Pielke, Jr., to the Rescue

Sir: I was one of those who took exception to your use of the WaPo Op/Ed opportunity to launch an attack on Richard Dawkins, and my basis for doing so was not that you are a Creationist, crypto- or otherwise, but that you have presented no evidence whatsoever that Dawkins' efforts against religion has advanced the cause of Creationism. I posted to this effect on Mr. N.'s blog, but never saw a response. Michael Ruse made the same charge against Dawkins in his recent Skeptical Inquirer article, and the evidence he produced in support was a quote from William Dembski. I hope the evidence you are prepared to produce for your charges against Richard Dawkins do not require me to take William Dembski at face value.

Since resistance to the acceptance of evolution is based in its entirely on religion, I will suggest that Dawkins has quite properly attempted to address the source, rather than merely the symptoms of the problem.

BTW, Darwin's scientific theory of evolution through natural selection is the single most important contribution ever made in the history of the discussion of the philophical "argument from design," so you would have a tough time making a case that advancing a religous/philosophical position "on the back of science" is in any way improper.

It is unfortunate that your arguments cannot stand on their own, so that you feel it is necessary for anyone to "rescue" them.

Mustafa,
Our arguments stand on their own perfectly fine, and we will be elaborating on them soon enough.

If you can't see why a high profile attacker of religion might not be the best thing for the cause of evolution in a highly religious country, I don't know what to tell you.

Sigh, the "framing" debate will not die. So at least I am not kicking a dead horse. I think you and Matt are not hearing what your critics are saying. First, most (all even) of your critics have clearly and repeatedly stated that many scientists could be better communicators to the general public (which is what I think you are saying when you describe framing science). Others have pointed out that many scientists actually are good communicators since we often teach at colleges at various levels, but also talk at high schools and to younger audiences at various times, although improvements are always possible.

The issue I think is in your attacks on atheism and science in a religious society. In recent history Debbie Schussel and other right-wing, dare I say, nut jobs are telling atheists to shut up and keep out of sight. Now you and Matt essentially have taking up that rallying cry. Feel free to disagree, but I think you can see how that is a possible perception of what you have stated. I guess that approach worked in the past. Dawkins and PZ could be subject to house arrest, without internet hook-up of course, until the American theocracy no longer deems evolution a threat....say the year 2250? Worked for Galileo.

Will atheists like Dawkins, PZ Myers, etc. make the thin-skinned religious people walk away from the table? Maybe, but I would argue that the vitriol spewing members of the other side, Robertson for example, should be pushing them right back to the table for the same reasons. I mean if these people actually are reachable, then all the "damage" Dawkins does should be offset by the "damage" caused by the other side. I rather doubt a significant portion of the religious community in this country actually expected god to throw a meteor at Pennsylvania, despite Robertson orgasmic predictions. By the way, it wasn't Dawkins and PZ that caused the Dover trial, nor was it an atheist that caused the Scopes trial. It troubles me greatly, when you suggest that these cultural divides are caused by or due to the likes of Dawkins and company.

You want to keep religion out of the debate with science. Fine, I agree, lets do that. Of course scientists did not bring religion into the evolution debate, which is the core matter Dawkins et al are dealing with. It was not a scientist saying: look god is dead, vive l'evolution. It was the religious saying: if evolution, then god is dead. This is the same argument used to discourage the acceptance of the sun as the center of the solar system or that the fossil record is flawed because animals cannot be extinct. So they bought it up, not us. Should we ignore it and just go for a better PR campaign? Maybe, but I don't like our odds...us: better quality of life; them: eternal damnation.

I guess I see this culture war as a pendulum. They have their pit-bulls and we have our german shepherds, and there are all the non-aggressive dogs in the middle. If Dawkins et al shut up, as you would like, then the pendulum automatically swings more towards their side. And damnit, we have facts on our side. Please do not confuse facts, with a data dump. That is just a piss poor stereotype, ie strawman, which allows you to group together and discount scientists as communicators with a stroke.

In short, albeit long at this point, making sure we communicate the benefit of science to individuals and society and communicate the risks to individuals and society if we ignore science is a good use of the framing concept that I doubt anyone would argue with. However, in the evolution debate all bets are off, because we lost that "frame" decades ago. In fact, I doubt our side was ever in the game in America. So at this point evolution is ingrained in the American psyche as a religious issue. We do not need to discuss religion or tread on it harshly. However, when religion says us versus them, I will then I agree (what other choice do I have?), pick up the gauntlet and slap them in the face with it.

I really wonder what your advice to Copernicus, Galileo, Scopes, etc. would have been. "Ok, we agree that what you say is correct, but you may irritate important people or even break the law. How would that look to the public, seeing you arrested or worse? How about you write some nice letters to the cardinals, pope, legislature explaining things to them, without scaring their beliefs in any way. Then, once they agree, you can talk about the solar system or teach evolutionary theory. However, until then please play nice and don't do anything to ruffle any feathers. Sincerely your partners in scientific advancement."

