Since there was a comment asking about that strange "PYGMIES + DWARFS" exclamation we sometimes get in these parts, I thought I'd bring over all the articles from the old site, just to have them here and explain some of the inside baseball lingo. So here's the collection:
- Pinkoski explains the Trinity
- Pinkoski: serial offender
- If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??
- Pinkoski again: How stupid can creationism get?
- Pinkoski Part 1: Danged know-it-alls
- Why is it called biblical literalism?
"PYGMIES + DWARFS" is simple—it's a wonderfully illogical non sequitur. How do we know that there were biblical giants? Because there are very short people nowadays. It's a representative example of a whole mindset, where any random observation is marshaled by an unconscious chain of absurdist logic to prop up an unlikely claim. It's not just Pinkoski that does this, there's also a reek of the same silliness to Francis Collins, for instance: seeing a three-part waterfall and leaping to the conclusion that the Christian trinity is a universal truth is a perfect example of "PYGMIES + DWARFS" logic.
One other thing. I think I've been rather mean to poor Pinkoski, publicly and repeatedly exposing his foolishness like this. I suspect from my few interactions with him that he is a decent human being, lives a normal life, and has a bit of talent. Don't forget that, inane as his ideas are, he's still a person who has every right to enjoy the privileges of his life and that he has done nothing criminal.
What we have to do, though, is criticize these idiotic ideas as harshly as possible. They're wrong, they're insane, and Pinkoski is part of a whole network of people whose goal is to disseminate ideologically-driven lies as far as possible, and Pinkoski's role in this is to write comic books that appeal to kids to corrupt them as early as possible. Pinkoski might be a nice guy on a personal level, but we can't afford to pull punches when such flaming gobshite is presented to the public.
- Log in to post comments
But where is the fossil record for all of these giants? The creationist ask for fossils of every transitional species (and ask for more when transitionals are presented), but I have never seen a fossil or mummy of a human over six foot tall.
With Collins it's the old observation that, outside of their specialties, scientists and academics can fall for the same unwarranted associations that other people do. Perhaps they are somewhat less inclined to do so, however to hear Francis Collins blathering on about the "strong evidences" of the "finely tuned constants" only indicates that he prefers loose associations with what he does know (religion, not cosmology) than to work at making tight associations between what can be known. The "triune" waterfall is just another such example, for a geologist could provide a plausible reason for most of such phenomena.
His is the problem of the biologist writing about cosmology when he knows nothing about it, much as the DI fellows make the mistake of writing about biology when what they know rigorously is quite something else (probably including Jonathan Wells, since he likely failed ever to learn how to make biological inferences reasonably). Essentially Collins is placing God into the gap in his knowledge, though it is fortunate that he dislikes it when non-biologists do the same thing with regard to his specialty.
I do like Myers' equation of Pinkoski's incorrect assumptions and assertions with those of Collins, because outside of the sphere of biology the same loose associations are practiced by both people, even if Collins is generally more sophisticated. Pinkoski really doesn't bother checking out his primary beliefs against observations, but will only try to make his secondary beliefs compatible with both observation and religion (and if one has to be bent to fit the other, generally it will be the observational implications that have to smush down). Pygmies and dwarves are only compatible with his religion, while fine-tuning (reportedly) compels Collins toward a similar association, another branch of the same religion. When in reality there are countless (presumably infinite) competing metaphysical hypotheses which "could account" for fine-tuning (of the cosmological constant, at least) if no scientific explanation were ever to be forthcoming.
It is important to demonstrate how stupid these loose associations are, partly because people fall easily for them, and partly because praising Collins book tells people that intellectual rigor is not important in science, in life. Collins tends to get a free pass, probably to a large extent because most of us are unwilling to read that pablum. But the fact is that people want rigor in their conception of the world, so that once scientific rigor is thrown out with approval from the "wise ones", the rigor that some will turn to is the rigor of religion.
Pinkoski may very well be one of these. Loose with scientific facts, he nonetheless is strict with "religious facts" (practically, these fundamentalists are frequently prone to reinterpret these "facts" as well, however they tend to cling to the kind of rigor possible with essentially meaningless concepts). In the end, Collins could do more harm than good by christening bad thought regarding empirical affairs as "scientific thinking" (or at least compatible with same), which only excuses other bad thinking by religionists, especially IDism/creatoinism.
In truth, I did not know until recently that Collins had put out such nonsense as PZ documents here--since I was hardly going to read religious apologetics. There is a kind of religion that is compatible with science, namely the kind that always has understood God to be beyond the realm of science (yes, the roots of this type of thinking are very old, going back to Plato). Collins just pushes God out of the realm of his own understanding, however, and resorts to loose analogies and associations between his religion and the sections of science that he knows poorly, much as Pinkoski does.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
I think what Pinkoski demonstrates in his reasoning is an absolutely PERFECT example of confirmation bias. It's a unique and very interesting psychological condition in which the loser of the debate starts saying things that sound incredibly stupid to everyone except the person saying them.
