised if Miller supported a single of these positions. If only those who really believed every single dogma were counted as Catholic, I bet there'd be just a few thousand left, at least in the northern hemisphere.* I have not read anything on Miller's beliefs, so please correct me if you know better, but if he's anything like the few scientists of whom I know (!) that they are religious, he believes in God, Jesus, crucifixion, resurrection, and love in general, has no particular problems with filioque, was born into a Catholic family, and that's it.

* That's clearly different with some other denominations that are more exclusively distributed in the USA, like the Southern Baptists.

You were a poor addition to Scienceblogs, I'm afraid.

That's a dumb thing to say. Sure, his post looked bad on scienceblogs and maybe was a bit mean spirited, but he didn't do anything entirely inhumane and cruel. He was just angry that he was being constantly insulted by PZ, and he has every right to disagree with him.

The only thing that should have resulted from this is Rob admitting he shouldn't use such hostile rhetoric towards other sciencebloggers. Not that he can't entirely disagree with PZ, or think that PZ is dumb for what he says, or any of that, just that he shouldn't make personal attacks on individual people on scienceblogs.

However that is not the case

...where PZ lives, and in many other places.

David,

I do not know what Ken Miller's views are on gay rights or condom use but I do know he identifies himself as a catholic and I do know what the catholic official line is on both those issues. It therefore seems fair to me to point out that he belongs to a church that takes a position that most liberal people find objectionable.

Rob, out of interest -- were you asked to nix the post, or modify your stance?

No. I took it down because after I'd thought about it as much as I should have before posting it in the first place, I regretted posting it.

It's because, as noted above, I'm an egotistical, spineless revisionist -- if you prefer to look at it that way.

As others have noted, you can still find it. I won't *delete* the post, which would be the true creation of the memory hole, but this way, it's not advertised out there as "look, Rob being obnoxious."

-Rob

You were a poor addition to Scienceblogs, I'm afraid.

I would point out to those who agree with this sentiment that there is no need for any of you to read my blog.

Just as I need to keep reminding myself that there's no need to read the blogs that keep getting under my skin.

There's also no need for you to launch sophomoric personal attacks on Scienceblogs colleagues, and then try to weasel out of standing behind them. But that didn't stop you. If you've learned something from the aftermath of that experience, that's good at least.

I do not know what Ken Miller's views are on gay rights or condom use but I do know he identifies himself as a catholic and I do know what the catholic official line is on both those issues. It therefore seems fair to me to point out that he belongs to a church that takes a position that most liberal people find objectionable.

I live in a country with a large Catholic majority, according to the census. Ask people: they don't believe in papal infallibility, they use pills and condoms and consciously ignore the papal encyclicas that tell them otherwise, they simply ignore the more violent parts of the Bible (waffling, when pressed, on how these have to be seen in the context of the time, or simply saying these were later additions -- in other words, they don't consider the whole thing to be divinely inspired), they don't care about details like Limbo, they are utterly horrified at the Crusades, and they hope that Hell is empty and believe they have reason to believe that it actually is. My Religious Education teacher in school told us he believes that you only go to Hell if, after death, you actually reject God's outstretched hand and choose to live separated from him; I don't think that's very compatible with Catholic dogma, but he didn't even mention any problem. Oh, and the churches are rather empty except at Christmas and Easter.

No, in the case of Catholics (and Lutherans), the null hypothesis must in my experience be that they only accept the nicest bits from the proceedings of the 2nd Vatican Council (there are plenty of those, I read some at school) or even go beyond them.

Now, I suppose that's different in rural South America. But a North American scientist like Miller?

PZ's indirect response, entitled "Everyone is so mean and picking on me!", makes clear that he keeps grinning from ear to ear and chuckles.

One comment from Matt on the earlier post was interesting, something on the lines that a substantial number of Christians think that there is evidence to support their belief. I had thought of calling him on "substantial number" but it was all slightly off thread.

