Taking exception to Jake

Fantastic overview, PZ. I thought this quote was especially succinct and well spoken:

Sometimes the big ideas are worth fighting for. You can't always compromise on everything -- on some things, of course -- and you need some people who don't bend with the wind on everything. There are liberal principles and there are scientific principles, and sometimes you have to stand up for them with a little ferocity. When you're willing to give a little on your core beliefs, you will find yourself backing away from everything that's important in no time at all.

These larger issues are usually so hard to stay coherent on. They almost always spiral into odd tangents and overly specific examples that lose sight of the greater point being made.

My thoughts here

Being snarky here, but if conclusions aren't part of big S-Science, then should I just skip over the conclusions section in every paper I read?

I'd argue that Science has incorporated quite a lot of conclusions over the years- like gravity and evolution etc.

Of course, I know what P-Zizzy is saying, but I find it a little pedantic to only refer to Science as a methodology and nothing else.

The New Atheist Camp (for lack of a better term) asserts that science and atheism are one.

He's confused atheism with creationism. People who start out with such muddled thought tend to end up with muddled conclusions, and this is no exception to that rule.

Were science and atheism the same thing, there would be absolutely no way to justify the occasions upon which the church has risen to support science over the past couple of millennia -- and those occasions are more than a handful, occasionally momentous. This fellow is conceding the good works of the church. If we do that, even for argument, then what the devil good is the church?

This post is a diatribe, but I find it pithy and substantive.

I'm one of the great unwashed, with no letters to append to my name, and live in Australia - and I try to be one of those who "[has] a basic comprehension of science".

I admit Pharyngula's snark keeps me amused and coming back, but over time I've learnt a lot from the science-related posts. I'd say that's a successful example of outreach.

Best of all, PZ often expresses my own views. What a bonus!

So, after looking at the universe using the tools of science, we come to the conclusion that evolution occurred. But that conclusion itself is not part of science?

Interesting.

I think that PZ is right that science is essentially a method, or perhaps better still it just is the process of rational inquiry, to the extent that this can be carried on using certain distinctive procedures. At the same time, science has gradually given us a body of robust findings and an image (however incomplete) of the universe we live in. If someone wants to call the body of well-corroborated findings from scientific inquiry "science", I'm not going to be too picky about it, though I see PZ's point.

Meanwhile, the scientific image of the universe is extremely difficult to reconcile with providential theism, especially when you combine it with the latter's other problems. I'd want to say that it's a philosophical exercise to look at all that and to draw the conclusion, as I do, that providential theism is probably false.

(I'm not keen on any other kind of theism, either ... or deism, if it comes to that ... but I think the issues are a bit different.)

Quote
We could also make the case that religion is separable into a set of methods (revelation and tradition, for instance) and a conclusion (that god exists). The religious methods are incompatible with the scientific methods. The conclusion could be, if there were evidence. That there isn't, yet the religious persist in asserting that their conclusion is correct, is a further indication that the methods can't coexist.
Unquote

Also, if in the course of my scientific investigations, I dot all the i's and cross the t's, when my peers review my work they should in theory agree with my conclusions. Religious people can't do this between faiths. They agree that there is a creator, but each faith has different creator(s). Their methods are so flawed that they can't even agree on the conclusion. How can they be compatible with the scientific methods when the religious can't even satisfy each other?
Bob

PZ, I'm sorry, it's simply not true that religion involves a belief in a god. Take Buddhism, for instance; or, closer to hand, take modern Unitarianism.

What do you mean by "...allow people to believe..."? Do you think they're going to come and ask your permission before believing something?

You can explain to people all day long why you're right and they're wrong, and -- even granting that you're right -- there will still be people at the end of the day who disagree with you. And there are different ways of dealing with them.

You're creating an artificial polarization. You (and possibly also Jake?) seem to think that any dialog with religious people must consist of explaining to them why they're wrong, otherwise you're telling them that you think their religious beliefs are perfectly reasonable and no less valid than scientific conclusions. Yet it turns out that it's also possible to discuss other subjects with them, and in fact work towards mutual political goals unrelated to religion without it being some sort of sell-out pandering.

Friday on NPR, I heard Bruce Feiler (author of "Walking the Bible") comment that he has problems with "Fundamentalist, Evangelical Atheists".

After just reading PZ lament about the term "New Atheists", I thought about how much better this term is than the one Bruce dumped on us a few hours later.

So, fellow atheists, can the most strident of us correctly be referred to as fundamentalists, or as evangelicals?

According to m-w.com, originally fundamentalism referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in reaction to modernism ... and emphasized that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and practice, but also in terms of being a literal historical record. In its broadest sense, it denotes a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.

So, fellow "New Atheists", who (if anyone) among us qualifies as a fundamentalist atheist, an evangelical atheist, or both?

"We could also make the case that religion is separable into a set of methods (revelation and tradition, for instance) and a conclusion (that god exists)."

