Sometimes I feel sorry for Michael Ruse. Usually I don't — and I definitely don't when he flees to the safety of the baby pen at HuffPo to cry about how mean everyone is to him. Now he is bleating about the criticisms given to Ayala for accepting a Templeton Prize.
The Templeton Foundation was begun by the late Sir John Templeton, who made a great deal of money by starting mutual funds, and is essentially devoted to the promotion of the interaction and harmony between science and religion. It is hardly too strong a term to say that it is an object of derision by many of today's scientists, including my own colleague here at Florida State University, Sir Harry Kroto who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry (for discovering the structure of complex carbon molecules, "buckyballs"). Richard Dawkins has characterized the president of the Royal Society (of London), Sir Martin Rees, as a "Quisling" (after the war-time Nazi ruler of Norway) for his friendliness to the Foundation. Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago biologist and a deservedly respected scientist for his work on problems of speciation, runs a blog (Why Evolution is True) where he writes of the foundation's "history of intellectual dishonesty." When it was announced that the National Academy of Science's premises would be used to introduce this year's prize winner he called it an "outrage." And then there is Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, who runs the blog Pharyngula, and whose splenetic keyboard surely qualifies him for the title of evolution's answer to Rush Limbaugh. It is not only the Foundation that sends up his blood pressure, but Ayala now also is in his line of fire. He is accused of "intellectual cowardice" and is characterized as "the master of non-committal waffle." Apparently Ayala received the award purely for "religious apologetics," even though somewhat inconsistently Ayala is also faulted for not making clear his own position on the God question.
No, Ruse does not link to the article he quotes. After all, I actually addressed specific comments by Ayala which show that he does waffle. This is not inconsistent with winning a prize for religious apologetics, since waffling inconclusively is a fine theological tradition. And yes, he won for religious reasons: the first sentence of the Templeton announcement says he is a scientist "who has vigorously opposed the entanglement of science and religion while also calling for mutual respect between the two". We know what is important to the Templeton Foundation, after all, and it isn't scientific integrity.
After all that complaining about critics, what is Ruse's point? As it turns out, there really isn't one, just more vague grumpiness.
So while I am a bit wary about the Foundation and shall be watching its future developments - especially now that Sir John is gone and his far-more-evangelical son has taken the reins - I shall continue to defend its existence and its purpose. I don't want to reconcile science and religion if this implies that religion must be true. At most, I want to show that science does not preclude being religious. But I don't see that what I want and what others want means that we necessarily have to be bad friends and despise each other.
Ah. Nice to know that Ruse doesn't despise fascist propagandists who make Oxycontin-fueled jaunts to partake of the sex trade on Caribbean islands.
That's such a waffly conclusion to his argument that it confirms my suspicion that he's angling for a Templeton bribe.
- Log in to post comments
Michael Ruse's words are always good for a chuckle.
Ruse:
*takes drink*
Ayala makes some indefensible statements about the compatibility of science & religion, & 'different ways of knowing', in this week's New Scientist.
He's obviously intelligent, but can't seem to think straight. As well as non-committal waffle, he's good at fully-committed waffle too.
HuffPo, apparently our side's answer to ID censorship.
Anyone with any sort of self-respect ought to flee from that disgrace.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Ahhh, i just noticed "...a Templeton bribe."
Yeahhhh. I like that nice finishing touch.
I want a splenetic keyboard.
Ruse really is pathological in his churlishness, as if he suffered shame at the hands of schoolyard bullies in his youth, and now enjoys his weird newfound aggresiveness safely at home behind his keyboard.
In reference to "who has vigorously opposed the entanglement of science and religion while also calling for mutual respect between the two."
What "two" are they talking about? Last time I checked, there were at least 10,000 different organized religions in the world and 38,000 sects of Christianity - just in the US. And we all know how much "mutual respect" those guys have for each other.
You can't criticize them, though. At least, not where they have any control. Biologos threatened me with expulsion from their site for "abusive" comments (both deleted) after the last Ruse thread. My abuse?
I said that Michael Ruse promoted science and reason by indulging willfully ignorant fools like Ken Ham just like George Bush promoted freedom by indulging in torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.
I then said that their deletion of that comment was indicative of their response to criticism, ignore it, delete it, and pretend that it doesn't exist, and it underlined the vacuous and untenable mission of the BioLogos foundation itself. I still haven't figured out what was even remotely insulting about the second comment. They also show remarkable reading incomprehension, since I said that "I obviously upset someone," referring to a moderator, not Michael Ruse himself.