What's ironic about this, given Pinkoski's repeated vilification of 'secular scientists,' is that the scientific method actually has a BUILT IN compensation mechanism for confirmation bias, and it's exactly the opposite of the method employed by creationists.
Creationists start with their conclusion: genesis, and cherry pick evidence to support it.
Scientists do exactly the opposite: They form a hypothesis based on existing available evidence, then actively seek to DISPROVE IT. If they cannot disprove it, then they just might have the beginnings of a sound scientific theory.
By contrast with the lies for God/Jesus, here's an ominous truth from Dembski:
Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution:
http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html
Found here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1422
Indeed, why else graphically portray a dishonest analogy with evolution, except to immunize children from the evidence, the truth?
We laugh and sneer at these purveyors of Satanic lies (and they deserve both), but Pinkoski, Dembksi, and AFDave do know what to write and to say to prevent critical thought from taking hold in the minds of children. We should laugh and sneer at the right times, yet we have a long way to go before we learn how to grab the attention of the voters and their children for the results of rigorous thought processes.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
As we discuss how people reach children, it makes me wonder if what's needed is a "Darwin is cool" campaign, where evolution is portrayed as hip and smart, Darwin is seen as this radical out-of-the-box thinker who changed the world (well, he was), science is shown to be awesome, etc. The IDists can be shown to be old fuddy-duddies who don't know what they're doing.
I don't know if I'm being cynical or not at this point.
PZ: What we have to do, though, is criticize these idiotic ideas as harshly as possible.
If the criticism is done as clearly as possible it's likely to be more effective. When it's always "as harshly as possible" you become Chicken Little or worse: Ann Coulter.
Pinkoski may be a good candidate for extreme invictive, but going off on Collins' little rift on the waterfall is an example of taking words out of context.
Here's what Collins said:
Here's your remark:
Collins is just reporting on an emotionally charged personal experience, not trying to make some sort of tight, logical argument. I think it's important to make that distinction.
This God-and-religion thing that keeps causing human beings to slaughter each other has been around for eons. You can't stamp it out, but it does appear to be ameanable to being steered into less destructive forms. Squashing Pinkoskis is useful, but the Collinses are likely necessary as seeds for a more benign future population lest you risk breeding a more and more virulent strain.
Pinkoski vs. Collins provides a fine example of the damned -if -you-do-damned-if-you-don't dilemma. Attack Pinkoski and people sneer that you're deliberately addressing simplistic, silly, easy targets for the cheap laughs: the real scientific arguments put forth by serious contenders are being ignored. Go after Collins, however, and you're picking on someone who is so close to being "on our side" that we ought to let any slightly sloppy reasoning slide and give the guy a break. Why not concentrate on the more damaging extreme?
I agree with Glen (and PZ.) The basic principle of a magical worldview is that everything is interconnected at the level of meaning and intention, and our job is to find the patterns "out there" which are trying to tell us something on the personal level. The loose, magical, anthropocentric folk-reasoning employed by Collins on a more disciplined level gives legitimacy to the Pinkoskis.
I have a bunch of friends who endorse evolution because they think it supports a Great-Chain-of-Being spiritual progression. They get the theory all wrong, but are surprised that their "support" for evolution doesn't simply cancel out that little nitpicky part for me. But as others have pointed out, science isn't about coming up with the right answer. It's about HOW you come up with an answer. Pinkoski and Collins are both fair game.
I'd say it's already in place. At least, when I was growing up, we had Ranger Rick and World and Odyssey to bring Audubon, National Geographic, and Astronomy (respectively) to kids. We have nature documentaries. We have Animal Planet, for goodness sake (which didn't exist when we were kids). I know these aren't always explicitly "Darwin-is-cool," but they are encouraging children from an early age to take an interest in the natural world and the scientific method.
AndyS:
Insofar as there's no such thing as a tight, logical argument in favor of the supernatural, it's pretty much impossible for anyone with their head screwed on properly not to make the distinction.
But you're quite wrong about what Collins is doing. He's clearly attempting to couch this emotionally charged personal experience of his in the structure of a tight, logical argument. He's not presenting it as the uninteresting personal anecdote that it is, he's citing it as a piece of evidence in a theological argument. And exactly how do you figure that by pointing this out, we're "taking his words out of context"? The context is of his statement is
If we're no longer allowed to attack the faulty premises of a vapid argument, then the entire concept behind logical, evidence-based argument is null and void.
Collins's problem, as with most of these people, isn't that he's being misunderstood or taken out of context, it's that A) he proceeds from some highly suspect philosophical grounds (i.e., the Anthropic Principle, the extreme solipsism of defining reality by way of emotionally charged personal experiences), and B) he's completely clueless when it comes to the science outside of his own field.
In short, any worldview based on childish self-obsession and confidently-held ignorance deserves to be ridiculed mercilessly at every turn.
Cris/DragonScholar,
CFI-Pittsburgh is starting a similar youth outreach program, in connection w/ the Carnegie Science Center in Pgh, PA.
I think it's a great idea, but don't know how well it will go. Better than nothing I guess.