I have to disagree. "That god exists" is a premise, not a conclusion. "God" is the supposed "source" of revelation and tradition.

Of course the conclusions are part of science. But ask yourself this: if someone uses scientific methodology to overturn one of those conclusions, would you then argue that they are opposing science?

I'd say they are doing what science is supposed to do.

John Pieret: So, after looking at the universe using the tools of science, we come to the conclusion that evolution occurred. But that conclusion itself is not part of science?

That evolution occurred isn't a conclusion, it's an observation, like "the earth goes around the sun" and "gravity, not just a good idea, it's the law". That's where science starts, not where it ends.

The Theory of Evolution is the conclusion, it's scientific, but not "part of science".

Or we could decide that science is big enough for everyone and that differences in belief will be settled in the end.

But science isn't big enough for everyone. Specifically, it's not big enough for the people who see the evidence, then reject it to continue believing what they already believed (whether from their preacher, their internal intuitions or whatever other source).

Similarly, differences in belief won't be "settled in the end" unless everyone is playing by epistemological rules that allow differences in belief to be settled *by evidence*. How do you suggest settling the differences in belief between Christians and Muslims, or even Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims? It can't be done as long as each side starts with the unchallengeable assumption that they are correct.

Anyone can join - but only if they are willing to admit that they might be wrong and evidence about the real world takes precedence over their preconceived notions.

The primacy of evidence is the piece that cannot be compromised without science becoming non-science.

Jonathan Lubin:

PZ, I'm sorry, it's simply not true that religion involves a belief in a god. Take Buddhism, for instance; or, closer to hand, take modern Unitarianism.

Buddhism has lots of gods (see e.g. Wikipedia). Perhaps there are some forms of elite Buddhism that don't, and perhaps they are then not religions. Perhaps atheist forms of Unitarianism are also not religions. Often religion is defined in a way that explicitly requires the belief in gods.

Of course the conclusions are part of science. But ask yourself this: if someone uses scientific methodology to overturn one of those conclusions, would you then argue that they are opposing science?

Of course not. The correctness of the conclusion, if truly made from the evidence delivered from the "scientific method" (i.e. excluding faked conclusions such as ID and with lots of caveats as to what the "scientific method" really is), does not bear on the conclusion's status as "science".

I'd say they are doing what science is supposed to do.

Absolutely. But where is your distinction between science and atheism, then? I agree that atheism is not, itself, science. Not to be too obscure, I think you are trying to make the distinction between the two by cutting at the wrong joint. Conclusions validly made from evidence actually delivered by the scientific method are clearly part of science. The distinction must lie elsewhere.

I'd hunt in the application of science's philosophical priors to the issues raised by theism/atheism in the first place.

#12 "Of course the conclusions are part of science. But ask yourself this: if someone uses scientific methodology to overturn one of those conclusions, would you then argue that they are opposing science? I'd say they are doing what science is supposed to do."
Exactly, and in that science is an open method it is basically egalitarian and open to all (True there are limitations of funding and equipment). It is religion, which uses the methods of revelation, which only occur to the specially selected, which is elitists with the heads of the church being the elite. Their top elite are also generally much wealthier than scientists, despite the old camel and needle.

Conclusions validly made from evidence actually delivered by the scientific method are clearly part of science. The distinction must lie elsewhere.

Analogy warning:

If you eat a cookie, are you baking?

If you are baking is the result always a cookie?

Graculus:

So, what is this distinction between an "observation" and a "conclusion," exactly? Have you actually "observed" the Earth make a complete orbit of the sun? Where were you at that point? Or did you (and a large number of other people) observe many different kinds of evidence and come to a conclusion as to the best explanation of what that evidence means?

The Theory of Evolution is the conclusion, it's scientific, but not "part of science".

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

What do you mean by "...allow people to believe..."? Do you think they're going to come and ask your permission before believing something?

You can explain to people all day long why you're right and they're wrong, and -- even granting that you're right -- there will still be people at the end of the day who disagree with you. And there are different ways of dealing with them.

You're creating an artificial polarization. You (and possibly also Jake?) seem to think that any dialog with religious people must consist of explaining to them why they're wrong, otherwise you're telling them that you think their religious beliefs are perfectly reasonable and no less valid than scientific conclusions. Yet it turns out that it's also possible to discuss other subjects with them, and in fact work towards mutual political goals unrelated to religion without it being some sort of sell-out pandering.

Uh. And...what exactly, in PZ's statements here or anywhere else, is it you imagine you're responding to?

So I say,

Of course the conclusions are part of science.

And John rebuts me by saying,

Conclusions validly made from evidence actually delivered by the scientific method are clearly part of science.

This is what too much lawyering does to the brain.

Given the evidence, following the scientific method will ALWAYS produce the same conclusions on this subject: the first class of gods is logically impossible, and the second is completely unsubstantiated.

Atheism doesn't follow automatically from the scientific method in all possible worlds, but in THIS universe, with THIS data, it does.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

See my analogy.