Still, not having anything better to do now, I'd suggest it would depend very much on how you defined evidence. If evidence = testimony then (from a small unrepresentative sample around here) Matt's probably right but if you're in nullius in verbo mode then the consensus here is with Rob.

This distinction might be the root of many misunderstandings between fundamentalists of all stripes and the rest. Is it just a matter of interpretation, or more of differing cultures as regards what should be regarded as evidence?

PZ's response was pretty funny. Really shows that a) he isn't worried about Rob's criticism, b) doesn't really consider Rob one of the nutjobs he rails against, c) has a sense of humor and d) feels no need to make a personal attack on Rob.

You were a poor addition to Scienceblogs, I'm afraid.

I can't find the source of this statement, and I don't have a ton of time right now to look for it- but I have to say I totally disagree with it too. It's even worse than what Rob said about PZ.

David,

You make valid points, and I don't think I have explained myself very well.

I am sure that Miller's personal views on condom use and gay rights are liberal ones like you and I have. What I was trying to say, and clearly was failing, is that if you choose to identify yourself as being part of an organisation that holds views that are not liberal then there is a price to be paid. The catholic church is not, in my view, a moderate church, and for someone to identify as belonging to it does damage that person's right to claim they are moderate.

Grr! I was trying to post a comment as it was taken down...It doesn't matter. It wasn't much different from the previous comments, or any that may have followed, lol

rob, i think you should have left your post up. that entry was your opinion, you were angry for a reason and you have a right to your opinion and to express how you feel if you so choose. i simply expressed my opinion because i thought that some balance was needed in the discussion, especially because i think that PZ is often misunderstood.

the fact is that PZ CAN BE really annoying ONLINE, and i certainly don't agree with everything he does and says, but that does not change my opinion of, and my experiences with, him as a person. hey, if you don't like his online persona, that's alright. plenty of people who i know and respect actually HATE him, even though many of them agree with his position on religion -- much more than you do.

Gav,

When I made that comment I had in mind the situation in the US. Elsewhere in the west religion is not issue it is there.

In the US nearly 50% of the population think that Genesis is a literal version of events, and that science really does support their views. Such people will reject what PZ says of course, but they will also reject what Rob says. They will use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and simply deny Rob is a real Christian. I have been told that by creationists who when it has been pointed out to them that most Christians in the world, such as the Cathlolics, Methodists and Anglicans do not have a problem with evolution. Their reply has been that those are not Christians. Now most of those who think that will be thinking that because they are ignorant (not that ignorance is much of an excuse to be honest: do these people not know how to get a book out of the local library ?) but some are really are either knowingly lying or insane. I when I say ignorant, I mean ignorant not only of the science but of the theology.

Rob is not part of that nearly 50% of course, but he is part of the theistic remainder who seem to have failed miserably to moderate religion in the US, and clearly cannot get their theological message across. In many ways the problems in the US are theological failing as much as a scientific one, and PZ et al are not the ones to blame for the failure of the theological message. It is time for the moderate theists like Rob to admit they are failing.

I missed your rant Rob, but I am glad to see you pulled it down. Perhaps you're starting to see the light of reason, perhaps, one day, you will join PZ and other active soldiers of reason in their efforts curing the human mind the religious virus.

cheers!

Heh. Don't look to me to "cure" the human mind of the religions memetic "virus". (Had to throw memetic in there; it's a geek word.)

Lots of Christians are just as bugged by me as the hardline atheists, because I don't believe that Christianity is the One True Religion and that Jesus is the Only Way to salvation. Many find value in many different religions; some don't find value in any of them. I'm cool with all of it, except when it becomes a platform for either dehumanizing oppression and violence, or for denying science we know to be true. ("Some of my best friends are Wiccans!")