Whoops.
CFI-Pittsburgh
Carnegie Science Center
Now I am in Pinkoski overload, it just numbs too many brain cells reading this nonsense - I need a break a long break...
Combine this with Annie, and I'm spent for the day.
Sastra,
I see your point but think it is too limited. Only in the most abstract way does Collins' kind of magical thinking give legitimacy to the Pinkoski's. Collins acknowledges science, its methods, and its findings (more than that, he's one enthusiastic practictioner). His magical thinking is restricted, quite nicely to my mind, to those "big" questions that all people have: what's the purpose of life, how do I cope with the suffering in the world? Questions for which science provides no answer and is not capable of addressing. That's what philosphy, religion, and art do.
When magical thinkers try to inject their magical thinking into the classroom (ID) or in other ways distort well established knowledge (Pinkoski), it's imporant and necessary to react strongly. That's quite different than someone responding to an interviewer's questions about their personal beliefs (Collins) and in doing so revealing that they use magical thinking to cope with life. Collins went further in that he wrote a book (which apparently no one here has read) about his personal views, some of which are magical.
Dan writes,
Ridicule, if one must stoop that low at all, should at least be reserved for the truly despicible. I am mystified by the number of otherwise intelligent people who engage in that purely destructive behavior. It's the verbal equivalent of roadrage and usually done in the same anonymous circumstances.
I find ridicule via exaggeration to be useful for exposing logical fallacies.
I think that the real big problem with ridicule is that people can't evaluate and laugh at themselves.
Of course, there is such a thing as bad ridicule, which often involves straw men.
Yet another victim of the ruthless Darwinist conspiracy!
Consider this heartbreaking case:
Bergman, whose email address hails from northweststateedu, offers a full arsenal of argumentation:
At least poor Pinkoski is not alone in his persecution. (Now if only these guys could find press agents capable of spelling, punctuation, etc...)
Why are there PYGMIES + DWARFS and degenerate gnomes?
Bronze Dog,
If you mean friendly teasing, sure, most people understand and enjoy that as long as it doesn't go too far. But ridicule is "(1) language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate; (2) derision: the act of deriding or treating with contempt." I don't think we should treat other human beings that way unless they are, in fact, truly contemptible. Collins doesn't qualify, Dembski often does. (Pinoski seems more deranged than contemptible to me.) When we want the religious right to begin to see shades of gray, it's useful to demonstrate that we can too.
I have never seen a fossil or mummy of a human over six foot tall.
Aye, then you have not seen the glory that is the Cardiff Giant! He is proudly on display at the Farmers' Museum in Cooperstown, New York, for one and all to see.
http://www.farmersmuseum.org/exhibitions/cardiff.htm
AndyS:
What a load of bullshit. You should be far more mystified by "otherwise intelligent" people like Collins, who insist on using their expert positions as a vehicle to peddle their silly, anti-rational, and decidedly non-expert views on ancient tribal superstitions.
But why is ridicule "low" and "destructive"? Because it's not nice? Because it hurts people's feelings? Tough shit. If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being a jackass in public. Because that's the price you pay for it. We're under no obligation to be nice to stupid people, who should be made to feel bad about the stupid things they say and do.
Again, you have things completely backwards. Ridicule is the sole provenance of intelligent people. Have you ever seen a Delta-Minus try to insult someone properly? It's just sad. It's like watching a toddler try to fire an AK-47.
At its absolute best, the verbal equivalent of road rage is name-calling, not ridicule. And if you think I'm not perfectly happy to ridicule you to your face, you're sadly mistaken. The (relative) anonymity of the internet is just what is most conveniently available to most of us.
Then don't.
Notice that what I said was that Pinkoski was probably a decent guy, but his ideas deserve scathing ridicule. Are you such a delicate flower that you will not join in treating his ideas about symmetry with contempt? That you will not kick his goofy ignorance about symmetry to the curb? Won't you even reject his nonsensical theology?
This wilting daisy approach to fellow theists who advance stupidity is exactly why I criticize the whole lot of you.
Forgive my question AndyS but:
How does religion provide the answers to anything? How is it capable of addressing anything? How can it do anything science cannot?
PZ,
I did notice your "Pinkoski was probably a decent guy" comment and do reject his "nonsensical theology" in every respect. I was commenting on conflating the Collinses of the world with the Pinkoskis. ("It's not just Pinkoski that does this, there's also a reek of the same silliness to Francis Collins,...") See my words above: "Squashing Pinkoskis is useful, but the Collinses are likely necessary as seeds for a more benign future population lest you risk breeding a more and more virulent strain." And I later noted I thought Pinkoski was "deranged."
Oh for heaven's sake, my comments here in your blog are not intended to make you look like a socially inept bozo who cannot distinguish between constructive criticism and juvenile ridicule. To the contrary, I greatly appreciate what you are doing with Pharyngula. It's a great blog and you're obviously a gifted writer. That praise does not apply to all the people who comment here (my writing gifts are quite limited for example), or to everything you write. Generally, though, you're doing a fantastic job speaking out on behalf of rational thought.