Chocolate chip cookies are the result of baking, and you find recipes for them in baking books... but it wouldn't affect baking as a field if there were no chocolate chips.

If evolution was Lamarkian, and the ToE didn't exist, how would that effect science itself?

So, after looking at the universe using the tools of science, we come to the conclusion that evolution occurred. But that conclusion itself is not part of science? Interesting.

If someone went around saying "So-and-sos believe that science and evolution are one", that would sound a bit silly, right?

But evolution and atheism are not the same kind of conclusions; one is a detailed finding of one field of science and one is a broad worldview informed by science (for many people).

If evolution was Lamarkian, and the ToE didn't exist, how would that effect science itself?

The ToE would have to exist - it follows directly from basic principles statistics. It just wouldn't be enough to explain the origins of biological complexity in a Lamarkian world.

Buddhism has lots of gods (see e.g. Wikipedia).

Technically speaking, Buddhism as a philosophy recognizes the gods of other religions, such as Vishnu, or the August Imperial Personage of Jade, as, at the time, it was a philosophy, rather than a true religion. As it developed, and was transplanted into other parts of Asia, some of the more famous practionishers were deified as saints who were at the cusp of achieving union with Nirvana, but, stayed behind in order to help other people achieve Nirvana, also (i.e., the Arhats and Boddhisatvas). In China and Japan, many of these Buddhist saints would be confused with many of the local gods, and eventually be worshiped as actual gods, the most famous being the goddess of mercy, Guan Yin.

This is what too much lawyering does to the brain.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Jake said:

The New Atheist Camp (for lack of a better term) asserts that science and atheism are one.

You said:

No. Once again, science is a method. It's a general set of procedures that rest on skepticism, induction, empiricism, and naturalism. Atheism is a conclusion.

... as if that made a distinction that keeps science and atheism from being "one." But you also said:

We look at the universe using the tools of science, and it does not fit any description of the universe derived from religious perspectives: we therefore reject religious dogma.

But later you said that conclusions made from the results of the method are part of science (so we know that whatever Graculus is trying to say wasn't the distinction you were making). It would seem to follow that Jake was right and that you are claiming that atheism is simply a scientific conclusion -- that they are one and the same thing.

Please clarify (beyond snarky comments).

PZ seems to be saying that atheism isn't a prior assumption of the scientific method, it's just an inevitable conclusion that necessarily follows from it given the available evidence.

It would seem to follow that Jake was right and that you are claiming that atheism is simply a scientific conclusion -- that they are one and the same thing.

Huh? Again, science and one of its conclusions are not "one and the same thing". Is it all right to say "gravity and science are one?"

Or in other words, if evidence of miracles and divine intervention would exist, science would conclude that gods (or a least some agent that does those things) exist.

Since there are no evidence at all for the "god" conclusion (even worse, there is evidence against it, ie. the world is different then it should be if gods exist) the scientific conclusion has to be that there are no gods.

Thus, science =! atheism. But scientific method leads to an atheistic conclusion. (Given this universe and the current physical laws).

C.L. Hanson --

By not confronting religious thought in a direct way (i.e. telling them how and why they are wrong), scientists weaken the their ability to stand on the evidence since we would be at least acknowledging the possibility that non-evidence based approaches could have validity. PZ hits it right on this one. If you compromise on the evidence, then you are compromising on science.

Graham has it right (in the first comment), that if you're not to the point on this and try to discuss "other things," then the discussion eventually goes off on some tangent happen and the big ideas are lost.

Finally, "political goals" should never be the target when communicating science to the public. Politics is in part a big problem in communicating science to a significant fraction of the public (the perception of science as "liberal propaganda"). Science is apolitical and using it to achieve political ends will only reinforce this image.

Got to raise a whisper of dissent here. Science ("a general set of procedures that rest on skepticism, induction, empiricism, and naturalism") can show that a god/s is not required to explain our observations of the natural world. Science supports the logic that a god(s) must be very, very, improbable - but science cannot prove the negative that a god(s) doesn't exist.

Atheism is a philosophy, not contradicted by science, but also not a conclusion of science. I acknowledge that many scientists are also atheists (that seems only natural!), but I expect that there are some people who do not accept the methodlogy of science but also do not believe in god(s).

Also, the atheism conclusion is not (quite) as firmly established, as say, gravity, so it is not officially a part of science in everyone's mind (including some atheists). Various scientific organizations have not, to my knowledge, acknowledged atheism, whereas they have acknowledged evolution.

Even if it were, the part is not equal to the whole, so saying science = atheism would be like saying science = gravity (the biologists would object). Okay, that's a minor quibble.

Science supports the logic that a god(s) must be very, very, improbable - but science cannot prove the negative that a god(s) doesn't exist.

You could say the same about many things. When people say that something doesn't exist, most aren't expressing absolute certainty. If it's reasonable to say that Elvis isn't playing poker with ET in my invisible castle, it's reasonable to say that God doesn't exist. The fact that neither can be proved absolutely is irrelevant.