Their email:
"You have made now a couple of disparaging remarks about individuals in your posts at BioLogos. Those comments have been taken down. Contrary to what you might think, our contributors (i.e. Michael Ruse) do not moderate the site, and have nothing to do with what comments are removed. That is my job.
We welcome your contributions on any substantive issues you might wish to discuss, and you are free to argue any position you choose, and to disagree with anyone you choose, as vehemently as you choose.
However, you are NOT free to couch your remarks in terms of personal insults.
If you persist in this pattern of contribution, you will be banned from this site."
My response:
"Unless you count 'George W. Bush' as an insult (I would), the only possibly insulting thing I said in my first comment was that Ken Ham was a "willfully ignorant fool." "Willfully ignorant" is a demonstrable statement of fact. The Creation Museum is a monument to that fact. The relevant definition of fool (from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fool): a person who lacks good judgment. Again, a statement of fact, backed up by the previous two descriptors, and the existence of AiG and the Creation Museum.
Please enlighten me how, besides pointing out the obvious (including the vacuous and untenable mission of the BioLogos Foundation itself), I have insulted anyone. "
Of course, they never replied.
All this talk about "mutual respect" comes down to protecting religion from having to undergo real scientific scrutiny, on equal terms. Either find some place to hide the supernatural; find some area which suggests, supports, or involves the supernatural; or shove the supernatural aside to focus on what how religion works in people's lives, and pretend that's really what it's all about.
They don't want the kind of robust respect we give to serious ideas: they want the kind of special forbearance we give to sensitive individuals.
I think comparing PZ Myers with Rush Limbaugh is offensive enough.
Evolution's answer to Rush Limbaugh huh??
That's cool, I always thought the existence of that weird little toadman threw a monkeywrench in both the theory of evolution and the story of creationism. I mean, why would such a creature exist If there were a loving God or a multi million year old process of creature refinement on this planet??
I'm not sure how PZ's existence answers this question but I'm glad to hear that it does.
More accurately, illicitly-obtained-and-illegally-posessed-Viarga-fueled sex tourism.
Egaeus | April 4, 2010 2:38 PM:
Some facts are insulting. Indeed, the most severe offenses to the ego occur when reality firmly rejects one's most cherished belief.
Some atheists try to sneak around this harsh reality by claiming to attack the ideas, not the person who holds them. Strictly speaking, this can sometimes be diplomatically effective, particularly with people who hold the beliefs but do not feel those beliefs are particularly important to their self-definition.
But when someone says: "I am a Christian", or "I am a Muslim", that sometimes means that belief in Christianity or Islam is a defining aspect of their personality. In that case, because their religion is a fundamental part of their identity, it is not possible to attack the belief without also attacking the person. The belief that all interesting facts can be explained in a non-offensive way is wrong because people sometimes integrate false beliefs into their self identity. Indeed, many people are raised from birth with false beliefs built into their self-identity. (I was so raised, as were several other regulars here.) In the same vein, the belief that all interesting questions can be asked in a non-offensive way, is also severely mistaken, because people and societies naturally seek to protect false beliefs from questioning. To believe that all interesting facts and questions can be discussed without offense is the fundamental error of accommodationism; it requires that interesting facts and questions be unimportant.
The facts and theories that we accept, the beliefs that we hold, drive our behavior. Others necessarily define us by our behavior (allow me to include speech and writing in behavior). In order to empathize with others, we must have some awareness of how they perceive us; we must know how they identify us. Because we know the facts and theories we accept, and the beliefs that we hold, drive the behavior by which others identify us, some of these ideas necessarily become part of our identities. A few will even become important parts of our identities. Identities and ideas are not necessarily separate in the ways required by accommodationism.
The principle goal - and function - of social customs of politeness, is to prevent certain behaviors. That is why social customs ostracize people who engage in those behaviors. Social customs of politeness are used to block questions that offend many people precisely because they are effective in preventing those questions from being asked; theists insist that atheists be polite because some of the questions that interest atheists are offensive to such a high portion of the population, and have been held to be so for so long, that these questions are impolite by their very nature; changing the manner in which they are asked will not make them socially acceptable. The other ways in which these questions can be asked have been recognized and defined as impolite.
Even more accurately, illegal-drug-fueled child rape tourism.
"At most, I want to show that science does not preclude being religious."
Well DUH! So Ruse wants to 'prove' the obvious which has already been demonstrated by numerous religious scientists past and present? I note the "continue to defend" line - ooh, he's defending the Templeton foundation - he must be worth, ooh, $1.5M?