-Rob

Matt - I try to leave theology to others. I'm more interested in what's actually going through people's minds when they say things like "how do you know, were you there?". Once the question would have floored me with its sheer stupidity. But on reflection, if oral or written testimony is all that someone will accept as evidence, then for that person it's an entirely reasonable question. [There may be a corollary that for such a person there is indeed no evidence that the world is older than 6 thousand years, but let's not go there just now].

I disagreed with the post in question, and I think that in this case, terms such as 'jerk', 'blowhard', and 'asshole' were shown to be both unjustified, and poor rhetorical strategy on your part. I usually find myself agreeing with PZ when these sorts of disputes arise. However, those who argue that you are not a valuable and appreciated blogger are guilty of ignoring numerous excellent posts. (Should we throw out Linus Pauling's contributions to quantum chemistry, or his superb chemistry textbooks, simply because he was subject to the 50,000 mg/day vitamin C madness during his later years?)
Furthermore - if you're considering being silent in the future when you're upset by PZ, I'd advise against that too, I suggest you read this article (yeah, that's PZ, but it's an important issue anyone should consider before deciding whether to be silent about an important issue.)

Leaving the post up locked isn't a bad response at all, no.

GrrlScientist: Balance is great... but if I may, Let's take a trip through the comment threads on all three posts. I think you'll see a very unbalanced picture, and it's not Rob that has the majority.

On Rob's post (linked above) most everyone attacked his religious beliefs, religion in general or specific, and his right to speak up against PZ. ('What are moderate practicing Christians do! You have no right to criticize unless they're speaking out!' 'How dare you be mean to PZ, this is just revenge!') So the people on PZ's side had the balance there. There wasn't even a discussion. More or less Slam on Rob day.

On your balancing response, the comments were 'Ha ha ha yeah PZ everyone thinks you're so evil we'll characterize any disagreement as ridiculous and stupid, pulling out every strawperson argument in the book as Rob's reasons for criticizing PZ.' On PZ's thread referring to your post... more of the same.

You may have wanted to produce a balanced viewpoint, which is very nice of you, and it's fair to bring up counterpoints to the idea that PZ is not some sort of evil monster, or whatever the prevailing view among critics who aren't ID types is (Rob said 'Blowhard' and 'Jerk'), but the comment thread on your post (and PZ's comment thread on your post) is pretty much universally mocking and derisive of anyone who thinks PZ might actually have bad traits. Nevermind that he called every person who believes in a religion something negative. Apparently, that's cool.

So where is the imbalance here? I get your desire to paint your friend in a positive light, because he's done good things and done right by you, but your friend is getting off pretty damn lightly in this discussion.

To PZ and his/your commenters? Rob's pain, and the insults levied against him, and his daring to criticize is just too, too funny. It's no wonder he took it down. All it was doing was giving everyone a place to tell him he didn't deserve to be a scientist because he dares to believe in things that have no evidence against them yet.

So in the end, while you had good intentions, your balancing post seems, to me, like it just ended up being an excuse for more people to excuse PZ's bad behavior. Which you admit he has here, although do not explicitly criticize on your balance post, or in response to Rob's post. It doesn't seem particularly balanced at all.

(I mean, what the hell? PZ 'almost regrets nominating him'. Because his dissents cause him pain. Wow. How magnanomous of PZ, to 'almost regret' (but not completely!) because Rob's rare minority dissents cause HIM pain. This is balance? ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php#comment-49… for reference))

-Mecha

Mecha said:
"PZ 'almost regrets nominating him'."

Just where did PZ say this ? PZ has not made a public response to Rob so I am not sure whether you have some inside source or are just lying.

Sorry Rob but you are talking crap.

If you object to the way PZ, Dawkins et al want to solve the problems of religion in today's society then it is for you to come up with something better. Your refusal to do so means that there is no need to for those of us who do see extreme religion as a problem to give you complains any heed. If PZ upsets you, tough shit. I for one no longer care.

Hey guys -- I'm gonna close off the comment thread because I see a flame war brewing again.