Thus, science =! atheism. But scientific method leads to an atheistic conclusion.

Then science=! evolution and the scientific method merely leads to an evolutionary conclusion.

We know that evolution is not the whole of science but the whole of the scientific theory of evolution is science. So, if that is the distinction PZ is going for, then he is still saying that the whole of atheism is science. It is trivally true that atheism would not be the whole of science but that would still make atheism "one" with science.

Proving a negative is proving a positive. If you can't prove a negative, you can't prove positives either.

Which is fine; you can establish a private meaning for the word if you like. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we mean by 'prove', and certainly not with what the word is used for in science.

Thus, science =! atheism. But scientific method leads to an atheistic conclusion.

Then science=! evolution and the scientific method merely leads to an evolutionary conclusion.

We know that evolution is not the whole of science but the whole of the scientific theory of evolution is science. So, if that is the distinction PZ is going for, then he is still saying that the whole of atheism is science. It is trivally true that atheism would not be the whole of science but that would still make atheism "one" with science.

Atheism and science are indeed not identical (one could be an atheist but not a rationalist, for example), but to the extent that science presupposes naturalism, even methodological naturalism, it also in practice presupposes atheism, or at least a-everything-but-Spinozan-theism. Supernatural explanations are ruled out tout court.

Atheism and science are indeed not identical (one could be an atheist but not a rationalist, for example), but to the extent that science presupposes naturalism, even methodological naturalism, it also in practice presupposes atheism, or at least a-everything-but-Spinozan-theism. Supernatural explanations are ruled out tout court.

Obigatory apologies for the double post (I actually stopped the attempt to post before any error message but it posted anyway).

I just don't get all the negative connotation with the term "high brow" I mean, sure, people think some things are out of reach (certain levels of understanding) and maybe they are for SOME people (but not many who are determined to work at it). Let's face it, it does take a little THINKING to do science (or Atheism) right. But "high brow" is something people aspire to be, right?

I mean, who aspires to be a "low brow"?

Then science=! evolution and the scientific method merely leads to an evolutionary conclusion.

Exactly. Evolutionary theory, the law of gravity, Maxwell's equations, etc. those are all part of the knowledge gained through the scientific method, ie. they are scientific knowledge. But they're not science in itself, they're a result.

Science is a human endeavor to gain knowledge, a method. The knowledge gained through it is imho not science, the action is science, the result is scientific knowledge.

Imho those two are different things and can't be equated. Since science doesn't tell us what the answers will be (what I mean is, science doesn't define the answers) but science tells us how to get to the answers.

At least, that's how I see this things. The opinions of others may differ quite a lot of course.

(not to be confused with frogy)

it seems to me that the argument is for gradualism, take what little you can easily get now "some day" the truth will become clear.
I am reminded of an exchange between Thurgood Marshall and an reinterviewier about gradualism in the civil rights movement he said that 100 years was gradual enough.
OK if the truth is not now then when?

uncle frogy

Scientists spend their lives finding things out about the real world. This has an unintended consequence: it reveals the stupidity, narrowness, and dogmatism of people who believe that religion has the answers.

If they are unwilling to fight religion head-on, the least they could do is point out the serious mental failings of the religiously-minded.

It takes stupid people to come up with the stupidities of religion.

I can't believe that I am the first one - here or on Jake's site - to ask the question whether Dewey ever wrote that H. L. "Noise Machine" Mencken should be silenced.

I mean, who aspires to be a "low brow"?

Politicians. They're going where they think the votes are. Unfortunately, they're probably right about that.

I'm inclined to think that it's not science, but skepticism that leads to atheism. When you say science, I think of the whole scientific establishment and so forth. When we're talking about the scientific methods applied more broadly, I'd rather call that skepticism.

I'm also inclined to think that you can be a theist and skeptic at the same time. There's just a few difficulties, that's all.

Chris wrote (#14):

Similarly, differences in belief won't be "settled in the end" unless everyone is playing by epistemological rules that allow differences in belief to be settled *by evidence*. How do you suggest settling the differences in belief between Christians and Muslims, or even Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims? It can't be done as long as each side starts with the unchallengeable assumption that they are correct.

As a naturalist and an atheist, I don't feel so different from the devout in this respect. I start with an assumption, too: there is no supernatural reality. Anyone can challenge an opponent's assumption, but you won't get anywhere, whether you're challenging a theist's assumption there's a god or an naturalist's assumption there's no supernatural.

To be sure, there are advantages to taking the assumption that there's no supernatural reality. You're not at the mercy of all the clamoring crackpots who claim knowledge of some supernatural phenomenon. And you have a way to settle disputes: evidence in the natural world.

That's where your "epistemological rules" come in. But your proposal that we resolve differences in belief by evidence is begging the question. You accept real-world evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth because that conforms to your belief that there's no supernatural.