I'm left wondering what you mean by "This wilting daisy approach to fellow theists." I happen to be an atheist but that's quite beside the point. What do you mean by "wilting daisy approach"?
GH,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but science offers nothing to the person who is watching a loved one die a slow, painful death or some other tragety. I don't think science should offer anything in this case. But most religions offer some sort of consolation: Heaven, God's will, etc. That's why Stephen Bachelor distinguishes "religions of consolation" from Buddhism, which he presents as a religion that does not posit a God or gods and does not offer consolation in the face of suffering. Instead it offers ways of coping with the reality of suffering.
Nor does science offer (nor should it offer) any sort of ethical system beyond "be honest about your research data and give references where they are due." Religion and philosophy do that. See for example http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/ for an science-based, atheistic perspective.
The link you provided defeats you entire argument. It states scienc ehas alot to say in the areas you say it can't.
Religions provide a, at best, patchwork ethical system. To say that it provides something science and reason cannot I find a false statement.
Tell that to the game theorists.
Dan,
We are under no obligation to be nice to anyone, yet we do treat some people nicely -- sometimes. Be a pretty grim world otherwise. Rather than make people, especially stupid people, feel bad, I'd rather show them how to act in a less stupid way.
In fact, my approach is motivated by (of all things!) science. It's pretty easy to show (in controlled studies no less) that given, say, a child who makes mistakes in grammar, ridicule is a sure way to ensure they never learn to speak grammatically. What evidence do you have that the situation is any different with adults?
You offer such an appealing analogy. I guess "Delta-Minus" refers to someone who is mentally retarded or some other group you want to dehumanize. (I'll let someone else speculate on the toddler trying to fire an AK-47 image.) You say, "Ridicule is the sole provenance of intelligent people." Fine. Let's just let all the readers of that comment come to their own conclusions.
Not much to be gained by ridicule, is there? It's rather like using masturbation as a method of procreation.
GH,
What did you see that motivates such a claim?
I was speaking of science -- which is not prescriptive -- versus religion and philosophy which often are. Now you add some concept of "reason" which I think is just another way of referring to a particular kind of philosophy. What do you mean by it? And why do you say religions "provide, at best, a patchwork ethical system"? Pardon me, but it seems like you are just bandying about some ill-defined concepts without any motivation or evidence -- hardly a scientific or "reasonable" approach. In fact, it sounds a lot like most of the religious arguments I hear.
Caledonian,
Well that's a really sharp reply! Perhaps you can afford a few words to explain what you mean. How is it that game theory provides an ethical system and/or some sort of help to people faced with traumatic situations?
I seem to have a different concept of science than several of the people commenting in this thread. So please help me out.
Science, to me, is a completely descriptive endeavor. It's a tool -- a very powerful tool -- to establish/create reliable knowledge about the world. No more, no less. Science is not an ethical system, provides no moral foundation, offers no perscriptive guidelines for how to live one's life and interact with other human beings and the environment.
This is in contrast to the various religions of the world, many (all?) of which but forth some ethical system which their followers are expected to use to guide their decision making. Most guild the lily by offering magical explanations of the creation of the world and life after death. In addition to religion we have a large number of philosophical systems many of which also offer moral guidelines and make some attempt to address what goes on before birth and after death.
As an atheistic, materialist, naturalist I love science, but I do not see it as the be-all and end-all of mental life. Science explains why my car runs, how evolution works, etc., but it doesn't help me cope with the death of a loved one or guide me in making ethical decisions. As a descriptive tool why should it?
These sorts of things would be purely personal except that I live in a country of nearly 300 million human beings nearly all of whom seek or claim to have found answers to "the big questions." And some of those people wish to impose their answers onto the rest of us. For that reason, we need a way to discuss these kind of issues the public square without just throwing rocks at each other.
When evangelicals waive their Bibles and cry, "Here's the Truth and the Way." I go rather numb. But when science fanatics stand up and shout, "Science has the answers," I think, "No, you can't answer the really important questions with your tools." Science offers no opinion on the crisis in the Mid-East or help for the young parents coping with a stillborn or deformed baby
When a Pinkoski or Dembski spews some ridiculous tripe, I'm happy to see PZ take them down. But when a Francis Collins turns to Christianity because he couldn't handle the suffering of people he treated as an MD, I say good for him, beats a number of the alternatives; doesn't work for me, but I understand why he needed something more than science. When an AA member speaks of a higher power guiding him away from self-medicating with alcohol, I say brilliant; not appealing to me but a good step (or twelve) for that person.
I think rational thinking trumps magical thinking every time, but I'm willing to acknowledge that magical thinking serves a useful purpose for many people. What can be done, however, with smart people who understand science yet seem to think that's all there is -- and are eager to "rip them a new one" when faced with a magical thinker? Seems to me they have a naive understanding of what science is and is not coupled with a lack of understanding of why people engage in magical thinking. Add to that a juvenile attitude toward name-calling and ridicule-as-a-learning tool and you have a recipe for an increasing social/cultural divide.