I wonder when Michael Ruse will grow a brain and actually look at what the Templeton foundation is about. They support (indeed provide funding to establish) religious groups which have sciencey-sounding names like BioLogos or The Faraday Institute. The aim is to fool people into (1) believing that religion is as respectable as science and is a "way of knowing" and (2) science is servile to religion - all these things scientists discover only prove that there is a magnificent god. Ooh, how clever that god guy is! Look at how he diddles electrons! I'm not optimistic though; my money is that Ruse will die long before he develops anything resembling intelligence.
Can't he just point to religious scientists and scientifically-minded theologians to make this point? Does there really need to be an organisation that gives out a large some of money every year to the greatest NOMA candidate?
Mr. Templeton himself donated over a million dollars to prop 8 to take rights away from gay people.
Micheal Ruse is defending a hate group.
That angers me far more than the vague apologetics.
I brought this up in the last thread about this. Sorry to have a one note song but it constantly amazes me how Huffington Post and all the people kissing their ass conveniently forget to mention that little fact when I know if an athiest group supported discrimination with a million dollar donation every single article about them would start by explaining how they're a hate group who wants to take rights away from minorities.
Thank you samilobster, I didn't know this. I wonder how many people do? Pity the Foundation didn't do it in its own name, but still it should be mentioned often. These are not nice people. Seems to me the religious have mastered the art of elaborately icing a very rotten cake!
The donation to the loathsome cause of Prop. 8 came from John M. Templeton, Jr.'s personal funds, I believe. Were one possessed of extraordinary charity, one might try to argue that this distinction somehow makes it better; for myself, my conscience refuses that claim. Defending the Foundation in print, never mind taking its money, is still helping Templeton sleep well at night, and I could not be willing to do that.
One of the first things I heard about the Templeton Prize was that its amount was always fixed to be larger than the Nobel. An act of arrogance which could only be performed by the obscenely rich: That, I thought, is what specialists refer to as a dick move.
My wife told me today I was turning into a grumpy old man. I wonder if it's something thjat happens to men at a certain age PZ ?
And then there is Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, who runs the blog Pharyngula, and whose splenetic keyboard surely qualifies him for the title of evolution's answer to Rush Limbaugh.
Except, you know that one does his best to base his opinions on facts and evidence, and one couldn't care less about either, as long as it fits his hatreds and megalomania.
That Ruse could make such a statement in all seriousness makes me wonder if the poor sot has brain damage.
Or I'm trying to be unnecessarily charitable to what is just another godbot-felllating moron.
The donation to the loathsome cause of Prop. 8 came from John M. Templeton, Jr.'s personal funds, I believe. Were one possessed of extraordinary charity, one might try to argue that this distinction somehow makes it better; for myself, my conscience refuses that claim.
If their was a PZ Meyer's foundation I guarantee they'd be held accountable for the things posted on this blog. Especially if PZ himself had donated a million dollars to take civil rights away from Christians. It's not charity that makes people pretend it's different for Templeton, it's bias.
Ruse wants the money. No surprises here.
Ruse never has forgiven PZ for calling him a clueless gobshite.
People can't forgive Ruse for being a clueless gobshite.
Ruse is delighted that PZ called him a clueless gobshite. He is able to trade on that for sympathy and noble outrage.
Even the title, "A Scientific Defense of the Templeton Foundation", has me confused. Is that supposed to refer to something in particular? That couldn't describe either Ruse's whiny article, or Ayala's work that led to his Templeton prize.
To me this Templeton foundation smacks of religion trying to defend itself from the scrutiny of science by applauding people who publicly subscribe to this 'peace treaty' of mutual interaction & harmony between science & religion. There should be no interaction - religion relies on faith, science relies on testable predictions & evidence, that's that. And science has every right to intrude upon religion if members of a religion try to make pseudo-scientific claims & use their religion for support!
Interaction? Possibly. But interaction AND harmony? My left nut.
dexitroboper @ 26: An EE Smith Fan ?
Cool.
If there were a god, wouldn't he/she/it/them have said unto Abraham "yea thou knowest not that an electron orbits it's atomic nucleus even as the Earth on which you stand orbits the sun. . .(etc)
instead of "a Circle's circumference is exactly three times it's diameter "
not 22/7, even , but 3. . .
Holy Crap
Ruse is delighted that PZ called him a clueless gobshite. He is able to trade on that for sympathy and noble outrage.
Made me think of this felllow.
Ruse: "So while I am a bit wary about the Foundation and shall be watching its future developments - especially now that Sir John is gone and his far-more-evangelical son has taken the reins - I shall continue to defend its existence and its purpose."
Have fun. Seriously, why bother? What is gained? Knowledge? Harmony? Do you really want to support an organization that promotes science by promoting religiously-oriented scientists? That's not how money should be spent in support of science.