The advantages of naturalism are pragmatic, not definitive. I assume there's no supernatural, but it's just another belief, really.

So I don't claim I'm right and theists are wrong. I appeal to practicality: let's base our public discussions and public policies on real-world evidence, because that's the only way we can test the veracity and merit of people's assertions.

Evolutionary theory, the law of gravity, Maxwell's equations, etc. those are all part of the knowledge gained through the scientific method, ie. they are scientific knowledge. But they're not science in itself, they're a result.

No, I don't think that's right. To say that theory is not part of science would mean that theorizing is not part of the normal activites that people engage in when they are doing what we call "science."

I think that is obviously wrong. When Darwin theorized about natural selection, he was doing something most scientists would definitely call "science."

because that conforms to your belief that there's no supernatural.

Not quite. It depends on the definition of "supernatural" that any given person is using. If they believe that the things they call supernatural (be it the magic of homeopathy, fairies, gods or whatever) has some impact on this universe, then those claims become testable by science. Theoretically, a believer might make no such claims of reality. In practice, they do though.

Sometimes they say prayers work. They don't. Sometimes they claim the god wants them to worship in a particular manner and to smite unbelievers but are tellingly unable to agree on which. Always they have no evidence to support their claims - including even being able to tell the difference between an allegedly valid revelation and a personal delusion (in themselves or someone else). If the two are so indistinguishable, there's no reason to suppose any claimed revelations are anything other than delusions.

I'm fairly low brow, but I like to think of myself as a sort of creme de la scum, and all this philosophizing about what is and isn't science gives me the red-arse.

I think that because doing science is a recursive endeavor to say that the results of science - scientific knowledge - can be separated from doing science, misses that recursivity. When one does science, one doesn't end up with a lump of knowledge that sits there in a frame on one's lab bench. Does one? Doesn't one take the results of one's scientific activities and share them and then dump the results back into the process to be re-examined, poked, prodded, fiddled with and generally subjected to the method again? The scientific knowledge then is more meat for the grinder and is squished out like sausage filling... mmm yummy sausage... er, I've lost the thread of the idea here. Must be lunchtime.

The admission price to science and scientific understanding is high. It takes discipline, study, and just plain hard work. To acquiesce and give in to religious/atheist OPINION is the same as giving up and accepting opinion as fact.

Science should always remain neutral from any outside influence of belief or lack thereof. Remember this whole issue is really just another attempt at framing and reframing an ideal that is in itself not about science. If you look closely you'll see that it is being framed this way so that religion/politics can insinuate themselves into more of our society's endevours.

Those who capitulate should bear in mind that they are opening a doorway for the undereducated and poorly diciplined to have a say in what the facts shall be. Consider Deutsch of NASA, Gonzalez of Justice and all the other partisans of manipulation for their ideology.

The admission price of science is high because we have progressed to a point where anything less just isn't good enough. The real discussion should be on getting people engaged in the scientific pursuit. So that they can contribute valid evidence and valid results. Opinions don't count and we should not allow even one iota of an opinion to change anything within the scientific pursuit of knowledge.

Not quite. It depends on the definition of "supernatural" that any given person is using. If they believe that the things they call supernatural (be it the magic of homeopathy, fairies, gods or whatever) has some impact on this universe, then those claims become testable by science. Theoretically, a believer might make no such claims of reality. In practice, they do though.

If those things interact with reality, they're part of nature by definition - albeit a part that we may not yet understand - and characterizing them as supernatural is wrong.

If they don't interact with reality, they don't exist, and the belief in them is wrong.

Either way, the believers are wrong about something.

hear hear. i've had to explain to various people too many times that i don't defend science because i "hate being wrong" or because woo is "not right for me, but it's right for some"; i defend it because it is the best route we have to the truth, and if we compromise it, we compromise the knowledge and the understanding of our species. ultimately, we also compromise its future. it's so good to see a decent piece written about this.

L

We also see that the nature of the universe does not reflect any of the orthodox conceptions of what a god-ruled universe would look like.

This sounds like an argument from insufficient imagination. It may be a relevant argument against any particular god, but it does not generalize to all gods.

We arrive at the conclusion that there is no god.

Atheism is not a conclusion. Atheism is the null hypothesis.

I start with an assumption, too: there is no supernatural reality.

This assumption seems unnecessary. Even aside from the "if it's part of reality, wouldn't that make it not supernatural?" question, ordinary evidence is sufficient to falsify all supernatural claims encountered to date. Starting with the assumption that gods and ghosts and souls and dragons in Carl Sagan's garage *might* be real and then looking closely at the universe it is quite possible to conclude that they're not real after all.

This conclusion is not assumed in advance. It is derived from evidence about the universe we actually live in. If you repeated the experiments in, say, the Star Wars universe you'd get different results.

Scientific atheism is *contingent* on evidence that points to a lack of gods. It just so happens that that is precisely the evidence we *do actually have*.