DragonScholar: Charles Darwin Has A Posse. That's all you need to let them know. ;-)
AndyS:
Adults have, presumably, already been through several rounds of the anti-mistake conditioning rituals we perform with children. Which means, of course, that the difference between children and adults is that adults are supposed to know better.
It seems rather obvious to me that adults who are supposed to know better but who obstinately refuse to do so are not affected in the slightest by a smile and a gentle nudge in the right direction. In fact, they tend to get quite upset when you treat them as if they were children.
In other words, you have nothing of value to offer to the discussion, so you're trying to pass the buck.
And for Jeebus's sake, doesn't anyone read Brave New World anymore? I'd think that "Delta-Minus" would be a fairly obvious reference around here.
Ridicule isn't just calling someone a nasty name then running away, and it's certainly not, as you seem to be implying, mental masturbation. Take a look at the original meaning of the word. Identifying someone's contention as "laugable" -- that is, not even worthy of rational consideration, or as Pauli would say, "not even wrong" -- requires at least enough intelligence and argumentative process to distinguish fact from fiction. Fiction, when presented as fact, is funny. But in Collins's case, it's funny/sad, not funny/ha-ha. When it's the latter, it's called "comedy," something I've never known people like Collins, nice though he may be, to be any good at. The former, however, often goes under the guise of "religion," and it tends to get lots of people killed. And if that's not worthy of ridicule, I don't know what is.
You are, I think, under the gross misapprehension that ridiculing Collins's silly bloviating is somehow being done for his benefit. That would be a waste of time, since if he had the self-awareness to see that his maunderings are indeed ridicule-worthy, he wouldn't continue to hold them.
No, when I (and presumably, others) ridicule Collins's ancient tribal superstitions, we're doing it for the benefit of undecided others who might otherwise think that he's on to something simply because he's speaking ex cathedra incognata.
PYGMIES + DWARVES aside, I'd just like to point out that this is an inproper use of the term gobshite:
"but we can't afford to pull punches when such flaming gobshite is presented to the public."
In the original Irish idiom, gobshite is more properly applied to a person - e.g. "Pinkoski is a crazy creationist gobshite".
What he spouts should more properly be called a "a load of old bollocks".
This has been a public pedantry announcement.
Now back to your regularly scheduled culture war. ;)
On the topic of comforting religion:
Is telling a comforting lie a good thing?
On the topic of ethics:
Game theory: Quick and dirty bottom line: Everyone wants to benefit. Teamwork benefits everyone.
I say that morality is just good teamwork.
Back on the topic of ridicule: Is it wrong to call a silly idea silly? Is it wrong to call it silly in a manner that exposes the hows and whys of its silliness?
Often, if in order to not ridicule an idea I find silly, I have to patronize it.
And you don't understand how such a very powerful tool that can establish/create reliable knowledge about the world can be used to produce ethical systems, moral foundations, and prescriptive guidelines for how to live one's life? So science can help us find out about the nature of the world, but ethics aren't part of that world?
(slowly raising eyebrow)
It's been a pleasure talking with you. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Because, as a descriptive tool, it can describe the mind that craves emotional satisfaction on top of (and often instead of) reason, and why it has this craving.
AndyS,
Here's my take on the morality thing...
Game theory illuminates the structure of morality.
Morality is an evolved adaptation to manage conflict and cooperation; it's essentially a distributed control mechanism solving (or, more often, reducing) commons problems and the like.
Cross-culturally, there are a very few basic principles of morality that are pretty much universal, and stem from human nature. We are evolved to have a capacity for morality, which is a particular natural kind of thing.
Particular moral systems are based on the same basic set of natural moral intuitions, but with different weightings and elaborated through vastly different belief systems about not-intrinsically-moral issues.
For example, there's a general, apparently universal moral principle that wanton infliction of harm is bad. How this works out in a particular moral system and with respect to a particular issue depends massively on other beliefs, which may be true or false.
So, for example, many conservative Christians think that abortion is very seriously wrong, because it's unnecessarily inflicting grave harm on a person. This moral belief depends on many beliefs, e.g., that a zygote or fetus is a person whose interests have moral weight comparable to yours or mine. Typically, that belief largely depends on the idea that what makes a person a person is that it has a soul.
But people apparently don't have souls, in light of modern science; certainly they don't have the kinds of souls that orthodox Christianity was based on. Orthodox Christianity is based on a primitive theory of mind, which is empirically false.
This makes that particular argument against abortion factually invalid; it is a moral error based a factual error. Abortion might or might not be wrong for other reasons, but that's just a mistake in reasoning.
Science illuminates many moral issues in this way. This kind of reasoning about basic natural facts can show moral reasoning to be incorrect, and show a moral particular moral belief to be obectively false.
Science can do more than that, though. It can illuminate the nature of morality itself, and show that there are natural standards by which some actions are objectively better than others.