If you can't see why a high profile attacker of religion might not be the best thing for the cause of evolution in a highly religious country, I don't know what to tell you.

1. If you can't see why pandering to religious belief and shying away from defending atheism might not be the best thing for the cause of evolution in a highly religious country, I don't know what to tell you.2. If you can't see why a high profile attacker of religion might be the best thing for the cause of evolution in a highly religious country, I don't know what to tell you.

So the best way to reach a highly religious country is to attach religion? Sorry, I just don't get it. As soon as you start pushing atheism people will either stop listining or start attaching you. If evolution is promoted as a way to disprove god you are just helping the creatioists.

Re PZ Myers

Apparently, the plaintiff attorneys in the Dover case had the temerity to disagree with Prof. Myers by calling Ken Miller as their first witness, rather then Richard Dawkins. That's whats called framing.

Jim and SLC--
Exactly. The pro-atheism blog world can get to be quite an echo chamber. But when in real world political contexts, one has to deal with these issues in a much more strategic, pragmatic, and conciliatory way.

Dana--
Again, no one is telling anyone to shut up, we are trying to emphasize ways of being *strategic* when communicating.

Neither Copernicus, Galileo, or even Scopes had to deal with the modern media system. The whole point of everything Nisbet and I have been saying is that we have to understand how science gets treated in the media system that we have today, and then adapt to that reality.

I am not being snarky and could be completely wrong, but wouldn't the fact that this was a U.S. case make Ken Miller the obvious choice?

Our arguments stand on their own perfectly fine, and we will be elaborating on them soon enough.

I am a scientist (as you and Mr. N are not) and am open to evidence. Here's some really convincing evidence you could present: You and/or Mr. N. could write a really good book on evolution that would convince a large number of fundagelical Christians to give up Creationism and embrace evolution. That would convince me that you are not pompously admonishing your betters, and that you and/or Mr. N. actually possess some ability to communicate science, which is what you are now advising others on.

Hi Mustafa,
Matthew Nisbet is a social scientist at American University. And this is a warning: False personal attacks (such as asserting that someone is not a scientist when he/she is one) will not be tolerated on this blog.

That's for others, of course. Say whatever nasty stuff about me that you want.

Chris, you are little out of focus, here. It is only by the most generous of definitions that Nisbet could call himself a "scientist" without putting the word "social" in front of it.

As I'm sure you're aware, most scientists look down on people in the humanities and, at times, snigger at the the need for people from social studies to try and gin up their creds with the "science" tag.

That being said, someone with Nisbet's background would be much better prepared to study the field of science than someone with a background in the hard sciences, which is the intellectual high ground that Mustafa appears to try and claim.

I guess my point is that Mustafa's attempt to undermine the credentials of Nisbet by saying, "He's not a scientist," is pretty standard for people who are actually in science. The claim is technically correct, but misses the broader issue that social sciences have a role to play.

Re willL>

"I am not being snarky and could be completely wrong, but wouldn't the fact that this was a U.S. case make Ken Miller the obvious choice?"

The point of the comment was that the plaintiffs called an evolutionist who is also a philosophical theist; they didn't call a militant atheist who regularly claims that philosophical naturalist is science, as Prof. Dawkins does. Substitute PZ Myers for Dawkins if it makes a better point.

I think it's a matter of common sense that atheist identity politics and science communication/education don't go well together. If you yolk the two together, the identity politics look naive and the science communication suffers [!], so that neither does each other any favors.

Also, PZ's brand of "attacking religion" often contains misinformed arguments. I think the identity politics would be much more successful if it happened on an informed basis, and if you can't make it that far, then at least be respectful. I saw a recent Bill Moyers program with British atheist Jonathan Miller which was successful in this regard.

Chris--about Roger Pielke, Jr.: while I'm glad he came to your rescue, could there be some merit to David Roberts' arguments with Dr. Pielke? I don't know if you've been following the blogosphere's arguments with The New Republic's Jon Chait, but the blogosphere's argument has been that the media tends to favor and reward heterodox liberal opinions and "reflexive equivocators", and that the media tends to cherry pick heterodox statements and favor those kinds of figures, to those figures' benefit. And it would be better if there was some degree of getting on the same page.

I'm not sure if this sort of thing applies to Dr. Pielke, but David Roberts thinks so. I just remember Pielke's wrong-headed arguments about your book, the curious tone of some of his blog posts (e.g., about Al Gore), and some of his hairsplitting academic arguments (e.g., "there is no such thing as cherry picking"), but I'm going to equivocate at this point and say that I'm not sure I have the context to know if Roberts is right...