Jake's argument is really really good, but unfortunately, it is based on a faulty premise, and thus, it is really really wrong.

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1321

There is no such thing as a New Atheist. Nor a Big Tenter. There are Scientist and there are Framers. Notice how the Framers are hardly ever actual scientists?

Why is it that I keep hearing arguments for being respectful and gentle with religion, trying to co-opt their sides and points of view, et al.?

Isn't that precisely what every last generation of scientists has done before us? Isn't that what most of us are doing?

That's *the status quo*. It led us here. How the fuck can anyone with two brain cells to rub together possibly propose that as a solution?

Jake's argument is really really good, but unfortunately, it is based on a faulty premise, and thus, it is really really wrong.

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1321

There is no such thing as a New Atheist. Nor a Big Tenter. There are Scientist and there are Framers. Notice how the Framers are hardly ever actual scientists?

it wasn't me, it was the server. Server error.

I think you should take more note of the intricacies of the position of those third-generation Old Atheists (TGOAs), e.g. : "What God? Huh? Oh, that one???!!!! Pass the beer!"

For the word "atheism," substitute "naturalism," and I think we get to the crux of the issue. Is naturalism one of the starting assumptions of the scientific method -- or is it a conclusion, a working theory which could be overthrown given strong evidence for supernatural forces?

I think that how you answer that question is partly going to be based on how you define the "supernatural" (and distinguish it from the 'natural') -- and whether or not you want to protect supernatural beliefs from the kind of shredding they'd get if they're taken as hypotheses and forced to cohere with the rest of our discoveries.

My take is that there is nothing in the scientific method that restricts itself, upfront, to only natural causes. I'd define "supernatural" as instances of Mind or Meaning acting apart from and down onto matter and energy (skyhooks). If gurus raised the dead, gravity refused to allow the Virtuous to fall off cliffs, ESP and PK were verified, ghosts were spoken to in labs, and Vitalism and its variations of Healing Energy, the Power of Intention, and Cosmic Consciousness were testable, obvious, repeatable, and open to investigation -- then science refutes naturalism. So it's ipso facto not a necessary part of the definition. Re-classifying all these phenomena as now being "natural" would instead seem like stretching for an empty victory of words.

Sure, good, honest people can honestly say that "science has nothing to say, one way or the other, about religion." They're honest -- but they're not being very clear to themselves. As the so-called New Atheists repeat with weary regularity, they would and could change their tune the minute miracles are actually verified, and know it. They're making category errors, and bad analogies, to hold on to what they are pleased to believe.

So I mostly agree with PZ. Insisting that science can't posit naturalism as a highly confirmed theory's a kind of intellectual dishonesty. Explicitly praising defensive compartmentalization -- encouraging it, exploiting it, and promoting it -- for political reasons has probable long-term impact, and betrays the fundamental intellectual honesty of the scientific process.

Does anyone have the quotation about "science" being used to mean four different things, leading to confusion when people equivocate among them? I can't find it anywhere.

RE: problems with "Fundamentalist, Evangelical Atheists"Can I be the first to add that by the same token I'm also a Fundamentalist, Evangelical non-stamp collector (I spend much of my waking hours not collecting stamps), Fundamentalist, Evangelical non-trainspotter (similarly, I spend almost all day not spotting trains), I'm definitely a fundagelical non-Italian-speaker, and an angry fundamentalist non-bungy-jumper. Maybe I shouldcombine it all, form a church and never have to pay tax again...

As a a fundamentalist atheist who has accepted the nihilistic conclusions of my belief system, I don't care. I am going to go watch football and then bang a hottie. I encourage you all to do the same.

PZ,

This post is why you, also, need to write a book.

Looking forward to it.

Cheers,
Jeb

P.S. And when you make a book tour, please include Baton Rouge on the stop.

Most of this semantically tangle-footed debate about what science "is" would never have arisen if Myers or Pieret had followed the mental discipline provided by E-prime.

To declare, e.g., that "science is a method" approximates setting up an equation: science = method. Such equivalencies fall apart at the first instance of an exception.

By carefully eschewing all forms of the verb "to be", E-primers avoid all sorts of false predicates and metonymies (such as confusing the vast institution(s) of science with the scientific method), thus forcing themselves to communicate - and perhaps to think - more clearly.

To use this strategy consistently requires much time & dedication. I don't claim any E-prime credentials, and certainly anyone searching my posted comments & other public utterances will find I've neglected to apply E-prime rules more often than not. That said, I still run into numerous situations which remind me that saying anything "is" anything else invites hours of pointless wrangling.

Sastra:

I'd define "supernatural" as instances of Mind or Meaning acting apart from and down onto matter and energy (skyhooks). [...] Re-classifying all these phenomena as now being "natural" would instead seem like stretching for an empty victory of words.

People used to see lightning as resulting from the supernatural, requiring entities that defied what was understood of nature. Gravity as a force was thought to be impossible, because "action at a distance" was thought to be outside of nature.