(It can't make you care, if you don't share the basic moral intuitions that are naturally common to most people---you can't get from "is" to "ought" that easily. E.g., if you're really a sociopath, or just too basically selfish, understanding the nature of morality and the wrongness of your actions won't fix that---you may understand what morality is, and realize that what you're doing is in fact wrong, but just not care, or not care enough. Luckily, most people do have the basic moral intuitions in a sufficiently strong form to make them care, at least somewhat, about moral facts; it's the nature of the beast, and has little to do with religion.)
I'm not saying that there is one objectively right moral scheme, which yields a unique answer to every moral question, or that science can ever deliver such a thing. I think that working out our basic moral intuitions in light of actual facts sometimes yields conflicts and conundrums. Morality, even without religion messing it up, is somewhat messy.
But religion really does mess it up, on every level. As with abortion, it throws up a lot of pseudo-facts that get in the way of working out the moral aspects of particular issues. More fundamentally, it obscures the nature of morality itself.
Just to pick an example, orthodox Western monotheisms are based largely on Divine Command Theory or something like it---morality comes from God, who dictates what is right and wrong by fiat, or it flows somehow from the necessary nature of The Most Necessary Being, or some crap like that.
Nothing could be more misleading, at the most fundamental level, about morality. Combine that with the more specific falsehoods about morally-relevant issues---e.g., souls, races, collective guilt, substitutional punishment, etc., and you have a very, very big problem.
Religion in general subverts and perverts morality, for its own uses, or as a side effect of its own uses. Religions evolve to validate the status quo, most of the time, because most of the ones that don't get squished by temporal reality.
Christianity is a great, familiar example. Consider slavery. Christians often talk about how it was mostly good Christians who organized to abolish slavery. Good for them. Problem is, it was good Christians who endorsed and were complicit in the slave trade for hundreds of years before that, and even at the time of abolition, most of the opposition was from good Christians who rightly pointed out that the Bible endorses slavery in both the old and the New Testaments. They were right. If Divine Command Theory were true, and that God was really God, slavery would not be wrong. But it is.
Opposition to slavery was largely progress away from religious morality. The opponents of slavery in this country were on average less Christian than the proponents---e.g., the German Freidinkers (freethinkers) who settled here in central Texas, some of whom were massacred for vocally opposing slavery and the Confederacy.
Science actually has a lot to say about that. The crucial justifications for slavery were largely based on scientifically false suppositions. People in general have a basic moral intuition that beings like themselves deserve moral consideration, by default. In order to justify slavery, it was essential for proslavery types to dehumanize black people, i.e., falsely make them appear "not like us" in terms of intelligence, capacity for morality, and ability to suffer. (They're not smart enough to be autonomous, they can't be trusted the way white folks can, and it really doesn't hurt them much to be slaves.)
They also used religious mumbo-jumbo to override this strong natural default---e.g., alleging that because of the Biblical curse of Ham, god clearly wanted black people collectively punished---so even if they're individually not that dumb or amoral or insensitive, they're screwed. Divine Command Theory says enslave them.
(I'm not defending that interpretation of the Curse of Ham; I don't care who the descendants of Ham are. What I'm objecting to is the very idea that a book as immoral as the Bible is ever used as any kind of credible reference in moral argument. Yikes. And I'm not just picking on Christianity.)
I think that this is typical of the workings of religion and power. Despite the best intentions of most of their adherents, religions generally evolve to obscure moral truth and justify their own existence. Religions systematically oppose true moral progress, on average and embody power relationships rather than truth. Science isn't perfect, or even close, but it's way better than that.
Science doesn't directly tell you to be moral, but then, it doesn't need to. If you're a normal human being, you'll be at least somewhat moral. And science can very definitely help you figure out how---what it is to be moral, and what constitutes a moral error---where religion systematically leads people astray.
Have you ever seen a Delta-Minus try to insult someone properly? It's just sad. It's like watching a toddler try to fire an AK-47
Yeah. That's why the science nerds were the king of every school.
Now this wasn't the case at my school, since it was surprisingly diverse + non-combatative, but isn't it the case in most schools that the clever but less socially adequate tend to fall victim to the 'witty repartee' of the thick as pig-shit but socially canny?
Even as adults quick wits and skillful verbiage don't in any way imply, for example, scientifically applicable intelligence, or anything else of note.
AW
His magical thinking is restricted, quite nicely to my mind, to those "big" questions that all people have: what's the purpose of life, how do I cope with the suffering in the world? Questions for which science provides no answer and is not capable of addressing. That's what philosphy, religion, and art do.
To say that requires you to ignore Collins' blatantly unscientific stance with respect to "fine-tuning".
Perhaps more importantly, the "big questions" that people all have are exactly what motivates O'Leary, Dembski, and the rest of the pro-ID blather at UD. They never even leave the "big questions", and their standard "critique" (critical analysis to them) of our support for evolution, cosmology, etc., is that we cannot give up "Darwinism" because of our intense opposition to religion. They make the claim (unevenly) that there are no scientific answers to origins, to fine-tuning, and to the universe's ability to support life.