Have to chime in and agree with Jon Winsor on the Pielke issue, Chris. You wrote that Pielke has dealt with "repeated charges that he's a conservative or a Republican..."

That's not the case. I don't think that anyone has charged him with being a Republican or being a conservative. Nobody knows his voting record, nor what politics lie within his heart. However, a number of bloggers and commenters have pointed out that Pielke's writings are regularly cited by conservatives and his testimony was specifically requested by Republicans in a recent hearing.

That is a distinction and a real difference.

Plus, while Pielke is regularly beat up on by people who would readily identify themselves as "liberal", it's probably impossible to find a single instance in which a known conservative has said anything negative about his writings.

This does not implicate Pielke as a conservative, but it does call into question his "honest broker" credentials, as his arguments seem to evoke consistent recognition from only one side of the debate.

To ask the question in another way, can you find a conservative giving a positive citation to James Hansen or Ben Santer, or Michael Mann?

"highly religious country"

Is America a highly religious country? I don't see much evidence for that. Most religions have moral platforms that would result in societies much different from what one sees in the USA. I think by "highly religious" you mean "highly ignorant". One can be religious and still believe in evolution, for example.

There's a great piece up on Crooked Timber about Jon Chait's essay:

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/06/the-two-party-system/

(Let's add "highly divided" country...)

I'm interested in this (attributed above to RPJr):

"But in their piece they suggested, correctly in my view, that how some atheists advance their agenda on the back of science may actually backfire in political debates."

Chris, did you and Matt Nisbet suggest that some atheists (Dawkins and PZ presumably) are advancing their [atheist] agenda on the back of science? If so, I didn't notice. Those certainly weren't your exact words, but if you think they express your intention, then please say so.

Dawkins and PZ are scientists and atheists (as I am) who express their views about religion and evolution forthrightly (as I don't). It *might* be a bad strategy. RPJr seems to be suggesting something more than that: dishonesty, evasiveness, bait & switch, I'm not sure.

One great irony is that you and Matt have been so focussed on attacking Dawkins and his ilk, rather than proposing something better yourselves. You have managed to frame your own position on framing in just the way you are supposedly criticising!

You say that you're going to fix that, and I am delighted to hear it. Good luck, seriously. Lots of people are going to read it, me included.

But so far, the pragmatic progress of the debate has shown the value of the style of controvertial visiblity, that Richard Dawkins is so good at.

I find that incredibly funny. You've prompted a firestorm of debate by being so in your face on the matter. By breaking your own rules on framing, you've managed to emulate something of the successful tactics of hardline atheists like Dawkins, of whom you are so critical.

Best wishes -- and hello again, we met in Sydney -- Chris

By breaking your own rules on framing, you've managed to emulate something of the successful tactics of hardline atheists like Dawkins.

This is missing the whole point. It's a matter of setting common sense priorities. No one has anything to lose over having a public debate over these priorities. Chris's is a well chosen debate to have. But if you want to advance science, Dawkins' is not the debate to have.

Atheism, and its associated identity politics, is one issue. Getting clear science represented in the public square, is another (and by far it's the more important--and winnable--of the two issues). Trying to mix the two of them is a disasterous idea, especially in the US.

Pointing out the best priorities is a win for everyone, even if there's some public confrontation involved. The atheist identity politics, confronting everyone else in the world who's not an atheist, is simply a different debate. Bertrand Russell "getting in peoples' faces" is one thing. Rachel Carson or Clarence Darrow "getting in peoples' faces" is quite another. They're simply completely different sets of fights and they should stay that way.

By mixing the two, you attack potential allies. You run a real risk of alienating people who are involved in organized religion and accept evolution--which is a very sizable number of people. And that's not likely to change soon.

The atheist identity politics gets things off message-- which is about advancing Enlightenment values such as science and reason. (And it's outrageous that we have to defend those things, but unfortunately we do.)

I happen to think that Dawkins' arguments are flawed in some very basic ways, but that's a whole other subject.

Hi Jon,

I generally tend to go with the genial friendly atheist approach, myself. I like to point out that the great evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian; albeit an unusual one. I think Ken Miller is an asset in the whole debate, better able to reach many Christian readers.

But I'm just not persuaded at all that Dawkins is the "wrong way", or that attacking potential allies is all bad. After all... in attacking Dawkins, aren't you attacking potential allies as well?

I think Dawkins has a massive impact, and that this is a good thing; even if Christians find it irritating. Especially if Christians find it irritating.

You assert that if you want to advance science, Dawkins' is not the debate to have. I've seen no indication that that is actually true. One great thing about Dawkins is that he's visible. Even if you find him offensive and off-putting, he gets the issue in raised and prompts people to care about it.