If something can be observed, and behaves in a lawful manner, then it's just part of nature -- we may not currently understand what those laws are, but it's still natural.

I'm not saying it's futile to criticize religion. Quite the contrary, I encourage people to do it. (Clarifying my comment #9) What I don't like is this apparent belief that every single atheist needs to have exactly the same approach.

Can religion be entirely eliminated? Perhaps. But even by P.Z.'s rather optimistic time estimate, you grant religion a few more generations of power. That allows plenty of time for the current generation to kill quite a lot of innocent people and do irreparable damage to the planet. P.Z. seems to be suggesting that an atheist who wants to focus on those problems first is compromising his/her principles. ("privileging flawed thinking") True, it's possible to sell-out and get on board with wrong-headed pro-religion arguments, but that isn't the only way to talk to religious people. Why not allow a division of labor in which different atheists focus on different priorities?

You want to see religion diminish in importance, but it won't happen on a global scale without widespread access to education (which goes hand in hand with a focus on other good things like lowering infant/child mortality). To take on global goals, you need to be open to the possibility of cooperating with people who are unlike yourself. I'm not suggesting getting on board with any kind of "faith-based initiatives" but rather the opposite: encourage everyone to get on board for secular initiatives.

P.Z. seems to be suggesting that an atheist who wants to focus on those problems first is compromising his/her principles. ("privileging flawed thinking") True, it's possible to sell-out and get on board with wrong-headed pro-religion arguments, but that isn't the only way to talk to religious people. Why not allow a division of labor in which different atheists focus on different priorities?

So far as I've seen, PZ doesn't object to that; he's fine with different atheists following different strategies, although he naturally thinks his particular angle has the best chance of success. For that matter, he's expressed happiness to have theists like Ken Miller, for instance, talking about how science harmonizes well with religion.

What PZ objects to is the idea that a particular strategy, that of "New Atheism," shouldn't be followed because it's harmful to the cause.

Pierce R. Butler: Yikes. I take care sometimes with different uses of "to be", but that takes the cake.

There is a crucial bit of information that has been missing from this ongoing conversation from the very beginning. By that, I mean the conversation about how to awaken 85% of the population to the fact that their world-view is largely shaped by delusions... i.e., they are insane. That's it... there's no way to blunt that. Something that accounts for 85% of ANYTHING can be said to define what is 'normal'. So, in the USA at least, insanity is 'normal'... rationality is 'abnormal'... and the inmates are running the asylum. But... that was a digression... and it's certainly not a missing piece of information... it's just a blatant fact that nobody seems to be willing to admit, out-loud.

Anyway... the missing piece of information... the KEY to this problem... REALLY lies in 'critical thinking'. It is my estimate (through personal observation... no study involved... so take these numbers with a grain of salt... they are a SWAG) that somewhere around 90% of adults in the USA DO NOT POSSESS critical thinking skills.

1. Most of the 90% have never even heard of critical thinking... and they can't do it.

2. Some of the 90% THINK that that know what critical thinking is... but they are wrong... and they can't do it.

3. Some of the 90% ACTUALLY know what critical thinking is... and they THINK they can do it... but not being able to make the subtle distinctions in nuances of meaning that are necessary, their results are not valid conclusions but, rather, only end up as logical fallacies.

4. A VERY SMALL percentage of people (NOT part of the 90%) actually CAN think critically... but they also seem to be able to effectively 'compartmentalise'... i.e., they can successfully manage to employ critical thinking in their profesional endeavors, but then they check their brains at the church door and go into 'self-delusion mode'.

It's very simple, really... even though it's taken me decades to figure this out... mainly because I wasn't TRYING to figure it out. I have been guilty of 'projecting'... 'anthropmorphizing'. I used to think that 'critical thinking' was an innate human ability. I thought that since I did it, then EVERYBODY could do it... and DID do it.

I could not have been more wrong. Critical thinking is NOT an innate human ability. It must be LEARNED... and in order to learn it, you must have the capacity... the potential... to learn it. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the adult population of the USA does not even know what critical thinking IS... much less actually know how to actually DO it. Part of the problem has to do with the US public education system... it is designed to create 'employees'... not 'thinkers'. It is even possible to get a college degree... even a degree in one of the 'fuzzy' sciences... and STILL have not heard of 'critical thinking'. Unless you have an advanced degree in one of the 'hard' sciences, it is highly unlikely that you will have acquired any critical thinking skills through schooling. In other words, apart from the 'hard' sciences, anyone who manages to acquire critical thinking skills does so IN SPITE OF their schooling... not BECAUSE of it.

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." ~ Mark Twain

There have been around 40 studies over the past 80 years which revel a statistically significant INVERSE correlation between intelligence and religiosity... in other words, the LESS intelligent a person is, the MORE likely that person is to harbor supernatural (religious) beliefs. Conversely, the MORE intelligent a person is, the LESS likely that person is to harbor religious beliefs.