"Privileged Planet" used some of the exact same arguments that Collins does in favor of the "designer". Collins quite literally is arguing (at least in the interview) in favor of the so-called "cosmological ID", which could well be considered to be half of the agenda of IDists and the DI. And just because we in fact do have more gaps in our understanding of cosmology than we do in biology is no excuse to give Collins a pass on superstitious alignments said to exist between the universe and his imagined God (BTW, one would have to have evidence for this God to at least plausibly exist before any of his correlations would gain traction).
Frankly, Collins sounds quite like PT's David Heddle going on about the cosmic evidences for God, whose claims we shoot down. Collins does not get by just because he is "more important" than the IDist Heddle, and we'd be hypocrites if we said that Collins should not receive the same sort of criticisms that Heddle does.
What AndyS seems intent on doing is criticizing absolute denunciations of Collins, as if we were treating Collins like he was irrevocably on a par with Pinkoski. Which seems to me to be a strawman. The difference between Collins and Pinkoski is that Collins is unquestionably a competent biologist who is publicly in favor of sound biological science. We have no quarrel with him on that score, and indeed I contrasted his sound stance in biology with his cosmological nonsense.
We do not intend to squash Collins as a fundy, or to label him as some kind of IDiot or creationist. I respect his work and statements within his field of expertise. Possibly we should preface our criticisms with such caveats, however you'd think that it should go without saying around here.
Collins is useful to us to a considerable degree, but we would do wrong if we were to use the comments we favor without also criticizing his anti-scientific stance in the area of cosmology, as well as his swooning at a "triune waterfall" (remember, this is brought up in the context of a scientist claiming that he has good solid reasons to be religious--clearly his conversion experience is not based on good solid reasoning, nor are his remarks about fine-tuning based on sound reason). It's called quote-mining when creationists extract seemingly favorable comments without dealing with the context, and I do not intend to resort to quote-mining.
But is there anything wrong with using Collins' pro-science statements with respect to evolution, when he's a Heddle in the cosmological realm? No, not really, for he has the expertise and the experience to speak intelligently and "authoritatively" about evolutionary evidence. He is a scientist regarding biology, but not cosmology. We have to criticize Collins' ID-speak in cosmological matters if we are going to use him to make the point that a Xian such as Collins who really understands evolutionary evidence feels compelled to accept the implications of the evidence (I would be loath to use Collins to suggest that evolution is not a threat to religion, especially since Collins is not solid with respect to cosmological thinking).
We have no choice other than to agree with Collins' statements about evolution. They are true, they are consistent with scientific practice and philosophies of science. Did I really have to say that we agree fully with Collins where biology is concerned? However, he is not consistent with scientific practice, nor with (say) Kant's warnings against unfounded speculation in the scientific realm, whenever Collins claims that fine-tuning is strong evidence for God. We compare Collins' non-scientific speculations with Pinkoski's non-scientific speculations because both are equally invalid, and not because we fail to recognize that Collins compartmentalizes both an anti-scientific streak to support his religion and a pro-scientific analysis of evidence in the area in which he is a specialist.
And it would be quite a different matter if all that Collins received from the pro-science community were criticisms of his comments about "fine-tuning" and his waterfall trinity. The fact is that Myers, some of us here, and probably a few other blogs (I doubt PT will post a criticism of Collins' IDist-type reasoning in the cosmological arena), are about all who seem to be criticizing Collins' pro-religious pablum. He's getting plenty of praise, we're just trying to get some of the appropriate criticisms in along with the accolades that he is receiving for doing some yeoman work in favor of good biology. The dissenting critics are all-too-often misunderstood as being "too-negative", when we're actually trying to balance the uncritical praise coming from those who are too positive and who do not pay sufficient attention to the wretched thinking that Collins evidences in his desire for cosmological backing for his religion.
I would definitely be happier if Collins could be praised without criticizing his statements where his pro-science stance disappears. However, he cannot rightly be credited for his helpful statements without our noting that he uses some of the exact same cosmological arguments that the DI uses (that is not what is wrong with them, but I feel that I have bring this up explicitly since AndyS appears not to notice this fact). Believe me, the DI is not going to miss the fact that Collins thinks like they do about "fine-tuning"
Nor should we. I have no difficulty in recognizing that Collins is correct about biology, while also noticing the fact that he uses unquestioned, trite associations and speculations about cosmology to support his God idea in a manner that is wholly contrary to the spirit of scientific rigor and critical analysis. Comparing Pinkoski's and Collins' bad thinking is useful to show how cosmological ID is on a par with creationism, while I say again that the fact that Collins does far better within his area of expertise should be able to go without saying on this forum.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Paul W.,
Thanks for the long, thoughtful response to my question. I especially like this characterization: "Morality is an evolved adaptation to manage conflict and cooperation; it's essentially a distributed control mechanism solving (or, more often, reducing) commons problems and the like." And, yes, of course I agree that "Science illuminates many moral issues." But this
is quite speculative and perhaps a kind of magical thinking for scientists.