Christians who do accept science find his forthright criticisms of religion to be a problem. But if they are motivated to speak up and refute him and try to present Christianity as a reasonable option, that's progress. Frankly, many scientifically literature Christians badly need a rocket up the backside. Ken Miller and Dobzhansky and Polkinghorne and many others are trying to drag their co-religionists out of the eighteenth century; but for every one of those there seem to be a hundred others who don't want to rock the boat, and keep quiet in the pews. That's a set of potential allies we'd love to speak up a lot more.

There are other folks just become more cemented in their rejection of science; but in my experience these are folks that are not going to shift towards science under any circumstances.

So how can get more Christians to speak up for science? Tell them that it's just great they've been able to reconcile Christianity and science? I think they need something more motivating, not something to make them comfortable. They need a reason to be unsettled, to speak up and add their voice to the pro-science chorus.

One motivating factor is when their faith gets publicly flagellated as the rotten seed of anti-science stupidity. That gets a couple of them moving, speaking up to say -- "NO. I'm here, and I'm a Christian, and I can demonstrate that being a Christian does not lead to anti-science stupidity."

Case in point... Francis Collins recently wrote a book. What do you think moved him to do this? He's been a Christian for years. I think he is prompted in no small measure by the visibility of folks like Dawkins, and the need to defend what he sees as a rational approach for religion in response.

I'm very active in discussion with Christians; and an active member of a Christian web forum, at TheologyWeb. Many Christians find Dawkins offensive and irritating. But they do get motivated on the subject matter. And that's a good thing. I can use that myself as leverage for my more genial and friendly style.

It all contributes.

Now here's the funny thing. Perhaps you and Chris and others disagree. Perhaps you think that Dawkins actually makes things worse, rather than helping. Perhaps you think he could do better. (So far) the major way this has been tackled is by strong criticism of Dawkins and his ilk.

And, lo and behold, we have a firestorm of a debate, and framing is on the table, and that's just great. Hopefully you guys have been prompted to get moving on defining some more positive suggestions to go with bewailing the hardline atheist style. But if you are effective in presenting a message about a new style of communication; part of the way that was achieved was through irritating and rankling the hardline atheists and by that means making the underlying question so topical.

Dawkins does that too.

I've got a positive suggestion. It won't be for everyone, because we NEED a wide range of approaches. But this is my approach, which I m actively pursuing. I encourage Christians who seek to demonstrate that Dawkins is wrong about religion and science. I point out that what they do is useful, because they need to be heard more often and more clearly. I point out that Dawkins' negative view on religion is backed up by the vocal public behaviour of their anti-science co-religionists, and that they need to deal with THAT, and to spread the word amongst their own fellows that rejecting science is a bad idea.

In brief; I get leverage from Dawkins approach. He does what he does so well, I'm not going to presume to advise him! I'm going to use his impact as best I can.

Cheers -- Chris

But the question still is: what is more worthwhile, getting the public to accept science, or pushing atheism? Because pushing the two as one package diminishes the most important of the two. I think that's hard to dispute. And I think Chris has an easy argument on that front.

This isn't to say that there can't be some valuable conversations that make people think about atheism and atheists, such as the Jonathan Miller program that I linked to above.

And yes, Dawkins is very visible, unfortunately both as a provocateur and a "useful idiot" for his opponents. And there may be some value to the discussion, assuming that it sheds more light than heat, which I don't think is a foregone conclusion. After all, Dawkins often ignorantly misrepresents what he purports to be studying.

Here's where Chris and I would probably disagree. I think it's a fairly small part of the population that tends to be what Terry Eagleton calls "card carrying rationalists," and this is not simply a mistake of people being educated the wrong way. I believe it has to do with basic individual differences in people (and in many cases differences that should be cultivated).

There's a certain part of the population that thinks that the transcendent and the scientifically rationalist are the same thing. By this way of thinking, all you have to do is clone Bertrand Russell's thought processes and put them in everyone's brain, everyone will write "Why I Am Not a Christian," and all will be good with the world. I think this is a misreading human nature. There's only a certain type of person that associates the transcendent and purely rational like that, and those people tend to underestimate the resistance to their way of thinking. I have a theory that part of this may be a matter of class and walk of life. If you are an engineer, scientist, or other person who makes a living off analyzing things in a certain way, you'll tend to think that that way is best. (This is just my theory.)

At any rate, I was saying above that this was a seperate issue, but on second thought, maybe not entirely. I think rationalists tend to overestimate how easily they can evangelize their way of thinking, and get frustrated when they can't. But I think it comes down to basic differences between people. Many people want transcendence of the kind Bertrand Russell scorns--and this is not going to go away any time soon.

So while Bertrand Russell figuratively whacks his head against a brick wall, we still have to get people scientifically literate and informed. This process is not helped by the distracting spectacle of Dawkins ranting, PZ Myers browbeating "the religious," etc.