But we are misled by the word 'intelligence'. That steers us away from what is REALLY the key... critical thinking ability. I think that is what IQ tests are REALLY telling us.

Think of the 'Bell Curve' which shows the distribution of measured IQ. The average IQ (center of the curve) is 100. We are generally conditioned to think that anybody from 80 - on - up is OK (functional), intelligence-wise, and that anybody below 70 is pretty much of a dumbass.

What IQ tests REALLY measure is critical thinking ability... or, at least the POTENTIAL... and when we get into the 3rd and 4th deviation above average on the IQ scale, we find that VERY FEW people harbor 'beliefs' pertaining to the supernatural... and that it is only when we get well into the 2nd deviation ABOVE average that we start to see a significant (statistical) decline in 'belief'.

From MY observations, the CAPACITY (potential) for learning critical thinking skills does not seem to reliably express itself until you get up around an IQ of 125 or so... but having the POTENTIAL, one still must LEAN the skills... so there are a lot of FAIRLY smart people who DO NOT know how to think critically... although they COULD if they learned the skills. One could even say that if we were evaluating this in terms of critical thinking potential, then everybody under 125... not 70... is pretty much a dumbass. (I expect to get accused of some sort of egotism, snobbery or elitism, right about here. Please... don't bother. I know how it sounds.)

While it took me decades to figure this out (or not... I could be wrong), religious leaders seem to have been aware it all along... and they have been taking advantage, using sophisticated mental-manipulation techniques that christianity has been developing and refining for the past 1,700 years or so. And GUESS WHAT? These techniques WORK! Evidence?... well, how about the fact that around 85% of our adult population is bug-nuts? Could THAT be a clue?

"(For) reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it has never come to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." ~ Martin Luther, from "The Table Talk of Martin Luther" (303)

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."~ Martin Luther (Works Vol. 12). You can also find it quoted by Walter Kaufmann, 'The Faith of a Heretic' 1963, page 75

Religious 'shepherds' KNOW that their 'flock' (sheeple) are scientifically ignorant and incapable of critical thinking... because they've been PROGRAMMED to be ignorant. They KNOW that they are suspicious of 'scientific' sources , and find them to be intimidating and incomprehensible... because they've been CONDITIONED to distrust them. These puppet-masters KNOW that their flock (victims) will seek their 'knowledge' from 'trusted' sources... these very-same puppet-masters. When the sheeple hear things like 'scientists claim that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, in the distant past', they experience 'cognitive dissonance'... this information is in conflict with the 'truth' that they have believed for their whole lives. So... where do they go to resolve this cognitive dissonance?... Scientists?... NO! They go to their 'trusted' sources... the sources who KNOW that they have been taught WHAT to think... they have not been taught HOW to think. Sources who KNOW that they can lie, obfuscate, misrepresent with impunity... with absolutely NO RISK that their minions will seek out independent, peer-reviewed corroborating information.

They do their jobs very well indeed... as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&mode=related&search=

People... there is an INDUSTRY (Christianity) whose BUSINESS it is to create whole generations of adults who are, at once, gullibile, irrational, willfully ignorant, self-deluded, intellectually dishonest, droolingly stupid and hypocritical... and willing to tithe 10% for the privledge of having their cognitive dissonance held in check through regular doses of holy BS.

They do their jobs very well indeed... as can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&mode=related&search=
Here's the key thing to understand... a 'truism'...

1) religious 'belief'... the internalized certainty that specified myths, superstitions and fairy-tales are congruent with 'reality' CANNOT WITHSTAND the glaring light of knowledge, reason and 'critical thinking'.

2) over 85% of adult Americans profess religious 'belief'

3) THEREFORE, at least 85% of adult Americans have not applied critical thinking to their religious 'beliefs'.

There are some obvious outliers, of course... scientists those work obviously requires critical thinking... yet they seem be able to check their brains at the church door. I cannot explain this, other than to say that it could be a good example of 'compartmentalization'... or it mighply demonstrate that even brilliant people are not immune to self-deception and self-delusion. Fortunately, such people are so few in number that they can be regarded as an anomoly, rather than a cause for grave concern.

OK... get this... a recap. Around 85% of the adult population of the USA is delusional... and that is a brand of insanity. So... something that can be said to account for 85% of ANYTHING can be said to define what is 'normal'. So... in the USA... insanity is NORMAL... rational is ABNORMAL... and the inmates are running the asylum... and the inmate gang leaders have access to and control over the most sophisticated arsenal on the planet... and they think that they are the 'good guys'... and they think that they are on a mission from god, charged with establishing the conditions here on earth that are foretold to presage the second coming of Christ.

I'd say THAT is a cause for grave concern... wouldn't you?

"Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one's friends." ~ Sam Harris

So... remembering that this is all speculation, and based entirely upon personal observation and SWAGs... no study involved... what if this is TRUE?... or even PARTLY true? How would this affect the way in which concerned atheists are now approaching this problem?... this conversation?