And to say "Religion in general subverts and perverts morality..." is a gross over-generalization. It's like saying philosophy subsverts and perverts morality because some philosophers have done so. We are all familiar with the many evils done in the name of religion, but evil is done in the name of science as well (the Nazis' medical experiments, lobotomies for the retarded here in the USA, experiments on patients in mental hospitals, etc.). As you note, Christians were on both sides of the slavery issue in the 1800's -- which speaks directly to fallacy of viewing religion as one monolithic thing.
I think what you mean by religion is more accurately described by a term like "radical fundamentalism and cults." At least I hope that's what you mean because it's quite easy to find Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others who do not subscribe to any sort of Divine Command Theory. Just like it's easy to find Republicans who dislike George Bush. The loudest people are not the most representative ones.
"The crucial justifications for slavery were largely based on scientifically false suppositions." But the people who opposed slavery decades before science had anything to offer on the subject did not use science to guide them. So there's something else that, to me, is outside of both religion and science.
Religions systematically oppose true moral progress, on average and embody power relationships rather than truth. Science isn't perfect, or even close, but it's way better than that.
Since science does not offer (nor should it) a moral system of any kind, or even provide a forum for the discussion of one, I think all you can say is that it doesn't cause bad moral progress. If you accept replacing "religions" with "radical fundamentalists," we are in agreement about its opposition to moral progress.
What science does is establish empirical knowledge about those things we have the time, energy, and interest apply it to. That knowledge is obviously useful in making certain moral decisions but in itself has no moral weight. It's just information. My point is that there is no conflict between science and religion. They are completely different concepts, apples and oranges. Science does its thing and it's up to religious people to deal with the knowledge it produces. Most do that easily -- except for radical fundamentalists and cults which, to use your eloquent words, "embody power relationships rather than truth."
Euthanasia is a the sort of serious, real-world ethical problem which people face all the time. How can science contribute to that discussion beyond offering information about how long a person might live and with what quality of life? The issue of minimal healthcare for all is another such problem. Going to war in Iraq, ditto. Religious people and different religious groups come down on all sides of these ethical dilemmas, so I don't see them as a help or a hinderance. But damning them all because of the idiocy of some is hardly a thoughtful approach.
That's absurd. Science has already discovered more about the nature of ethics in the last hundred than all the philosophers, priests, and mystics of all time ever knew.
Glen D,
Thanks to you as well for taking the time to write that long response.
I do ignore it, as well as most other esoteric issues that serve as distractions from useful work. Just a personal preferrence, not a comment on people who are interested in cosmology.
We could eliminate a good part of their argument by not opposing religion, and instead just oppose bad rhetoric, bad logic, lack of understanding of science, and their frequently underhanded use of pure propoganda. The only reason I oppose or even care about the IDers is when they try to distort the teaching of science. If they choose to believe in God-the-Grand-Designer, that's their business. The same goes for a guy like Collins. He's not an IDer, doesn't advocate teaching bad science, so let him write books about all the odd ideas he wants. Newton seems to have spent as much time and energy on alchemy as he did on physics. People are curious creatures.
Try to read a few threads with a fresh outlook. It's all too easy to see this as a home for cranky, anti-religious, atheistic zealots. I know that is generally not the case, but I do think many here are as poorly informed about religion, religious motivations, and the variety of religious experience as the evangelical ID zealots are about science.
It was a conversion experience. What does that have to do with reasoning of any kind? Latching onto the "triune waterfall" phrase is similar to the IDers getting stuck on design language in science writing (as an early post of PZ's addressed).
I don't object to that if you are interested in such things. It's when the rhetoric around the objections drifts into an attack on his religion -- which merely hands ammunition to the IDers.
Here's a case in point,
Collins isn't wrong because he offers pro-religious pablum; he's wrong when he makes false assumptions, uses logic incorrectly, offers speculation as fact, etc. That is, unless you want to sign up for the "religion is always wrong/bad" thesis.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect more than a few bloggers to criticize Collins' cosmological thinking since cosmology in this serious vein just doesn't grab many people. It's speculation from every side with little hope for any near-term evidence to support anyone's position. To be blunt, it currently reduces to "God did it" versus "we don't know how it happened but we sure have a lot of cool ideas." You can never extinguish the "God did it" meme, and, while you can show the weaknesses in the other side's argument, that seems a questionable use of time and energy. And it lets the IDers be seen as offering something of substance.
I know you are quite sincere in making that statement, but I have to chuckle a bit when I see "God idea" in the same sentence with scientific rigor and critical analysis. My guess is Collins would be the first to say his God has little to do with those things and admit that he is just backfilling -- not doing anything like professional cosmology. Maybe I'll read his book and find out what he really thinks.
I'd like to read your book too, Glen, and see what you have to saying when you have lots of room to say it. (BTW, the "high parallelism" image link is broken on http://students.wwcc.edu/~glendavidson/website/)
[quote]That's absurd. Science has already discovered more about the nature of ethics in the last hundred than all the philosophers, priests, and mystics of all time ever knew[/quote]
What a load of rubbish. You clearly know little about philosophy.
AW